City Council Agenda
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California
NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Servi ces', and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID -19. Additional information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov.
This City Council Regular meeting will be conducted in person as well as telecommunication and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act. Vice Mayor Bybee will attend virtually from 773 Loyalton Drive, Campbell, CA 95008. A quorum of the City Council will be in atten dance at the City of Campbell City Hall.
The City Council meeting will be live -streamed on Channel 26, the City's website and on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting.
Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment virtually are asked to register in advance at: https://www.campbellca.gov/signup. After registering, you will re ceive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers.
Public comment will also be accepted via email at [email protected] prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distrib uted to the Council. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, August 2, 2022 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS
ORAL REQUESTS
NOTE: This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the City Council on any matter not on the agenda. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required to complete a Speaker’s Card. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussion or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Requests.
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: All matters listed under consent calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a member of City Council, City staff, or a member of the public.
Any person wishing to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have the item removed from the consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears.
1. Minutes of City Council Executive Session Meeting of July 5, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the Executive Session meeting minutes of July 5, 2022.
2. Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting of July 5, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the regular meeting minutes of July 5, 2022
3. Approving Bills and Claims
Recommended Action: Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $2,528,764.29
4. Monthly Investment Transactions Report (June 2022)
Recommended Action: That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for June 2022.
5. Reopen the Recruitment f or the Civic Improvement Commission and Extend the Application Deadline
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve reopening the recruitment for the Civic Improvement Commission and extend the application deadline until a sufficient number of applications has been received.
6. Ordinance 2285 to Consider a City -Initiated Text Amendment to the Campbell Municipal Code to Add Chapter 11.15 (Pa rklets in the Publi c Right-Of-Way) (Ordinance/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council take second reading of Ordinance 2285 adding Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of-Way) to the Campbell Municipal Code.
7. Acceptance of 8X8 Inc Flock Camera Donation (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting donations in the amount of $10,700 from 8x8 Inc for the purpose of funding two Flock Falcon ALPR cameras.
8. Accept Improvements for John D. Morgan Park (Budd Avenue) Improvement Project No. 18 -PP, and Direct Filing of Notice of Completion. (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the improvements for the John D. Morgan Park (Budd Avenue) Improvement Project No. 18-PP (Project); and direct the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
NOTE: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five (5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Council’s consent at the meeting.
9. Placing the Cost of Abating Hazardous Vegetation on the Property Tax Assessment Roll (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a r esolution placing the c ost of abating hazardous vegetation on the property tax assessment roll.
10. Public Hearing to Consider Request of Nicholas and Andrea Key for Property at 705 El Patio Drive to Rescind the Listing of a Designated Structure of Merit from the Historic Resou rce Inventory (HRI). (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council (1) adopt a resolution rescinding the designation of 705 El Patio Drive as a Structure of Merit, subject to payment of a $5,000 in-lieu fee; and (2) add an Histori c Preservation Ordinance update to the Community Development Department's FY23 Work Plan.
11. Public Hearing to Consider a City -Initiated Zoning Code Text Amendment (PLN-2021-187) Adding New Chapter 21.25 (Two -Unit Housing Developments) and Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) to the Campbell Municipal Code to Implement Senate Bill No. 9 (SB -9) and Amending Various Other Sections of the Municipal Code Pertaining to the Regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); an Amendment to the Ca mpbell Village Neighbor hood Plan and a General Plan Amendment to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan to Incorporate by Reference the Proposed SB-9 Implementation Provisions. (Ordinance/Resolutions/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions (1) Introduce an ordinance to add new Chapter
21.25 (Two-Unit Housing Developments) and Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) to the Campbell Municipal Code to implement Senate Bill No. 9 an d amending various sections of the Municipal Code pertaining to the regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs); (2) Adopt a resolution approving an Amendment to the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan to incorporate by reference the proposed SB-9 implementation provisions; and (3) Ad opt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan to incorporate by reference the proposed implementation SB-9 provisions.
NEW BUSINESS
12. Resolution Affirming Agreement for City Cler k Services (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution affirming an agreement with Andrea Sanders to the position of City Clerk at an annual salary of $135,532.80.
13. Police Mobile Data Computer Replacement Lease Contract (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a five year lease purchase contract with Dell Financial Services, for the purchase of Getac V110 Mobile Data Computers and related equipment.
14. Campbell Police Department Drone Program Purchase Authorization (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the purchase of a DJI Matrice M30T drone and associated equipment using the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) grant funds.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
15. Review Proposed Modifications to Campbell's Plan for Housing Recommended Action: That the City Council take the following action: Direct staff to submit the HCD Draft of Campbell’s Plan for Housing (2023-2031 Housing Element) to Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review incorporating public feedback and proposed modifications.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
16. Council Committee Reports
Recommended Action: That the City Council report on activ ities from their committee assignments.
ADJOURN
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of th e agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of C ity Clerk’s Office, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008, during normal business hours. These materials will also be available on the City website at https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/agendacenter with the agenda packet following the last item of the agenda, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. All documents not posted prior to the meeting will be posted the next business day.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available for all meetings held in the City Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (408) 866-2117, at least one week in advance of the meeting.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California
CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Tuesday, July 5, 2022 – 6:30 p.m.
Ralph Doetsch Conference Room
70 N. First Street, Campbell, California
This City Council mee ting was conducte d pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act.
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Campbell convened on the special day of July 5 2022.
Councilmember Gibbons attended virtually from 55 Alder Lane, North Falmouth, Massachusetts, 02556.
ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Paul Resnikoff Mayor Present
Anne Bybee Vice Mayor Present
Elizabeth 'Liz' Gibbons Councilmember Remote
Susan M. Landry Councilmember Present
Sergio Lopez Councilmember Present
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
MOVE INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Personnel
B. Litigation
C. Real Property
D. Labor Negotiations - Pursuant to G.C. Section 54957.6: Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Designated Representatives: City Council, City Manager Brian Loventhal Empl oyee Organizations: Campbell Municipal Employees Association (CMEA); Campbell Police Civilian Employees Associatio n (CPCEA); Campbell Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA); Carpenters; Management Employees; and Confidential Employees
1 Packet Pg. 5
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 6:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 2
The City Council met in Executive Session to discuss Item D. City Manager Brian Loventhal, City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Human Resources M anager Jenny Le - Christensen, and Lisa Charbonn eau with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Law Firm were in attendance.
City Council returned to open session.
City Attorney Seligmann stated that any reportable actions will be reported at the next regularly scheduled City Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at approximately 7:20 p.m.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
Andrea Sanders, Interim City Clerk
1 Packet Pg. 6
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 6:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, July 5, 2022 – 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street
This City Council meeting was duly noticed pursua nt to open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54956).
This meeting was recorded and can be viewed in its entirety at www.cityofcampbell.com/agendacenter.
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Campbell convened this day in the regular meeting place, the City Hall Council Chamber, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. Councilmember Gibbons attended virtually from 55 Alder Lane, North Falmouth, Massachusetts.
ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Paul Resnikoff Mayor Present
Anne Bybee Vice Mayor Present
Elizabeth 'Liz' Gibbons Councilmember Remote
Susan M. Landry Councilmember Present
Sergio Lopez Councilmember Present
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Recreation and Community Services staff in recognition of Parks Make Life Better Month.
Mayor Resnikoff thanked the Recreation staff and presented them a Certificate of Appreciation for leading the Pledge of Allegiance.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
1. Proclamation Declaring July 2022 as Parks Make Life Better Month Recommended Act ion: That the City Council issue a Proclamation recognizing July 2022 as Parks Make Life Better Month in the City of Campbell.
Mayor Resnikoff presente d Recreation and Community Services staff a proclamation in recognition of Parks Make Life Better Month.
2 Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 2
Councilmembers individually thanked Recreation staff for their hard work and dedication to the City especially when navigating the challenges faced fr om Covid.
Recreation and Community Services Director Bissell acknowledged her team for all their efforts and creativity and stated they all truly believe that parks make life better.
COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS
There were no communications and petitions.
City Attorney Bill Seligm ann stated that there were no reportable actions taken at the July 5, 2022 City Council Executive Session meeting.
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral requests.
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Hall is open to the public for in -person services Monday through Frida y, from 8:00 am to 5:00 PM. For your convenience, online services such as permits, business license applications and virtual appointments are available online. Visit the city’s website at www.campbellca.gov to vi ew information for all city departments and services available.
A Municipal Election will be held November 8, 2022, for voters living in Districts 3, 4 and
5. The candidate nomination period opens on July 18, 2022, and continu es through August 12, 2022. For more information, please contact the City Clerk’s office at 408 - 866-2117 or [email protected].
The City Clerk’s office is accepting applications for the Planni ng and Civic Improvement Commissions and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee thru July 22. To find out more about these positions, or to apply, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (408) 866-2117, or visit the city’s website at www.campbellca.gov.
Spend your summer evening with us and enjoy free live music here at Orchard City Green during our annual summer concert series every Thursday, thru July 14. “RPM Band,” a New Jersey based trio, that performs mostly classic rock and blu es from the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s will perform this Thursday, July 7.
Movie Nights Under the Stars. Free family fun. “Encanto” will be featured on Friday, July 22 at 8:00 PM, at the John D. Morgan Park – Pony Baseball Field. C ontact the Recreation Department at (408) 866-2104 for more information.
Enjoy an afternoon experiencing local wines, beers, cuisine, and live music. The Campbell Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) is hosting their 4th annual 2 Packet Pg. 8
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 3
Taste of Campbell fundraiser on Saturday, July 30, 2022, from 3 -6 PM at the Campbell Community Center. Tickets are available at campbellcert.org/taste Proceeds from this event help pay for emergency supplies, equipment, and training in support of our community.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Resnikoff asked if anyone wished to remove an item from the Consent Calendar.
Item eleven was pulled from the Consent Calendar.
The Consent Calendar was considered as follows:
2. Minutes of City Council Executive Session Meeting of June 14, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the Executive Session meeting minutes of June 14, 2022.
This action approves the Executive Session meeting minutes of June 14, 2022.
3. Minutes of City Council Executive Session Meeting of June 20, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the Executive Session meeting minutes of June 20, 2022.
This action approves the Executive Session meeting minutes of June 20, 2022.
4. Minutes of City Council Executive Session Meeting of June 21, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the Executive Session meeting minutes of June 21, 2022.
This action approves the Executive Session meeting minutes of June 21, 2022.
5. Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting of June 21, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the Regular meeting minutes of June 21, 2022 This action approves the Regular meeting minutes of June 21, 2022.
6. Minutes of City Council Executive Session Meeting of June 28, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the Executive Session meeting minutes of June 28, 2022.
This action approves the Executive Session meeting minutes of June 28, 2022.
7. Approving Bills and Claims
Recommended Action: That the City Council approve the bills and claims in the amount of $2,889,328.14.
This action approves the bills and claims in the amount of $2,889,328.14 a s follows: bills and claims checks dated May 23, 2022, in the amount of $254,058.92; payroll checks dated May 26, 2022, in the amount of $35,411.07; bills and claims checks dated May 30, 2022, in the amount of $837,387.34; bills and claims checks dated Jun e 6, 2022, in the amount of $580,209.49; payroll checks dated June 9, 2022, in the amount of $24,634.24; and bills and claims checks dated June 13, 2022, in the amount of $1,157,627.08. 2 Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 4
8. Monthly Investment Transactions Report (May 2022)
Recommended Acti on: That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for May 2022.
This action is to note and file the Monthly Investment report for May, 2022.
9. Extension of Declaration of Local Emergency (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution extending the May 17, 2022 City Council proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency resulting from community spread of COVID -19 another sixty (60) days until September 29, 2022.
Resolution 12854 extends the May 17, 2022 City Council proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency resulting from community spread of COVID - 19 another sixty (60) days until September 29, 2022.
10. Excess Workers’ Compensation Coverage Contract
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Midwest Employers' Casualty Company to provide excess worker's co mpensation liability coverage for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the estimated annual premium amount of $109,308.
Resolution 12855 authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract with Midwest Employers' Casualty Company to provide excess worker's compensation liability coverage for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the estimated annual premium amount of $109,308.
M/S: Bybee/Landry – That the City Council approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of item eleven. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bybee
SECONDER: Landry
AYES: Gibbons, Landry, Lopez, Bybee, Resnikoff
ITEMS CONSIDERED SEPARATE FROM CONSENT
11. Authorization to Submit One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Applications (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Wo rks Director to submit One Bay Area Grant Program applications for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Annu al Street Maintenance Project to Resurface Hamilton Avenue, the Campbell Priority Development Area Enhancements Project, and the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan.
Councilmember Gibbons commented on the unusualness of having such a diverse list of projects inc orporated into one grant application. In regards to item one and two (Hamilton Avenue Street Resurfacing and PDA Enhancements 2 Packet Pg. 10
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 5
Project) she felt it may be an inap propriate time for staff to come forward with a policy recommendations of complete streets whil e the application was going through its approval process. In regards to item three ( Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan Project) she stated concerns with staff changing language from specific plan to precise plan without prior Council discussion.
In response to Councilmember Gibbons inquiry, Public Works Director Capurso clarified that the grant authorization is reflected in one Council report, however this will be submitted as three separate grant applications.
Councilmembers Gibbons stated she did not support the Priority Development Area Enhancements Project but was supportive of the of the Hamilton Avenue Street Resurfacing and Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan Project.
Community Services Director Eastwood provided clarification that initially the General Plan ha d identified a Specific Plan for this area, however State law imposes very strict requirements for specific plans. Changing those area plans to Precise Plans gives Campbell a little more flexibility.
M/S: Landry/Lopez - That the City Council adopt Resolu tion 12856 authorizing the Public Works Director to submit One Bay Area Grant Program applications for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Annual Street Maintenance Project to Resurface Hamilton Avenue, the Campbell Priority Development Area Enhancements Project, and the Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Landry
SECONDER: Lopez
AYES: Gibbons (No on Priority Development Area Enhancements), Landry, Lopez, Bybee, Resnikoff
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
12. Lighting and Landscaping District, Fiscal Year 2022/23 - Confirming Assessments (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution overruli ng protests, if any, approving the Engineer's Report, ordering the improvements, and confirming the diagram and assessments.
This is the time and place for a public hearing for comments regarding the levy of assessments for the C ity of Campbell Lighting an d Landscaping District (LLA -1) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 and adopt a resolution overruling protests, if any, approving the Engineer’s Report, ordering the improvements, and confirming the diagram and assessments.
Mayor Resnikoff gave opening statements, declared the public hearing open and 2 Packet Pg. 11
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 6
asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to be heard.
Interim City Clerk Sanders read the Clerk’s statement verifying public hearing notification and stated that no protests were received.
Senior Civil Engi neer Roger Storz, provided a statement regarding the nature of the lighting and landscape district.
There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Resnikoff closed the public hearing.
M/S: Bybee/Landry – That the City Council adopt Resolution 12857 overruling protests, if any, approving the Engineer’s Report, ordering the improvements, and confirming the diagram and assessments . The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bybee
SECONDER: Landry
AYES: Gibbons, Landry, Lopez, Bybee, Resnikoff
13. Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance to Consider a City -Initiated Text Amendment to the Campbell Municipal Code to Add Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -Of-Way); Adoption of a Resolution Approving an As sociated Semi -Permanent Parklet Program Guide; Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule to Add Fees and Deposits Related to Parklets in the Public Right -Of-Way and Authorization of a One-Time Construction Grant to Program Applicants and Approval of Associated Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2023; and Adopt a Resolution Approv ing an Extension of the Current Temporary Parklet Program (File No. PLN -2022-39) (Ordinance/Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of-Way) to the Campb ell Municipal Code; adopt a Resolution approving the adoption of a Semi -Permanent Parklet Program Guide; adopt a Resolution approving an amen dment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule adding fees and deposits related to parklets in the public right-of-way, providing for a one -time Construction Grant to program applicants and approving associated budget adjustments for Fiscal Year 2023; and adopt a Resolution extending the Temporary Parklet Program to January 9, 2023.
This is the time and place for a public he aring to consider a City-Initiated Text Amendment to the Campbell Municipal Code to add Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -Of-Way); adoption of a Resolution approving an Associated Semi-Permanent Parklet Program Guide; adoption of a Resolution app roving an amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule to add fees and deposits related to Parklets in the Public Right -Of-Way and authorizati on of a one -time 2 Packet Pg. 12
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 7
construction grant to program applicants and approval of associated budget adjustments for Fiscal Year 2023; and adopt a Resolution approving an extension of the current temporary Parklet Program
Community Development Director Eastwood pre sented a staff report dated July 5, 2022. Director Eastwood stated the purpose of the item was to adopt a Semi - Permanent Parklet program. The program application period would launch in September, with parklet design options presented to Council around the end of August. Staff is recommending an extension of the temporary parklets till January 9, 2023 with all temporary K-rails removed in March, 2023.
Council asked general questions related to designs, materials, waitlist criteria, security deposits, program subsidies and the length of application period.
Mayor Resnikoff opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak.
Campbell business owner, thought the tenants should be responsible for the security deposit, wishes the design options to al low for more permanent roofs and fences for safety purposes. He also asked that staff consider options to deal with the homeless who use the parklets at night.
Ken Johnson, Campbell Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, appreciated the outreach to the C hamber and is in support of a semi -permanent parklet program.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak Mayor Resnikoff closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Lopez was generally supportive of a semi -permanent parklet program. He noted the importance of havi ng the designs reflect a realistic construction cost for the business. Regarding the security deposit, Councilmember Lopez suggested that the tenant pays for the security but in turn gets other subsidies and then the security stays with the property owner. He felt the application period could be shortened.
Councilmember Gibbons stated concerns with the construction co sts, supportive of either business owners or restaurants paying the security; recommended separating the annual fee from the cost of the park let program; was not sure if the $3,000 grant was sufficient and was open to the City granting more dependent on construction costs.
Councilwoman Landry thought a 30–45-day application period would be better; is supportive of extending the temporary parkl et program until January 9, 2023, hopes the architect designs will not exceed 30,000; urged staff to consider options to ensure the contractors are safe and have enough room when constructing the parklets; and wishes the design to reflect the Campbell smal l town charm.
2 Packet Pg. 13
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 8
Vice Mayor Bybee was generally supportive of the project; suggested a shorter application period; thinks the refundable deposit should stay with the business not the property owner; noted the importance of staff having a mechanism to track t he refundable deposits; stated the selection criteria nee ds to be refined and suggested that priority could be given to those who submit their applications early.
Mayor Resnikoff was generally supportive of the program; thought the application period could be reduced; suggested removing the deposit all together ; would like to see the construction costs before determining the grant amount; and commented that he would like to see a deeper analysis on future business survey results and outreach responses.
Director Eastwood summarized Council feedback as follows: r educe the application period, adding in a selection criterion where businesses who apply early will be ranked higher, passing on design issues to the consultant, wait on defining the subsidy until th e construction costs are determined, and consider having the deposit stay with the restaurant owner or removing it completely.
Councilmember Gibbons stated for the record that there would be no Conditional Use Permit (CUP) modifications to businesses part icipating in the temporary parklet program.
M/S: Landry/Lopez - That the City Council introduce Ordinance 2285 adding Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of-Way) to the Campbell Municipal Code; adopt Resolution 12858 approving the adoption of a Se mi- Permanent Parklet Program Guide; adopt Resolution 1285 9 approving an amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule adding fees and deposits related to parklets in the public right -of-way, providing for a one -time Construction Grant to program applicants a nd approving associated budget adjustments for Fiscal Yea r 2023; and adopt Resolution 12860 extending the Temporary Parklet Program to January 9, 2023.
Councilmember Gibbons made a friendly amendment to include that there would be no Conditional Use Permi t (CUP) modifications to businesses participating in the temporary parklet program.
Councilwoman Landry accepted the friendly amendment. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Landry
SECONDER: Lopez
AYES: Gibbons, Resnikoff, Bybee, Landry, Lopez
Interim City Clerk Sanders read the full title of Ordinance 2285.
2 Packet Pg. 14
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 9
M/S: Gibbons/Landry - That the City Council waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2285. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gibbons
SECONDER: Landry
AYES: Gibbons, Landry, Lopez, Bybee, Resnikoff
NEW BUSINESS
14. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for 2022 League of California Cities Annual Conference
Recommended Action: That the City Council designate a Voting Deleg ate and Alternate(s) for the League of California Cities Annual Conference General Business Meeting to be held on September 7-9, 2022.
Interim City Clerk Sanders presented a staff report dated July 5, 2022.
Mayor Resnikoff asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. There were no public comments.
After discussi on, M/S: Gibbons/Bybee - That the City Council designate Councilwoman Landry as the voting delegate and Councilmember Lopez as the alternate votin g delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference General Business Meeting to be held on Septem ber 7-9, 2022.
The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gibbons
SECONDER: Bybee
AYES: Gibbons, Resnikoff, Bybee, Landry, Lopez
Council took a recess at 9:32 p.m. and returned at 9:47 p.m. with all members present. (Councilmember Gibbons remote)
15. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Civic Center Improvements, Campbell Library Renovations, Project No. 23 -SS, a nd Authorizing the City Manager to Award Consultant Serv ices Agreement (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Management and Insp ection Services for the Civic Center Improvements, Campb ell Library Renovation (Project No. 23 -SS) and authorizing the City Manager to Award a Consultant Services Agreement with the most qualified respondent.
Senior Project Manager Ahmed presented a staff report dated July 5, 2022. He spoke about hiring a construction management consultant for inspection services for the Civic Center Improvements.
2 Packet Pg. 15
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 10
Council asked general questions related to the Construction Management firm, and the Request for Qualifications.
Mayor Resnikoff asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. There were no public comments.
Councilwoman Landry stated concerns with the scope of services and would like it to be revised to include who is responsible for coordination with the arc hitect, who is responsible for the technical record draw ings, who is meeting with the public, clarification on inspection standards prior to going out for bid and ensuring the construction management firm has reviewed the drawings, performed value engineering, prior to bidding.
Councilmember Gibbons stated the RFQ needs to reflect clear contractual legal responsibility reflected in the scope of work. Councilmembers Gibbons was supportive of an issuance of an RFQ but not supportive of value engineering after bids have been received.
Councilmember Lopez and Vice Mayor Bybee commented that they would like to see the item approved today and the project moved forward.
Mayor Resnikoff stated support of staff and the project manager. He stated concerns that if approval for the RFQ fails this evening it could impact t he project progress down the road.
In response to an inquiry, Director Capurso agreed with some of the Council concerns and stated that staff could address many of those issues. Due to the size of this project the City has decided to hire a consultant management firm. As this is not the City’s typical process the roles and responsibilities of the construction manager were not clearly enough defined.
M/S: Landry/Bybee – That the City Council adopt Res olution 12861 authorizing issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Civic Center Improvements, Campbell Library Renovation (Project No. 23 -SS) with modifications for consistency, coordination with the architect, incorporating Council comments that have been made and authorizing the City Manager to Award a Consultant Services Agreement with the most qualified respondent, including the desk item.
City Manager Loventhal clarified that his under standing of the Council comments was coordination with t he architect, roles and responsibilities and any liability issues associated with that.
The motion was approved with the following roll call vote:
2 Packet Pg. 16
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 11
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Landry
SECONDER: Bybee
AYES: Landry, Lopez, Resnikoff, Bybee
NAYS: Gibbons
Mayor Resnikoff recused himself from item 16 due to a conflict with proximity of his residence to the project site. He passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Bybee and left the chambers for the evening at 11:20 p.m.
16. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Civic Center Improvements, Campbell Police Operations Building Project No. 23 -RR and Authorizing the City Ma nager to Awa rd a Consultant Services Agreement (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution 12863 authorizing issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Management and Inspection Services fo r the Civic Center Improvements, Campbell Police Operations Building (Project No. 23 -RR) and authorizing the City Manager to Award a Consultant Services Agreement with the most qualified respondent, including the desk item.
Public Works Director stated th at they will incorporate all the comments from the last item into this item as well.
Vice Mayor Bybee asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak. There were no public comments.
Councilmember Gibbons encouraged coordination and review of the contr act with LPA and agreed with the comments provided for the previous item.
M/S: Landry/Lopez - That the City Council adopt Resolution 12862 authorizing issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Management and Inspection Se rvices for t he Civic Center Improvements, Campbell Police Operations Building (Project No. 23 -RR) with modifications for consistency, coordination with the architect, incorporating Council comments from item 15 and authorizing the City Manager to Award a C onsultant Se rvices Agreement with the most qualified respondent including the desk item. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
RESULT: ADOPTED [3 TO 1]
MOVER: Landry
SECONDER: Lopez
AYES: Landry, Lopez, Bybee
NAYS: Gibbons
RECUSED: Resnikoff
2 Packet Pg. 17
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)
Minutes of July 5, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 12
17. Resolution Authorizing an Ad Valorem Tax Levy Based on a Debt Service Estimate to be Provided to Santa Clara County Regarding General Obligation Bonds for Fiscal Year 2022-23 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing an ad valorem tax levy based on a debt service estimate to be provided to Santa Clara County regarding general obligation bonds for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
City Manager Loventhal presented a staff report dated July 5, 2022.
Vice Mayor Bybee asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak. There were no public comments.
After discussion, M/S: Lopez/Landry - That the City Council adopt resolution 12863 authorizing an ad valorem tax levy based on a debt service estimate to be provided to Santa Clara County regarding general obligation bonds for Fiscal Year 2022 -23. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Lopez
SECONDER: Landry
AYES: Gibbons, Landry, Lopez, Bybee
RECUSED: Resnikoff
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
18. Council Committee Reports
Recommended Action: That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.
Due to the lateness of the hour, Council Committee Reports were not heard.
ADJOURN
Vice Mayor Bybee adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
Andrea Sanders, Interim City Clerk
2 Packet Pg. 18
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jul 5, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Approving Bills and Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $2,528,764.29
DISCUSSION
The bills and claims that have been a udited and approved by staff for payments made as noted below:
Type Check Date Amount
Bills & Claims June 20, 2022 $262,440.26
Payroll June 23, 2022 $64,409.62
Bills & Claims June 27, 2022 $527,839.85
Bills & Claims July 1, 2022 $1,124,649.46
Payroll July 7, 2022 $40,586.14
Bills & Claims July 8, 2022 $249,084.67
Bills & Claims July 11, 2022 $259,754.29
Total $2,528,764.29
FISCAL IMPACT
Requested action does not require a budget adjustment. Adequate funding was available to cover all expenses as listed.
Prepared by:
Roberto Garcia-Acosta, Accounting Clerk
II
Item: 3
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
3 Packet Pg. 19
Reviewed by:
Norite Vong, Finance Manager
Approving Bills and Claims Page 2 of 2
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
3 Packet Pg. 20
City
Council
Report
TITLE: Monthly Investment Transactions Report (June 2022)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for June 2022.
BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2021, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 -22 City of Campbell Investment Policy Update. Included as part of the updated policy was the addition of Monthly Investment Transaction Reports. As required by California Government Code (GC) Section 53607, staff will submit to Council Monthly Investment Transaction Reports within 45 days of the prior month end that show a listing of investments purchased, sold, called, or that have reached maturity, along with any Local Agency Investment Fund ( LAIF) transfers. This is in addition to the Quarterly Investment Report, which shows a number of other items listed under Section VII.A of the City’s Investment Policy and has been historically prepared by staff and submitted to Council within 30 days from the end of the prior quarter.
DISCUSSION
This Monthly Investment Transaction Report covers June 2022. As shown in Attachment A, staff made four deposits into and three withdrawals from the City’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) account to support weekly operating cash flow needs .
The deposits into LAIF totaling $34.5 million were offset by $5.6 million in withdrawals, resulting in a net increase to the City’s LAIF account balance of $28.9 million. The primary cash so urces received were the second issuance of Measure O GO Bonds ($32.2 million) and the CAL OES grant for the Police Station ($3.9 million). The PMIA average monthly yield increased again to 0.861%. The City purchased $4 million in investments in June . Staff anticipates purchasing additional investments as interest rates continue rising. Since the start of the COVID -19 pandemic, staff has largely held off on purchasing new long-term investments so as to maintain sufficient liquidity necessary to support ongoing City operations during a time of economic uncertainty .
However, consistent with the recommended FY 2021-22 Investment Strategy accepted by Council on August 17, 2021, staff has revised this approach in the current fiscal year and has been looking for lo nger-term investment opportunities outside of LAIF , especially as interest rates continue ris ing, thereby providing a higher, yet still safe Item: 4
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
4 Packet Pg. 21
Monthly Investment Transactions Report (June 2022) Page 2 of 2 return consistent with the City’s Investment Policy. With the pandemic being brought under better control and the current LAIF investment rate still being quite low at 0.861%, staff believes that this is a fiscally prudent approach and will continue to look for attractive and appropriate longer-term investment opportunities throughout FY 202 2-23; contingent on a contin ued positive economic trend and stabilization of the pandemic’s negative impacts. Please note that all investment purchases made adhere to the City’s Investment Policy.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the review and acceptance of the Monthly Investment Transactions Report.
Prepared by:
John Formale, Accountant
Reviewed by:
Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Monthly Investment Activity Report-6.30.22
4 Packet Pg. 22
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Monthly Investment Transactions Report
June 1 to June 30, 2022
Account Trans. Date Jun 2022
LAIF - ******137
Average Monthly Yield 0.861%
Beginning Balance 45,950,950$
Transactions
Deposit 06/01/2022 700,000
Deposit 06/02/2022 700,000
Withdrawal 06/13/2022 (900,000)
Withdrawal 06/17/2022 (4,000,000)
Withdrawal 06/22/2022 (700,000)
Deposit 06/24/2022 32,198,000
Deposit 06/28/2022 950,000
Monthly Total 28,948,000
Ending Balance 74,898,950$
Account Trans. Date June 2022
Bank of New York (BNY) - ******818
Beginning Balance 12,000,000$
Transactions
Invest. Purchase - FFCB (4.12% Yield; 4.00 Yrs) 1,000,000 Invest. Purchase - FFCB (3.49% Yield; 1.50 Yrs) 2,000,000 Invest. Purchase - FFCB (3.38% Yield; 3.00 Yrs) 999,860 Monthly Total 3,999,860
Ending Balance 15,999,860$
4.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Monthly Investment Activity Report-6.30.22 (Monthly Investment Transactions Report (June 2022)) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Reopen the Recruitment for the Civic Improvement Commission and Extend the Application Deadline
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council a pprove reopening the recruitment for the Civic Improvement Commission and extend the application deadline until a sufficient number of applications has been received.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Council Policy #1.9b regarding Advisory Commission Reappointment s, current commissioners were notified of their term expiration and notices of the upcoming vacancies were posted at City Hall and the City’s website. Notices were posted for 60 days. Vacancies were also posted on all City social media platforms.
Civic I mprovement Commission (CIC) : The terms of commissioners William Kaufman, Davis Fields and Chris Bracher will expire August 31, 202 2. Commissioner Bracher applied for reappointment. Commissioners Kaufman and Davis did not apply for reappointment.
DISCUSSION
In addition to Commissioner Bracher’s request for reappointment , The City Clerk’s Office received one additional application. It has been determined that a n adequate number of qualified applicants to fill the vacancies was not received. In order to fi ll this upcoming vacancy and to encourage new applicants to apply, staff recommends reopening the vacancy and extending the application period until a sufficient number of applications are received.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated wit h reopening the vacancy and extending the application period.
Item: 5
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
5 Packet Pg. 24
Civic Improvement Commission Recruitment Extension Page 2 of 2 Prepared by:
Andrea Sanders, Interim City Clerk
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
5 Packet Pg. 25
City
Council
Report
TITLE: Ordinance 2285 to Consider a City -Initiated Text Amendment to the Campbell Municipal Code to Add Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right-Of-Way) (Ordinance/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council take second reading of Ordinance 2285 adding Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right-of-Way) to the Campbell Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
In September 2020 as a response to COVID -19, the City coordinated with downtown business owners to develop a temporary parklet program in the to allow for outdoor dining and business operations to lessen the economic and operational impacts of the pandemic. On April 19, 2022, Council provided additional poli cy direction and feedback for implementing a semi-permanent parklet program in the downtown area. At its regular meeting of July 5, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing to introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right-of-Way) to the Campbell Municipal Code. The City Council voted unanimously to approve and take first reading of Ordinance 2285. Ordinance 2285 will become effective 30 days after adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
Nominal publication costs are associated with approvi ng the Ordinance second reading to meet the requirement of Gov. Code 36933, but they can be absorbed within the current Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Operating Budget. Costs for codification of the Ordinance in the Campbell Municipal Code are also included in the current budget by way of purchase order. Other fiscal impacts related to estimated construction costs and design fees are included in the staff report introducing the Ordinance on July 5, 2022.
Prepared by:
Andrea Sanders, Interim City Clerk
Item: 6
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
6 Packet Pg. 26
Second Reading of Ordinance 2285 Page 2 of 2
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Ordinance 2285 - Parklets
6 Packet Pg. 27
ORDINANCE NO. 2285
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ADDING CHAPTER 11.15 (PARKLETS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF-WAY) TO THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE (FILE NO. PLN-2022-39)
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council of the City of Campbell does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The legislature of the State of California has, in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 conferred upon local government units authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that nothing in this Ordinance is intended to authorize, legalize, or permit the establishment, operation, or maintenance of any business, building, or use which violates any City ordinance or any statue of the State of California.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of an Ordinance adding Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of-Way) would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of an Ordinance is considered a "project" under Section 15378(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, typically subject to environmental review. However, such an action ma y be exempted from environmental review if the City finds that: 1) the project is exempt pursuant to a categorical exemption; and 2) the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Sec. 15300.2 (Sec. 15061(b)(2)).
SECTION 5. The City Council finds and determines that i n review of the CEQA statute, the project may be found categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) given that it would result in only minor alterations of existing public o r private facilities (e.g., alterations to streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities) and negligible expansion of existing uses (parklets expand on outdoor dining activities already allowed in the City). The project may also be found categorically exempt under Section 15311 (Accessory Structures) given that it would only allow for the construction or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities (parklets would only be allowed in association with a “bona fide public eating place”). Further, as none of the exceptions set forth in Sec. 15300.2 apply (i.e., not in a particularly sensitive environment, the cumulative impact of the project is not significant, there is no reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant impact due to usual circumstances, impact scenic highways, the project would not impact a hazardous waste site, does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource) the City Council finds and determines that project m ay be found categorically exempt under CEQA.
SECTION 6. Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of-Way) is hereby added to the Campbell Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit A.
6.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Ordinance 2285 - Parklets (Second Reading of Ordinance 2285) SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its passage and adoption, a summary thereof shall be published one time within five (5) days pior to which ordinance is to be adopted, and one time within fifteen (15) days after passage and adoption in the Metro Silicon Valley, a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
APPROVED:
_______________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Andrea Sanders, Interim City Clerk
6.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Ordinance 2285 - Parklets (Second Reading of Ordinance 2285) Exhibit A
Chapter 11.15 PARKLETS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
11.15.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to reasonably regulate and provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards and requirements for the orderly development, siting, installation, construction, operation , maintenance, relocation, and removal of parklets in the City of Campbell's public right -of-way. This chapter seeks to protect and promote public safety, and community welfare, and preserve the City's character and aesthetic quality.
11.15.020 Definitions.
The following definition(s) only apply to this chapter and shall not be construed to define the same terms found in any other section of this code. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below:
"Parklet" means an outdoor dining area provided by a “bona fide public eating place” as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code for its customers that is fur nished with tables, chairs, umbrellas, and other items necessary for the consumption of food and beverages served by the restaurant or café, either with or without waiter service, by repurposing public parking space(s) within the public right -of-way. “Semi-Permanent Parklet Program” means the uniform and comprehensive set of standards and requirements for the orderly development, siting, installation, construction, operation, maintenance, relocation, and removal of parklets, as adopted by Resolution of the City Council.
11.15.030 Applicability.
(a) This chapter applies to:
(1) All applications to construct, install, operate, modif y, reconstruct, relocate, remove, or otherwise provide for parklets within the public right -of-way, except as provided otherwise in this chapter below.
(2) All parklets, including, without limitation, all new parklets, existing parklets, and modifications to existing parklets proposed after the effective date of this chapter.
11.15.040 Permit requirements.
(a) Permit Required. Any applicant seeking to construct, install, modify, maintain, or engage in an activity relating to a parklet in, on, under, or above the public right-of-way that is subject to this chapter, shall obtain a Parklet Permit pursuant to the requirements of this chapter prior to conducting any work related to such parklet.
(b) Permit Application Form. The applicant shall submit a complete, duly executed Parklet Permit application in a form approved by the Public Works Department, which may be updated f rom time to time. The application will not be considered duly filed or complete unless submitted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and the Semi-Permanent Parklet Program. Applicant must pay a Permit application processing fee , as set by the city's fee schedule, at the time the application is submitted. (c) Applicant. The applicant of any parklet shall be the property owner of the “bona fide public eating place” in which the parklet serves. The owner and/or operator of the “bona fide publi c eating place” shall not be permitted to apply on the behalf of the property owner.
6.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Ordinance 2285 - Parklets (Second Reading of Ordinance 2285)
11.15.050 Minimum approval requirements.
All parklets in the public right-of-way shall:
(a) Comply with all applicable State and Federal laws including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) and all applicable health and safety requirements, and as these rules may be amended or superseded;
(b) Be designed, modified, or maintained to minimize impacts on the surrounding community , including but not limited to visual and noise impacts, impediments to access, and other impacts that would create a public nuisance;
(c) Be planned, designed, located, and erected in accordance with the Semi-Permanent Parklet Program; and (d) Comply with all applicable local and state building codes, including building code structural requirements and all applicable rules and laws, including the Semi-Permanent Parklet Program.
11.15.060 Review process.
(a) The city shall not approve any request for a Parklet Permit except upon a complete and duly filed application on the then-current form prepared by the city. The application shall comply with this chapter and any other written rules and policies the city may adopt consistent with this chapter, including but not limited to, the Semi-Permanent Parklet Program.
(b) The City Engineer, Community Development Director, and Building Official or duly appointed designee(s) of the City Engineer, Community Development Director, and Building Official shall review all applications for the Parklet Permit. The review process shall ensure compliance with the Semi-Permanent Parklet Program, and all other applicable laws except that no other permit, or modification of any other permit, shall be required prior to the approval of a Parklet Permit.
11.15.070 Approvals and denials; notices.
(a) Decision. The City Engineer shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny a complete application for a Parklet Permit.
(b) Required Findings. The City Engineer may approve or conditionally approve an application for a Parklet Permit when the City Engineer finds:
(1) The proposed project meets the definition for a "parklet" as defined by this Chapter; (2) The proposed parklet complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter; (3) The application is deemed complete by the City Engineer; (4) The proposed project complies with the Semi-Permanent Parklet Program as determined by the City Engineer;
(5) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project will be in compliance with all applicable health and safety regulations, which include without limitation the Americans with Disabilities; (6) The proposed parklet will not incommode the public use of the public right -of-way; (7) The proposed construction plan and schedule will not unduly interfere with the public's use of the public right-of-way; and
(8) The proposed parklet is in compliance with all federal and state standards and laws. (c) Conditional Approvals; Denials without Prejudice. Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the ability of the City Engineer to conditionally approve or deny without prejudice any application for a Parklet Permit as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with this chapter.
6.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Ordinance 2285 - Parklets (Second Reading of Ordinance 2285)
(d) Decision Notices. The City Engineer shall notify the applicant of the decision rendered on the Parklet Permit electronically through the City’s online permitting system, by email, or by first class mail. The decision notice shall include a stamped copy of the approved parklet plan as well as any associated conditions of approval. (e) No Possessory Interest. No possessory interest in the city’s right-of-way is created by a Parklet Permit.
11.15.080 Conditions of approval.
The following conditions of approval shall apply to all Parklet Permits approved under this Chapter in addition to any additional conditions of approved imposed by the City Engineer:
(a) Fees. The applicant for a Parklet Permit shall be subject to all applicable fees and charges for the issuance and operation of a Parklet Permit, which shall be determined by resolution adopted by the city council. If no resolution has been adopted, then the applicant must submit a sign ed written statement that acknowledges that the applicant will be required to reimburse the city for its reasonable costs incurred in connection with the application within ten days after the city issues a written demand for reimbursement. Applicant shall also be responsible for paying all costs associated with the parklet installation and operation including, but not limited to, an annual fee collected to ensure the ongoing compliance of the Parklet with the requirements of this Chapter.
(b) Inspection and reporting. The permittee under the Parklet Permit, when directed by the city, must perform an inspection of the parklet and submit a report to the Public Works Department on the condition of the facility to include any identified concerns and corrective action taken or to be taken. The permittee shall also maintain and repair the parklet at its sole expense during its placement in the public right -of-way. The permittee must correct or repair the parklet within thirty days after the city's not ice for corrective action; after which the city reserves the right to take any action it deems necessary, which may include revocation of any applicable permit(s). The permittee is responsible for any costs associated with necessary actions performed by the city due to permittee's failure to comply with this section and with the Parklet Design Requirements. The permittee has the burden to demonstrate compliance with this chapter. (c) Expiration. The applicable permit(s) may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year of the Permit being granted, absent a showing of good cause. The applicant may not renew the Permit or resubmit an application to develop a parklet at the same location for six months from date of rescission.
(d) Abandonment. Abandoned parklets shall be removed by the last known owner of record of such parklet, at the sole cost of said owner and to the satisfaction of the city. For the purposes of this chapter, a parklet shall be considered abandoned when it is no longer used by the applicant to provide service for a period of one- hundred and eighty (180) days without a new Parklet Permit being submitted. It shall be the obligation of the applicant of any Parklet Permit not in active use to respond to any comments issued by the City within thirty (30) calendar days of their transmittal by the City or the Parklet shall be considered abandoned. (e) Insurance. The applicant and operator shall obtain and maintain insurance in compliance with Chapter 11.30 (Insurance Requirements for Encroachment) of the Campbell Municipal Code. (f) Business License. The business utilizing the parklet shall be required to obtain and maintain a valid City business license at all times.
(g) No Smoking. “No Smoking" signs shall be posted on the premises in compliance with CMC 6.11.060. (h) Security Deposit. A security deposit, in an amount established by the City’s schedule of fees and charges, shall be paid to the City to cover the cost of removal and/or enforcing the removal of the park let prior to the issuance of building permits. Every three (3) years following the receipt of the initial security deposit, an additional security deposit shall be paid to account for any difference in the security deposit held by the City and the security deposit required by the City’s most recently adopted schedule of fees and charges.
6.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Ordinance 2285 - Parklets (Second Reading of Ordinance 2285)
(i) Non-Transferable. Parklet Permits shall not be transferable and a new parklet permit shall be required whenever the applicant is no longer associated with the operation, maintenance, or removal of the Parklet or insurance policy required under subsection (e) of this Section. (j) Operational Requirements. Parklet Permits shall be operated in accordance with all operational requirements established by any permit pertaining to the bona fide public eating establishment, including those required by other agencies (e.g., Alcohol Beverage Control). The preceding sentence notwithstanding, an exception to the maximum number or type of seats permitted by a permit issued under Titl e 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code shall be permitted.
11.15.090 Revocation.
Any permit or other authorized use of the public right-of-way granted under this chapter may be revoked or modified for cause in accordance with the provisions of this section. (a) Revocation proceedings may be initiated by the City Engineer. (b) Required Findings. The City Engineer may revoke or modify the parklet permit if it makes any of the following findings:
(1) The permittee obtained the approval by means of fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) The permittee substantially expanded or altered the use or structure beyond what is set forth in the Permit or substantially changed the installation's character; (3) The bona fide eating place that the parklet serv es has ceased to exist or has been suspended or abandoned;
(4) Failure to comply with any condition of a permit issued; (5) Failure to comply with this chapter;
(6) A parklet’s interference with a city project which seeks to protect and promote public s afety and health, and community welfare;
(7) A parklet’s interference with vehicular or pedestrian use of the public right -of-way; or (8) Failure to make a safe and timely restoration of the public right-of-way. (c) Notice of action. The City Engineer s hall issue a written determination of revocation and mail the determination to the permittee within ten calendar days of such determination. (d) A permittee whose Parklet Permit or right has been revoked may have the revocation reviewed, upon written appeal as set forth in Section 11.15.100.
11.15.100 Appeals.
(a) Appeals from City Engineer's Decision. The applicant or any interested person or entity may file an appeal to the Director of Public Works of any decision made by the City Engineer in compliance with this chapter. The appeal shall be filed within two days of the City Engineer's decision, with the city clerk in writing and accompanied by a filing fee in compliance with the city's schedule of fees and charges. The Public Works Director, or Public Works Director's designee, in his or her discretion, shall determine whether to affirm, set side, or modify the City Engineer's decision appealed therefrom. Thereafter, the appellant shal l be notified of the Public Works Director's decision.
(b) Appeals from Public Works Director's Decision. The applicant or any interested person or entity may file an appeal to the City Council of any decision made by the Public Works Director in complian ce with this chapter.
The appeal shall be filed within ten days of the Public Works Director's decision, with the city clerk in writing and accompanied by a filing fee in compliance with the city's schedule of fees and charges. The city council's decision shall be final.
6.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Ordinance 2285 - Parklets (Second Reading of Ordinance 2285)
(c) Findings on Appeal. The decision on appeal shall be made using the same criteria as set forth in subsection (c) of Section 11.15.090.
11.15.110 Attorneys' fees.
In the event the city determines that it is necessary to take legal action to enforce any of the requirements under this chapter or to revoke a permit, and such legal action is taken, the permittee shall be required to pay any and all costs of such legal action, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by the city, even if the matter is not prosecuted to a final judgment or is amicably resolved, unless the city should otherwise agree in writing with permittee to waive said fees or any part thereof. The foregoing shall not apply if the permittee prevails in the enforcement proceeding.
6.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Ordinance 2285 - Parklets (Second Reading of Ordinance 2285) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Acceptance of 8X8 Inc Flock Camera Donation (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accep ting donations in the amount of $10,700 from 8x8 Inc for the purpose of funding two Flock Falcon ALPR cameras
BACKGROUND
The Campbell City Council approved the lease of 20 Flock ALPR cameras in FY22. As the Campbell Police Department began the implement ation process, 8x8 Inc agreed to sponsor two cameras in the vicinity of their campus on the public right of way. These cameras will enhance public safety and are a part of the Police Department ’s strategic deployment plan.
DISCUSSION
The Police Department has endeavored to create strategic partnerships within our local business community with the shared goal of improving public safety and creating a thriving business environment.
Flock Safety fixed ALPR cameras are a part of the Police Department ’s app roach to adopting technology to improve response times, prevent crime, and enhance public safety. Flock Safety leases cameras to a variety of private groups including home owners associations, apartment complexes, and private businesses.
Staff has engag ed with private businesses regarding this technology and the shared benefit it provides to both the entity and the Police Department. 8x8 Inc. was a part of this initial effort to create awareness around this technology and the deployment in Campbell.
8x8 Inc. has entered into contract with Flock Safety for their own security needs. As a part of their security assessment they have also agreed to sponsor two cameras in the vicinity of their campus , which are locations that are a part of the Police Departmen t’s existing strategic deployment plan.
Item: 7
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
7 Packet Pg. 35
Acceptance of 8X8 Inc. Flock Camera Donation Page 2 of 2 8x8 Inc has agreed to sponsor two cameras (in addition to the 20 the City already authorized) for a 24 month period at the cost of $5000 per year with a one time $700 installation fee. The total donated amount over the term of the contract is $10,700. Flock Safety will bill 8x8 Inc directly for the cost of the cameras.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to accepting the camera donation. The cost of the cameras will be billed directly to 8x8 Inc. Please not e that the City is currently under a two -year contract with Flock. If the City extends its contract with Flock, staff will engage 8x8 at that time to see if they wished to donate further beyond their initial 24 month commitment. Any potential contract rene wals with Flock would return to Council at that time for review and consideration.
Prepared by:
Ian White, Police Captain
Reviewed by:
Gary Berg, Police Chief
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. 8x8 Flock Resolution
7 Packet Pg. 36
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DONATION FROM 8x8 INC OF TWO
FLOCK ALPR CAMERAS
WHEREAS, the Police Department entered into a two -year contract with Flock Group Inc. for the lease of fixed ALPR cameras in an effort to enhance public safety, improve officer efficiency and solve crimes; and
WHEREAS, The Campbell Police Department has endeavored to create strategic partnerships within our local business community with the shared goal of improving public safety and creating a thriving business environment; and WHEREAS, The 8x8 Inc headquarters are located within the City of Campbell; and WHEREAS, 8x8 Inc has agreed to sponsor two Flock Safety ALPR cameras over a 24 month term; and
WHEREAS, Flock ALPR cameras have shown to reduce crime and have an immediate impact on public safety; and
WHEREAS, Flock Group Inc will bill 8x8 Inc directly for the cost of the ad ditional two cameras.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Campbell that the City accept donations in the amount of $10,700 from 8x8 Inc for the purposes of funding two Flock Falcon ALPR cameras.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
APPROVED:
___________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Andrea Sanders, Interim City Clerk
7.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: 8x8 Flock Resolution (Acceptance of 8X8 Inc. Flock Camera Donation) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Accept Improvements for John D. Morgan Park (Budd Avenue) Improvement Project No. 18 -PP, and Direct Filing of Notice of Completion. (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the improvements for the John D.
Morgan Park (Budd Avenue) Improvement Project No. 18 -PP (Project); and direct the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND
The playground improvements at John D. Morgan Park (Budd Avenue) were intended to provide the first all-inclusive play area in the City. These improvements were partially funded by the Santa Clara County All-Inclusive Playground Grant Program (AIPG) in the amount of up to $1 million. In order to apply and be eligible for the grant program, the City was required to demonstrate and provide a local match that is equivalent (or greater) to the amount of grant funds requested.
City Council adopted Resolution No. 126 39 on September 15, 2020. The resolution authorized the advertisement of bids, award, and execution of a construction contract for the Project. On November 13, 2020, the City received four bids, ranging from $1,315,000 to $1,535,000. The contract was awa rded to Robert A. Bothman Construction of Santa Clara who submitted a responsive and responsible low bid of $1,315,000, approximately 8% below the engineer’s cost estimate.
DISCUSSION
Due to the COVID -19 pandemic and the Santa Clara County’s Public Health Order, the Project construction period was extended by four months. In late November of 2021, the Project was completed. On December 16, 2021, a dedication event was held to celebrate the completion and the opening of the first all -inclusive play area in the City of Campbell. Attendees included the City Council, the current and former Santa Clara County Supervisor representing Campbell, as well as members of the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Project achieved its objective to replace the older playground at John D. Morgan Park (located on the Budd Avenue side ) with an all -inclusive playground. All -inclusive Item: 8
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
8 Packet Pg. 38
Accept Improvements for John D. Morgan Park Page 2 of 4 playgrounds are designed for people of all ages and abilities to play together. As defined by the County AIPG, all -inclusive playground elements are accessible not only to the 10% of users in wheelchairs, but also address the needs of the 90% of users not in wheelchairs including people with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Sensory Challenges, Visual and Auditory Impairments, Cognitive, Developmental and Physical Disabilities.
Since the opening of the playground to the community, staff has continued to work with the contractor to resolve warranty issues before proceeding with acceptance of the improvements. With no outstanding issues, staff is recommending that the Council accept the improvements as completed and installed by Robert A. Bothman Construction.
The attached resolution has been prepared to accept the improvements and direct the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion.
APWA Project of the Year Award
Each year, the Silicon Valley Chapter of American Public Works Association (APWA) selects public works projects for the Projects of the Year Awards Program. This program was established to promote excellence in public works projects by recognizing partnership between the managing agency, the engineering/design team, and the contractor who all work together to successfully complete the projects. This year, the John D. Morgan Park (Budd Avenue) Improvement Project received the Project of the Year Award in the Environmental/Parks category of projects less than $2 million.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Project was completed within the authorized budget as outlined below:
SOURCE OF FUNDS Budget Final
Park Dedication Funds $1,150,000 $1,150,000
All-Inclusive Playground
Grant (AIPG)
$1,000,000 $909,452
TOTAL $2,150,000 $2,059,452
USE OF FUNDS Budget Final Grant*
Design $300,000 $292,600 $122,500
Consultant (grant eligible) $245,000 $122,500
Staff (non-grant eligible) $47,600
Construction Engineering $280,000 $283,990 $117,335
Consultant (grant eligible) $234,670 $117,335
8 Packet Pg. 39
Accept Improvements for John D. Morgan Park Page 3 of 4 Staff (non-grant eligible) $49,320
Construction Contract $1,570,000 $1,339,230 $669,615
TOTAL $2,150,000 $1,915,820 $909,450
Note: * indicates the grant reimbursement amount , calculated at 50% of the eligible expenditure.
Summary of Final Source and Use of Funds:
Source of Funds $2,059,452
Use of Funds (est.) ($1,915,820)
Remaining balance (est.) $ 143,632
As previously mentioned, the County AIPG grant requires a one for one local match from the City for eligible expenses . For example, for every dollar reimbursed from the County, the City must provide a match of at least the sam e amount from local funds.
However, the grant will not reimburse for in-house staff expenditures. The County will confirm the final AIPG grant amount of $909,450 due to the City after it releases the contract retention to the contractor and upon the City submitting the final report to the County. In accordance with the AIPG Program Grant Agreement, all grant related activities including disbursement of reimbursement must be completed by November 10, 2022.
At the time the City Council adopted Resolution 1 2639 approving the plans and specifications, the engineer’s cost estimate for construction was $1,570,000, including a 10% construction contingency. A favorable low bid resulted in a construction contract in the amount of $1,315,000 plus $24,230 of contin gency used for a total contract expenditure of $1,339,230.
The final total project expenditure ($1,915,820) compared to the final available project budget ($2,059,452) would result in an estimated project balance of $143,632, i.e., project savings. Staf f recommends returning the unspent project balance to the source of funds, the Park Dedication Fund, for use on future projects.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not accept improvements and budget adjustment and direct staff accordingly.
As the Project involves signi ficant external funding from the Santa Clara County AIPG, it was completed in accordance with those funding requirements. Pursuant to the AIPG agreement, all grant related activities must be completed by November 10, 2022. Therefore, any changes will have impacts on meeting the terms of the funding agreement.
8 Packet Pg. 40
Accept Improvements for John D. Morgan Park Page 4 of 4 Prepared by:
Amy Olay, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Todd Capurso, Director of Public Works
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Resolution
b. 18-PP Notice of Completion
8 Packet Pg. 41
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR JOHN D. MORGAN PARK (BUDD AVENUE) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 18-PP (PROJECT), AND DIRECTING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, construction was completed in November 2021 , and a dedication event was held on December 16, 2021 for John D. Morgan Park (Budd Avenue) Improvement Project No. 18-PP (Project); and
WHEREAS, certain warranty issues that delayed the acceptance of the i mprovements are resolved; and
WHEREAS, the final project cost is $1,915,820; and
WHEREAS, the A ll-Inclusive Playground Grant (AIPG) is estimated to reimburse the City an amount of $909,450 for the completed improvements; and WHEREAS, the remaining project balance is estimated at $143,632; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending returning the remaining project balance to the City’s Park Dedication Funds; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the AIPG Program Gra nt Agreement, all grant related activities includi ng disbursement of reimb ursement must be completed by November 10, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Project received the Project of the Year Aw ard from Silicon Valley Chapter of American Public Works Association (APWA) Project of the Year Award in the Environmental/Parks category of projects less than $2 million.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the C ity of Campbell hereby accepts the improvements constructed by Robert A. Bothman Con struction for the John D. Morgan Park (Budd Avenue) Improvem ent Project No. 18-PP, and directs the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________ 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
APPROVED:
8.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Resolution (Accept Improvements for John D. Morgan Park) _______________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Andrea Sanders, Interim City Clerk
8.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Resolution (Accept Improvements for John D. Morgan Park) Revised 1/23/17
Recording Requested by
and when recorded, mail to:
City of Campbell
City Clerk’s Office
70 North First Street, City Hall – Upper Level
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 866-2150
CITY OF CAMPBELL
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE
OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
(C.C.C. 3093)
This document is for the benefit of the City of Campbell. Request for the Recordation without fee is made in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code of the State of California.
Contractor’s Name: Robert A. Bothman Construction Contract Date:12/23/2020 Surety: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Final Contract Amount: $1,339,231.00
Job Title: John D. Morgan Park Improvement (Budd) – Project No. 18-PP Location: John D. Morgan Park (Budd Avenue Side), 540 W. Rincon Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 Scope of Work: Generally included, but is not limited to the following: surveying and construction staking; clear, grub; and demolition of existing hardscape paving, fencing, play equipment, site furnishings and softscape; earthwork, material export, grading; site drainage; playground area; paving; sidewalk; fencing; signage; walls, site furnishings; play equipment; irrigation and planting.
Owner: City of Campbell, City Hall, 70 North Street, Upper Level, Campbell, CA 95008 This work was accepted by me on 8/2/2022, on behalf of the City of Campbell. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (C.C.P. 2015.5)
Executed on __________________,
at Campbell, California
Amy Olay, City Engineer
Department of Public Works
City of Campbell
8.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: 18-PP Notice of Completion (Accept Improvements for John D. Morgan Park) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Placing the Cost of Abating Hazardous Vegetation on the Property Tax Assessment Roll (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt a resolution placing the cost of abating hazardous vegetation on the property tax assessment roll.
DISCUSSION
Abatement of hazardous vegetation (weeds) is managed through the Weed Abatement Division of the Santa Clara C ounty Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management, upon action of the City to notice and authorize abatement.
On December 7, 2021, the City Council declared weeds to be a public nuisance, allowing the County to send notices to property owners whose properties were overgrown with weeds. The notice advised that the weeds must be voluntarily removed or that removal would be performed by the County at the owner’s expense.
On January 18, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing to receive prot ests from property owners whose properties were identified as having a weed problem and to direct the County to proceed with abatement on those properties where weeds were not voluntarily removed by the owners.
The final assessment report from County Weed Abatement staff is included as Exhibit A of the draft resolution. It identifies 44 properties that will be assessed a fee. Of these, 31 passed the initial inspection ($84 fee), 11 failed the initial inspection ($550 fee), and two required abatement ($641 and $1,960). The assessments will be placed on the property tax roll as a lien and collected together with all other property taxes.
FISCAL IMPACT
No financial impact will be incurred by the City as the weed abatement program is funded by fees payable directly to the County. The County will assess a total of $11,978 in fees from the 33 property owners this year.
Item: 9
Category: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
INTRODUCTION OF
ORDINANCES
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
9 Packet Pg. 45
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Page 2 of 2
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Rob Eastwood, Community
Development Director
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. CC Resolution ~ Weed Abatement (August)
9 Packet Pg. 46
RESOLUTION NO. ____
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLACING THE COST OF ABATING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT ROLL.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Campbell did on the 3rd day of August, 2021, hold a Public Hearing for the purpose of hearing any objections by any of the property owners liable to be assessed for the work of abating hazardous vegetation on their property; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management recommended that the cost of abating nuisance of hazardous vegetation on such property shall constitute special assessments against such property and sha ll constitute a lien on such property for the amount of such assessments, as outlined in Exhibit A and made a part hereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management shall cause the am ount of assessment to be entered on the City assessment roll opposite the description of the particular property and the amount shall be collected together with all other taxes thereon upon the property. Thereafter, such amounts shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general City taxes. All laws and ordinances applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of City taxes are hereby made applicable to such special assessment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the property owners have the option, if they so desire, of paying the assessment directly to the Collector’s Office before said entry on said assessment roll as outlined in Exhibit A and attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:______________________________
Andrea Sanders, Acting City Clerk
9.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: CC Resolution ~ Weed Abatement (August) (Hazardous Vegetation Abatement) Exhibit A
9.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: CC Resolution ~ Weed Abatement (August) (Hazardous Vegetation Abatement) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Request of Nicholas and Andrea Key for Property at 705 El Patio Drive to Rescind the Listing of a De signated Structure of Merit from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council (1) adopt a resolution rescinding the designation of 705 El Patio Drive as a Structure of Merit, subject to paym ent of a $5,000 in -lieu fee; and (2) add an Historic Preservation Ordinance update to the Community Development Department's FY23 Work Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The action to remove the subject property from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) may be deemed Exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for the action to have a significant effect on the environment.
DISCUSSION
Project Site: The project site is located at the easterly terminus of El Patio Drive, east of Poplar Avenue, and is bordered by single -family residences to the east and townhomes to the north, as shown on the aerial map, below.
The property is developed with a s ingle-family residence, recognized as a Structure of Merit on the HRI, constructed in the late 1930's in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style (reference Attachment B – Site Photographs). According to the City's Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A f orm, this home was one of several of this architectural style built within the Rancho del Patio subdivision during the 1930's under the supervision of B.J. Smith (reference Attachment C – DPR Form ). The existing residence is slightly over 1,000 square feet incorporating two bedrooms, a kitchen, living room, and small dining area.
Item: 10
Category: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
INTRODUCTION OF
ORDINANCES
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
10 Packet Pg. 49
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive. Page 2 of 8
Historic Preservation: The City maintains a list of 145 historic properties known as the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) , which was originally established in 1984. Within the HRI, there are three types of "historic resources" (properties), as listed, below. Only the City Council may add or remove properties from the HRI. ➢ Structure of Merit : A historic resource possessing outstanding aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering historic va lue. Structures of Merit were formerly named "designated historic resource inventory properties" in prior enactments of the current Historic Preservation Ordinance. ➢ Landmark: A historic resource found to have exceptional historic significance in Campbell.
➢ Historic District Property : A geographically defined area that has been designated by ordinance of the City Council as possessing a concentration, or a thematically related grouping, of historic resources which contribute to the historical character of th e area. Today, there is only one historic district in Campbell, the Alice Avenue Historic District.
Pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.33 and in conjunction with the Campbell Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Buildings and by reference the Secretary of the Interior's Stand ards, the City protects these structures from alterations that would undermine their historic integrity so that they may be preserved for the enjoyment and appreciation of future generations. This is accomplished by a multi -tier regulatory approach that i s generally intended to allow for expedited approval of most minor changes (e.g., window change -outs, new roofing, etc.) while requiring a more thorough review of significant changes (e.g., additions or alterations to "character - defining" features) to these identified historic resources.
Property Background : The subject property was added to the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), along with 649 El Patio and 58 S. Third Street, by the City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012. The property's designation oc curred after extensive public outreach and review by both the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) and the Planning Commission as noted in the City Council staff report (reference Attachment D). In support of the decision to list the property on the HRI, the Council found that it 10 Packet Pg. 50
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive. Page 3 of 8
possessed "significant aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or value of an historical nature". As noted by the DPR form, the property typifies Spanish Colonial Revival Style through incorporation of character -defining features, including a flat-roof, cross -gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing, steel casement windows, and stucco-covered chimneys with brick reveal.
Last year, the homeowners, submitted a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit to allow construction of a 523 square -foot addition, incorporating an expanded living area and master bedroom, and an additional bedroom. The application was agendized for consideration before the HPB at its September 22, 2021, meeting (reference Attachment E – Staff Repor t). Prior to the meeting, staff discovered that the homeowners had performed unauthorized alterations to the building that were not shown in the application. As a result, the September 22nd HPB hearing was continued to a date uncertain (reference Attachment F – Meeting Minutes ). City staff began consulting with its Historical/Architectural Advisor, Mark Sandoval to evaluate the alterations and determine next steps. The City requested Mr. Sandoval to prepare a report to ascertain whether (and how) the façade of the structure could be restored, and if so, if it would retain sufficient integrity to remain eligible to remain on the HRI.
Unpermitted Alterations: The photographs, below, compare the subject property before and after the unpermitted alterations. The scope of the alterations includes removal of the box -formed columns and recessed casement window, application of new stucco resulting in the loss of the original texture, creation of a new arched feature over the entryway, and construction of connected wa lls extending from either side of the house.
As a result of these changes, the “character-defining features” have been removed and the structure no longer resembles its original appearance. If the applicant had applied for City approvals and permits, these alterations would have required a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit application since the character -defining features of the structure would have been removed (CMC Sec. 21.33.070.B.1.a), as identified in the DPR prepared for the building.
Proposal: Based on the results of Mr. Sandoval's review (discussed, below) and determination that the alterations have modified the character defining features and historical integrity of the structure, the homeowners are seeking to rescind the historic designation of the property, as permitted by CMC Sec. 21.33.060.D.1.
ANALYSIS
10 Packet Pg. 51
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive. Page 4 of 8
As specified by CMC Sec. 21.33.060.D, rescinding a property's historic designation requires the City Council, upon independent recommendations of the Board and Planning Commission, to find that "based on substantial evidence and findings of fact in the record that the resource no longer has historic value with respect to the designation criteria." The historic designation criteria are as follows:
(a) The resource is associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history or cultural heritage; (b) The resource is associated with the lives of persons important to our history; (c) The resource yields, or has the potential to yield, information important to our prehistory or history;
(d) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction;
(e) The resource represents the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer, or builder; or
(f) The resour ce possesses significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood, community, or city.
The Municipal Code further indicates that "in the case of disagreement as to the significance of a historic resource [between the Historic Preservation Board and Planning Commission], a historic evaluation report and/or structural report shall be required." In this case, a historic report has been prepared for use by all parties.
Mr. Sandoval's report traces the history of the Ranch o Del Patio tract in which the subject property is located and evaluates the current status of the structure in this context (reference Attachment G ). Mr. Sandoval concludes that the unauthorized alterations have modified the building's historical integrit y and character defining features, rendering it ineligible for continued listing as a Structure of Merit on the HRI.
Regarding restoration of the building to its pre -altered condition, Mr. Sandoval concludes that although restoration of the façade is techn ically feasible, he is not supportive of such an approach noting that the "original historical integrity of the home has been significantly diminished" as a result of the unpermitted modifications, compounded by the owner's proposed addition. For this reason, the report recommends that the City should consider removing the property from the HRI.
Given the extent of the unpermitted alterations and the determination by the City’s historic consultant that the historical integrity of the building cannot be rest ored, staff is supportive of removing the property from the HRI in that the structure no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style.
Moreover, maintaining a property that has lost its historical integrity on the H RI undermines the purpose of the list and dilutes the importance of other registered properties. As identified by Mr. Sandoval, although the structure could be restored to resemble its original appearance, it would simply be a representation of the origina l and 10 Packet Pg. 52
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive. Page 5 of 8
arguably still lack the building’s original integrity and historic value to qualify its listing on the HRI.1
In-Lieu Fee: The City's Code Enforcement Officer issued an Administrative Citation in the amount of $275 (inclusive of a $100 fine and $175 in administrative fees) to the applicant for performing work without a building permit. The Municipal Code does not identify any additional penalties or fines for unauthorized construction resulting in the alteration, damage, or demolition of a listed hist oric resource. Although CMC Sec.
21.33.100 does obligate owners to maintain their historic property in good repair and specifies that allowing an historic resource to "suffer severe deterioration beyond the point of repair" constitutes a public nuisance su bject to administrative penalties, it does not address unpermitted alterations to a property.
However, the City may impose a fee as a condition of approval to affirmatively support findings for approval as necessary to determine consistency with the Genera l Plan or other city policies, and when a clear nexus can be established. In this instance, the unauthorized work and proposed removal of the building from the HRI represents a resource loss that is in conflict with Campbell’s historic preservation policie s and ordinances. As such, both the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Board recommend that removal of the property from the HRI be conditioned upon payment of a fee in-lieu of restoring the property to its historic condition. Although the fee could be set as high as the cost to restore property to its previous state ($45,000) 2 (which as noted, above, is a technically feasible, but not an advisable course of action), both the Board and Commission recommend a fee of $5,000.
Application of this f ee would support the City's obligations to the Certified Local Government Program (CLG). As provided in Appendix G of the Certified Local Government Application and Procedures , August 1999, (reference Attachment I ) the City is obligated to "Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties," including "adopt[ing] local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to enforce the designation and protection of historic and archeological resources." Since the City's current Historic Preservation Ordinance lacks a substantive enforcement mechanism to deter or punish unlawful alterations (or demolitions) of designated historic resources, imposition of an in -lieu fee would serve this purpose.
Moreover, impo sition of the fee would further implementation of General Plan Policy LUT-8.1 (Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources) and 1 In some circumstances, restoration could be found appropriate, however. For example, had the property been located in a historic districts where its pre -alteration appearance co ntributed the districts' architectural character/theme, restoration could have served a broader goal of maintaining that architectural character/theme.
2 Staff had recommended a fee amount of $45,000, equal to the sum of an estimate provided by the City's Historic Architectural Advisor for architectural and engineering design and consulting services, and preparation of historic evaluation for the property including an update to DPR 523 form, in the amount of $28,250 and a construction cost estimate for the restoration work provided by the City's Acting Building Official in the amount of $24,840, less a 15% adjustment factor. These estimates are included as Attachment H.
10 Packet Pg. 53
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive. Page 6 of 8
Policy CNR -1.1 (Historic Resource Preservation) and their applicable supporting strategies, below, by enc ouraging the preservation of existing and potential historical resources in the community, and by maintaining the integrity of the HRI and the City's historic preservation program.
Policy LUT-8.1: Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources: Preserve, rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the community.
Strategy LUT-8.1g: Update Historic Resource Inventory : Review the City’s neighborhoods for consideration of adding significant
structures, landmarks, trees or district status to the Historic Resource inventory on a regular basis , and update the list accordingly.
Strategy LUT-8.1g: Certified Local Government Status : Attain Certified Local Government Status of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Strategy LUT-8.1h: Historic Preservation Incentives : Develop incentives to encourage p reservation and restoration including allowing the use of appropriate historic Building and Fire Codes and leniency on certain standard development requirements.
Strategy LUT-8.1i: Altering or Demolishing Historic Resources : Establish procedures, including identifying alternatives, for proposals that significantly alter or demolish historic resources.
Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation : Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible.
Strategy CNR-1.1a: Historic Resources Inventory: Maintain and update an inventory of historic resources for use in evaluating
development proposals and determining if sites or buildings are of local, State or federal significance.
HPB Action: The HPB considered the applicant's request at its March 23, 2022 meeting.
The item had been continued since January so that staff could prepare the necessary documentation for the recommended in -lieu fee. After an extensive discussion, the Board unanimously adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council remove the property from the HRI subject to a fee in-lieu of property restoration in the amount of $5,000 (reference Attachment J – Meeting Minutes).
Planning Commission Action : The appli cant's request was also heard by the Planning Commission at its May 10, 2022 meeting . The Commission generally agreed with the HPB's determination and on a 5 -1-1 vote (Kamar dissenting, Ostrowski absent) 10 Packet Pg. 54
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive. Page 7 of 8
recommended approval of the applicant's request subject to a $5,000 in -lieu fee (reference Attachment K – Meeting Minutes).
Future Code Updates : As illustrated by this example, the lack of a substantive enforcement mechanism authorized in the Campbell Municipal C ode to deter or punish unlawful alterations (or demolitions) of the City’s designated historic resources leaves them exposed to future damage. As such, staff requests that an update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance be added to the Community Developme nt Department's FY23 Work Plan. The update should include provisions to establish fines and penalties for unauthorized damage or destruction of historic resources 3 and to clarify the permitting requirements for historic properties.
Public Comment: No public correspondence on this request has been received.
FISCAL IMPACT
If approved by the City Council, the $5,000 in -lieu fee funds would deposited into a dedicated account that will be exclusively used to support the preservation of historic resources, as directed by the City Council at a future date. No other fiscal impact would result from this action.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may consider the following alternatives:
1. Reduced or No Fee : The City Council may approve the applicant's rescission request with a lowered fee or without a fee.
2. Deny the Request: If the City Council is not supportive of removing the property from the HRI, it may deny the request and compel the property owner to restore the property to its previous condition. This action would require continuance of the public hearing so that a denial resolution may be drafted for the Council's consideration.
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
3 For example, other cities, such as Pleasanton, Burlingame, and San Francisco, have had to address similar deficiencies in their codes by adopting sizable fees and other penalties to discourage unpermitted alterations or demolitions of historic resources.
10 Packet Pg. 55
Rob Eastwood, Community
Development Director
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive. Page 8 of 8
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Draft Resolution
b. Site Photos
c. DPR Form
d. City Council Report, dated 5-01-2012
e. HPB Staff Report, dated 9-22-2021
f. HPB Minutes, dated 09-22-2021
g. Mark Sandoval Report
h. Cost Estimates
i. CLG Application and Procedures - Appendix G
j. HPB Minutes, dated 03-23-2022
k. PC Minutes, dated 05-10-2022
10 Packet Pg. 56
RESOLUTION NO. ___
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL RESCINDING THE LISTING OF 705 EL PATIO DRIVE AS
A STRUCTURE OF MERIT FROM THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
HISTORIC PRESERVATION INVENTORY , SUBJECT TO PAYMENT
OF A $5,000 FEE IN-LIEU OF PROPERTY RESTORATION.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The City Council finds as follows with regar ds to the recommended approval to rescind a Structure of Merit from the Historic Resource Inventory (PLN-2021-70):
Environmental Finding:
1. This action is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for the action to have a significant effect on the environment.
Evidentiary Findings:
1. The Subject Property is located at the easterly terminus of El Patio Drive, east of Poplar Avenue.
2. The Subject Property is zoned R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District on the City of Campbell Zoning Map.
3. The Subject Property is designated Low Density Residential on the City of Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram.
4. The Subject Property is developed with a single-family residence, a designated Structure of Merit constructed in the late 1930's in the Spanish Colonial Revival Sty le, located within the Rancho Del Patio tract.
5. The Subject Property was added to the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) by the City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012 through adoption of Resolution No. 11396. In support of the decision to list the property on the HRI, the City Council found that it possessed "significant aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or value of an historical nature". As noted by the Subject Property's Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523, the property typifies Spanish Colonial Revival Style through incorporation of character-defining features, including a flat-roof, cross-gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing, steel casement windows, and stucco -covered chimneys with brick reveal.
6. The Subject Property incurred unpermitted physical alterations made by the property owner during calendar year 2020, which have been evaluated by the City's Historic Architectural Advisor in a report entitled 705 El Patio Drive, Campbell, CA – Review of Non-Permitted Alterations. The report identifies the extent of the changes as:
10.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Draft Resolution (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) City Council Resolution Page 2 of 5
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
Gone are the original three box-formed columns that once dominated the front gabled wall of the home, in addition to the deeply recessed feature casement window next to the entryway to the home. These character-defining features were unique and were not found on any of the other six homes constr ucted on El Patio at the time. In addition, it appears the property owner may have also added the stucco walls with gate openings, which separate the rear and side yards of the property from the street, along with the tile-faced and brick half-circular main entrance landing and the brick -paved walkway, as part of the same remodel.
7. Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) 21.33.0 70 (Application for an Exterior Alteration to a Historic Resource ), specifies that an application for exterior alteration to a historic resource (including, but not limited to, replacement of windows, doors, columns, porches, chimneys, roofing, or siding materials) shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Further, CMC Section 21.33.070.B.1.a (Structures of Merit) provides that any proposed alteration that alters the character -defining features of Structure of Merit shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board as a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit in accordance with the CMC Section 21.33.080 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit - Tier 1).
8. The Subject Property incurred unpermitted physical alterations without prior consideration of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit and without the benefit of a building permit.
9. The Historic Architectural Advisor's report on the unpermitted alterations concludes that the "original historic integrity of the home has been significantly diminished" and that the "city should consider removing the property at 705 El Patio Drive from the City of Campbell’s Historic Resource Inventory."
10. By diminishing the historic integrity of the Subject Property, the unpermitted alterations are inconsistent with the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines and by reference, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards . Such inconsistency would likely have required denial of the Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit and compulsion of a request for a Tier 2 Historic Resource Alteration Permit pursuant to CMC Section 21.33.090 (Historic Resource Alteration Permit - Tier 2).
11. Upon completion of the Historic Architectural Advisor's report , the Property Owner submitted a request to rescind the historic designation of the property.
12. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.33.060.D.1 (Initiation), rescinding of the property's historic designation requires the City Council, upon independent recommendations of the Historic Preservation Board and Planning Commission, to find that "based on substantial evidence and findings of fact in the record that the resource no longer has historic value with respect to the designation criteria."
13. Maintaining a property that has lost its historical integrity on the Historic Resource Inventory undermines the purpose of the list and dilutes the import of other listed properties.
14. Although possible to restore the Subject Property to its original condition, the Historic Architectural Advisor opines that " such measures will probably not ad d any additional historic value to this property, especially in light of the extensive past non -permitted building alterations to the exterior of this home and the new room addition currently
10.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Draft Resolution (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) City Council Resolution Page 3 of 5
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
proposed by the property owner. As a consequence of these collec tive building modifications to this small home the original historic integrity of the home has been significantly diminished."
15. Removing the Subject Property from the Historic Resource Inventory due to unpermitted alterations that otherwise would not have been approved is inconsistent General Plan Goal LUT-8 (Preservation of historic buildings, districts and cultural resources ), and its supporting policy and strategies and with the intent and purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance , as specified in CMC Section 21.33.010.B (Purpose), by hindering the City's ability preserve culturally and historically significant resources and fulfilling its responsibility, as a certified local government, to enfor ce state and local legislation for the designation and protection of historic resources.
16. In furtherance of the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the City's Certified Local Government status, approval of the rescission request is subjec t to payment of fee in-lieu of restoration of the Subject Property to its previous condition. This fee is imposed pursuant to the following findings:
a. The purpose of the in -lieu fee is to provide funds for the maintenance, restoration and preservation of historic resources in the City of Campbell. b. The in-lieu fee will be deposited in separate account that will be exclusively used to support the preserv ation of historic resources with in the City of Campbell as directed by the City Council , including but not limited to, preparation of h istoric evaluation report s for evaluation of eligible resources for formal listing on the Historic Resource Inventory , di stribution of monetary grants to restore historic structures, an update to the City of Campbell Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Buildings , and/or an update and expansion of the City's Mills Act Historical Property Contract Program.
c. There is a reasonable relationship between the in-lieu fee's use and the request for the Subject Property to be removed from the Historic Resource Inventory in that the funding would further General Plan Policy LUT -8.1 (Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Di stricts and Cultural Resources) and Policy CNR -1.1 ( Historic Resource Preservation ) and their applicable supporting strategies, below, by encouraging the preservation of existing and potential historical resources in the community, and by maintaining the integrity of the HRI and the City's historic preservation program.
Policy LUT-8.1: Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources:
Preserve, rehabilitate or restore the City’s historic buildings, landmarks, districts and cultural resources and retain the architectural integrity of established building patterns within historic residential neighborhoods to preserve the cultural heritage of the community.
Strategy LUT-8.1g: Update Historic Resource Inventory: Review the City’s neighborhoods for consideration of adding significant structures, landmarks, trees or district status to the Historic Resource inventory on a regular basis, and update the list accordingly.
Strategy LUT-8.1g: Certified Local Government Status: Attain Certified Local Government Status of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
10.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Draft Resolution (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) City Council Resolution Page 4 of 5
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
Strategy LUT-8.1h: Historic Preservation Incentives : Develop incentives to encourage preservation and restoration including allowing the use of appropriate historic Building a nd Fire Codes and leniency on certain standard development requirements.
Strategy LUT-8.1i: Altering or Demolishing Historic Resources : Establish procedures, including identifying alternatives, for proposals that significantly alter or demolish historic resources.
Policy CNR-1.1: Historic Resource Preservation : Ensure that the City and its citizens preserve historic resources as much as possible.
Strategy CNR-1.1a: Historic Resources Inventory : Maintain and update an inventory of historic resources for use in evaluating development proposals and determining if sites or buildings are of local, State or federal significance.
d. Furthermore, the imposition of the in-lieu fee would be in support of the City's obligations to the Certified Local Government Program. As provided in Appendix G of the Certified Local Government Application and Procedures , August 1999 , the City is obligated to "Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties," including " adopt[ing] local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to enforce the designation and protection of historic and archeological resources. " Since the City's current Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.33) lacks a substantive enforcement mechanism to deter or punish unlaw ful alterations (or demolitions) of designated historic resources, imposition of an in -lieu fee would serve this purpose until such time the deficiency may be remedied.
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the rescission request on which the fee is imposed in that the amount of this fee ($ 5,000) is less than a conservative approximation of the cost to restore the Subject Property to its previous condition. More specifically, the fee amount is less than the sum of an estimate provided by the City's Historic Architectural Advisor for architectural and engineering design and consulting services, and preparation of historic evaluation for the property including an update to DP R 523 form, in the amount of $28,250 and a construction cost estimate for the restoration work provided by the City's Acting Building Official in the amount of $24,840.
17. The City Council has considered all evidence in the record and verbal testimony.
18. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the request, as currently presented will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
19. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the request.
20. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the request to rescind the listing of the Subject Property as a Structure of Merit from the Historic Resource Inventory, as currently presented and subject to the required Conditions of Approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
10.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Draft Resolution (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) City Council Resolution Page 5 of 5
PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, and subject to the conditions of approval, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
1. The resource is not associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history or cultural heritage;
1. The resource is not associated with the lives of persons important to our history;
2. The resource does not yield information important to our prehistory or history;
3. The resource does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction;
4. The resource does not represent the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer, or builder;
5. The resource does not possess significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood, community, or city; and
6. Rescinding the resource from the Historic Resource Inventory, is consistent with the General Plan, as conditioned upon payment of a fee in-lieu of property restoration.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council rescinds the historic designation of a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive , subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit "A").
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
APPROVED:
________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Andrea Sanders, Interim City Clerk
10.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Draft Resolution (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLN-2021-70
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. Approved Request: Approval is granted for the request to rescind the listing of 705 El Patio Drive as a Structure of Merit from the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), subject to these Conditions of Approval.
2. Effectiveness of Approval: The approval to rescind the historic designation of the above referenced property shall only be effect upon payment of a fee in -lieu of property restoration as identified by Condition of Approval No. 3.
3. Required In-Lieu Fee: This approval is subject to payment of a fee in-lieu of property restoration in the amount of $5,000. The funds from this fee and all earnings from its investment shall be expended exclusively in support of the City of Campbell's historic preservation program as directed by the City Council.
4. Timing of Payment: Payment of the in-lieu fee shall be made within ninety (90) days of the City Council action. Failure to pay the fee shall render this approval void and result in recommencement of enforcement action by the City for violations of the Campbell Municipal Code related to the unpermitted alterations to the subject property.
5. Form of Payment: Payment of the fee in-lieu shall be in conjunction with and subject to an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney waiving any right to challenge the validity of the fee pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000 et seq.).
10.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Draft Resolution (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
10.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Site Photos (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. Cou nty Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5 ' Quad Date T; R ; ¼
of ¼ of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address 705 El Patio City Campbell Zip 95008
d. UTM: (G ive more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Loc ational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN: 279-45-003
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Designed i
n the Spanish Colonial Revival Style popular in the 1930’s, this single family residence sits between the entrance to a condominium complex and Los Gatos Creek at the terminus of El Patio Drive. One story in height and primarily flat topped it has a parapet with tile coping surrounding built- up roofing. Cross -gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing rise at the front and provide the character defining look to the structure. The walls are of stucco with a large trowel handcrafted pattern. A recessed entryway is set between molded columns that appear embedded into the front façade, a detail not typical to the style. The windows are steel casement set without trim into the stucco surface. Two stucco-covered chimneys rise above the roof near the front of the building with brick revealed near the top that then rises from two sides into arches.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present:
Building Structure Object
Site District Element
of District Other
(Isolates, etc.)
P5b.Description of Photo: (view,
date, accession #) Front
Façade, 07/24/07
*P6. Date Co
nstructed/Age
and Source:
Historic Prehistoric
Both
Late 1930’s
*P7. Owner and Address:
Karen F. Shore
244 Bonita Rd.
Portola Valley, CA 94028
*P8. Recorded
by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Leslie A.G. Dill Architect
110 N. Santa Cruz Ave.,
Los Gatos, CA 95030
*P9. Date Recorded: 4/1999
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Inventory Update
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") 1977-7 8 Survey.
*Attachm
ents: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Sta tus Code
Other Li stings
Review C ode Reviewer Date
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for
buildings, structures, and objects.)
10.c
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: DPR Form (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP St atus Code
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name:
B3. Original Use: Single-Family Home B4. Present Use: Same *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Style *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built
, late 1930’s
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: b. Builder:
*B10. Significance: Theme Architecture Area
Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
In Januar
y, 1931, the subdivision map for Tract No.2, Rancho del Patio was drawn by civil engineer R. W. Fisher, This became a California Spanish Revival Style subdivision with a total of 7 houses built under the supervision of B.J. Smith on El Patio. His son -in-law, Charles Lynds, painted 5 of the houses inside and out.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
See P
11 B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: See P8
*Date of Evaluation: See P9
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
5 10.c
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: DPR Form (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) o~ . Ci\Jt~
tJ ~
o 0
OltCHA.\\.\J
City
Council
Report
Item:
Category:
Meeting Date:
15. Public Hearing
May 1, 2012
TITLE: Public Hearing to consider a City initiated application to designate three properties as Historic Resource Inventory Properties ( PLN2012- 63).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution, designating 649 EI Patio Drive, 705 EI Patio Drive, and 58 S. Third Street as Historic Resource Inventory properties.
BACKGROUND
When a property is listed on the Historic Resource Inventory ( HRI), it joins a select group of other historic properties, all of which exhibit a degree of local significance. A listing on the HRI identifies structures that contribute to the character of a neighborhood, that help define the City' s past, and that foster increased connections to Campbell' s cultural and historical heritage. Currently 214 properties have been surveyed and have been placed in one of three levels of historic designation:
1. Landmark Properties: There are 55 properties designated as Landmark properties.
This designation identifies properties that the City Council has determined having a special aesthetic, architectural, cultural, engineering, or historical value or interest.
Landmark designation includes specific properties, such as the Ainsley House and the Campbell Community Center, and those properties located within the Alice Avenue Historic District.
2. Properties listed on the Historic Resources Inventory: There are 84 properties on the City Council approved inventory of buildings and structures. These are properties found significant to the City of Campbell' s history, architecture, archaeology and culture but not designated as Landmark Properties or found within a designated Historic District.
3. Potential Additions to the Historic Resource Inventory List: There are currently 75 properties identified by the Historic Preservation Board as potential additions to the Historic Resource Inventory. These properties have been identified as being potentially significant to the City of Campbell's history, architecture, archeology, and culture, but have not been approved by the City Council for designation as either a Landmark Property or a HRI property. They are simply a group of surveyed properties that could potentially be added.
10.d
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: City Council Report, dated 5-01-2012 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
10.d
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: City Council Report, dated 5-01-2012 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) City Council Report - May 1, 2012
Historic Resource Inventory Designation
questions regarding historic resource designation. After receiving input from seven of the property owners, the HPB scheduled a public hearing to continue the designation process. On March 28, 2012, the HPB held a public hearing to determine which of the 13 property owners support HRI designation. Two property owners, 649 EI Patio Drive and 58 S. Third Street, had previously expressed their support and continued participation. The property owners of 705 EI Patio Drive were supportive of bringing their property to the Planning Commission for recommendation as long as they are able to withdraw their property from consideration pending their additional research reference Attachments 2 & 3, Location Maps & Historic Surveys). As the HPB has expressed its desire to only bring forward those property owners of the first 13 who support inclusion, the Board adopted a Resolution recommending HRI designation for 649 EI Patio, 705 EI Patio, and 58 S. Third Street, with the understanding that the property owners of 705 EI Patio may withdraw their property from consideration with the full support of the Board.
Planninq Commission Public Hearinq: The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed project at their meeting of April 10, 2012. The Planning Commission considered the HPB' s evaluation of each of the identified properties against the criteria set forth in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In summary, the HPB found that the three properties still under consideration met the following required criteria:
1. 649 EI Patio Drive was found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 3a, and 3b.
2. 705 EI Patio Drive was also found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 3a, and 3b.
3. 58 S. Third Street was found to meet criteria 1 a, 1 c, 3a, and 3b.
The attached meeting minutes reveal that the Planning Commission questioned if any additional restrictions would be placed on historic resource designated properties. Staff explained that historic resource designation may subject a property to a more detailed design review process consistent with the City' s adopted historic residential design guidelines and the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic structures.
If an owner of an historic resource complies with the adopted design guidelines and standards, project review would be consistent with that of a property not designated as a historic resource. After discussion, the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the Historic Preservation Board' s evaluation of the three residential properties whose owners desire designation was appropriate and supportable.
Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission voted 5- 0 ( two Commissioners absent) to recommend that the City Council designate 649 EI Patio Drive, 705 EI Patio Drive, and 85 S. Third Street as Historic Resource Inventory properties( reference Attachment 4, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes).
Evaluation of Outreach Process: The strategy for bringing forward the 75 properties on the " Potential" list was to create a process that would allow property owners to voluntarily place their structures on the HRI. This process would involve outreach to
10.d
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: City Council Report, dated 5-01-2012 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
10.d
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: City Council Report, dated 5-01-2012 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
10.d
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: City Council Report, dated 5-01-2012 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Item No. 2
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Staff Report ∙ SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
PLN-2021-160
Key, N.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicholas Key for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN -2021-160) to allow the construction of an approximately 525 square-foot rear addition to a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive in the R -1-6 (Single -family Residential) Zoning District. (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) S
TAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Historic Preservation Board take the following action:
1. A
dopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), recommending approval of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit ( PLN-2021-160) and finding the project Categorically Exempt under Sections 15303 and 15331 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
P
ROJECT DATA
Proposed Requirement
Zoning Designation: R-1-6 (Single- Family) N/A
General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential N/A
Net Lot Area: 13,945 square-feet 6,000 sq. ft. (Min.)
Density: 5.2 units/gr. acre 6 units/gr. acre. (Max.)
Building Height: 14 feet (addition) 35 feet (Min.)
Building Square Footage:
E xisting Living Area: 1,055 square feet
P roposed New Area: 523 square feet
1, 578 square feet (Total House Size)
E
xisting Front Porch: 14 square feet
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): .11 (1,578 sq. ft) .45 (6,275 sq. ft.) (Max.) Building (Lot) Coverage: 11% (1,592 sq. ft.) 40% (5,578 sq. ft.) (Max.) Parking: N/A (non-conforming) 2 spaces (Min. Required) Setbacks:
Front (south): 21 ½ feet 20 feet
Interior Side (east): 29 ½ feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height Street Side (west): 13 ¼ feet 12 feet
Rear (north): 103 feet 5 feet or ½ the wall height
10.e
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: HPB Staff Report, dated 9-22-2021 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Site: The project site is located at the easterly terminus of El Patio Drive , east of Poplar Avenue. The property is bordered by single- family residences to the east and townhomes to the north, as shown on the aerial map, below:
T
he property is developed with a single-family residence, recognized as a Structure of Merit constructed in the late 1930's in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style (reference Attachment 2 – Site Photographs). According to the City's DPR (Department of Parks and Recreation) form, this home was one of several constructed in this architectural style built within the Rancho del Patio subdivision during the 1930's under the supervision of B.J. Smith (reference Attachment 3). The existing residence is slightly over 1,000 square-feet incorporating two bedrooms, a kitchen, living room, and small dining area.
Background: The property was added to the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), along with 649 El Patio and 58 S. Third Street, by the City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012. The property's designation occurred after extensive public outreach and review by both the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning Commission as noted in the City Council staff report (reference Attachment 4). In including the property on the HRI, the Council found that it possessed "significant aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or value of an historical nature". As noted by the DPR form, the property exemplifies Spanish Colonial Revival Style through incorporation of character-defining features, including a flat-roof, cross-gabled roofs with Spanish tile roofing, steel casement windows, and stucco-covered chimneys with brick reveal.
Proposal: The application for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit would permit construction of 523 square-foot addition to the structure. The addition would allow for an expanded living area, an additional bedroom, and expanded master bedroom. As shown the submitted project plans, the proposed addition would be located to the rear of the structure ( reference Attachment 5).
ANALYSIS
Environmental Determination: Construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence is considered Categorically Exempt Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Further, projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration,
10.e
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: HPB Staff Report, dated 9-22-2021 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources are also Categorically Exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 if the project is found consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties . Lastly, there are no unusual circumstances, as defined by Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines , that would prevent the project from qualifying as Categorically Exempt.
Administrative Procedure: Pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.33.070.B, a proposed exterior alteration or material change to a Structure of Merit may be considered through either an "expedited" building permit review or referred to the Historic Preservation Board for review of a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit. Referral to the Board is warranted when a proposal may alter the "character-defining features" of the structure. The Community Development Director has determined that a substantial addition, such as the 523 square foot addition proposed by this application, warrants a referral to the Board. The Board’s recommendation to approve or deny the Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit applies to staff's review of a Zoning Clearance necessary to formally authorize to deny the proposed work.
Findings for Approval: In order to recommend approval of the Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit, the Board must affirmatively determine the project meets findings for approval. Findings establish the evidentiary basis for a City's decision to grant or deny a land use approval and to impose conditions of approval necessary to meet the findings. The following identifies each of the applicable findings in italics followed by staff's analysis of the consistency of the proposed project.
Please note that an Historic Evaluation Report was not required for this project since staff believed that the findings for approval could be affirmatively determined without one. However, the Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC Sec. 21.33.070.A.2.) does allow the City to require such a report if the Board believes that additional review is warranted to support a recommendation.
1. The proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code;
The project site is located in the R -1-6 (Single- family Residential) Zoning District. As indicated under 'Project Data', the proposed addition conforms to applicable development standards specified by the Zoning Code. Although the property does not have any on- site parking, expansion of a single -family residence does not require construction of a garage or carport.
2. The proposed action is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, including, but not limited to, the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings; The Design Guidelines indicate that additions "should respect the significant character - defining features that are found in the building’s architectural style" and " maintain a compatible relationship with the rest of the home in size, scale, use of materials , craftsmanship, and overall visual appearance." The proposed addition satisf ies these requirements by incorporating building forms, feature s, and materials comparable to the existing residence. Specifically, the use of a flat roof extends a fundamental component of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style to the addition. New materials, including a painted wood door and new metal windows with black anodized frames and grids would also maintain design consistency with the home's architectural style.
10.e
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: HPB Staff Report, dated 9-22-2021 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
3. The proposed action will not have a significant impact on the aesthetic, architectural, cultural, or engineering interest or historical value of the historic resource or district; and The design and placement of the proposed addition has been carefully planned so as to maintain the historic integrity of the resource, which is accomplished my avoiding alteration to the front façade.
4. The proposed action is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as follows:
a. The proposed action will preserve and retain the historic character of the historic resource and will be compatible with the existing historic features, size, massing, scale and proportion, and materials.
The proposed addition incorporates a flat roof consistent with the design expression of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style. Although the addition would be slightly taller than the existing structure, as discussed below, it is still a single -story addition and the difference in height is not of a degree that would re nder the addition incompatible in terms size, scale, massing, or proportion.
b. The proposed action will, to the greatest extent possible, avoid removal or significant alteration of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and spatial relati onships that characterize the historic resource.
Other that the walls affected by the addition, the proposed project would not result in the removal of integral features of the historic resource. c. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced to the greatest extent possible.
There are no deteriorated features that would be modified by the proposed project. d. New additions will be differentiated from the historic resource and will be constructed such that the essential form and integrit y of the historic resource shall be protected if the addition is removed in the future.
The proposed addition would be differentiated from the existing residence through an increase building height that would clearly differentiate the new area from the existing residence such that there would no question as to what constitutes the original house .
This approach maintains essential form and integrity of the historic resource while allowing the home to utilize a consistent material (stucco) across the entiret y of the structure. The Board recently recommended approval of an addition to a home on Alice Avenue using this similar approach.
10.e
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: HPB Staff Report, dated 9-22-2021 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Staff Report – Historic Preservation Board Meeting of September 22, 2021 Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-160 ~ 705 El Patio Dr.
Public Comment: No public comment was received on this application.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Site Photographs
3. DPR Form
4. City Council Staff Report, dated May 2, 2012
5. Project Plans
P
repared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
A
pproved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
10.e
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: HPB Staff Report, dated 9-22-2021 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 22, 2021 (Regular Meeting) P age 2 ***
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 705 El Patio Dr. – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicholas Key for a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN -2021-160) to allow the construction of an approximately 525 square-foot rear addition to a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive in the R -1-6 (Single- family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Planner Daniel Fama provided the staff report as follows:
• Reported that the application/owner of 705 El Patio Drive re-stuccoes this structure, work that would have required a permit. There were other alterations done. • Advised that staff has consulted with Mark Sandoval and spoke with the applicant. • Said that a quote has been received for the evaluation to be done by Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Key will provide a deposit to cover the expense of that review and report. • Added that staff will be working with Mr. Key on what the next steps will be. • Suggested that Chair Foulkes open the public hearing and allow anyone to speak to this item.
• Advised that the project architect, Mr. Nelson, is here.
C
hair Foulkes opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
C
hair Foulkes closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
V
ice Chair Walter said that this applicant had been asked to use materials that are different in order to differentiate the original house from the addition. This is too much alike.
10.f
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: HPB Minutes, dated 09-22-2021 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Historic Preservation Board Minutes for September 22, 2021 (Regular Meeting) P age 3 Planner Daniel Fama suggested that discussion be tabled for when this matter is brought back to the Board. He added that it is the Board’s purview to conclude on that requirement to differentiate the materials.
C
hair Foulkes:
• Said that the Board will have to see how we see this lack of differentiation. We have seen enough examples to this point.
• Pointed out that different cities do it (differing materials between original and additions) in different ways.
• Added that it is on a project -by-project basis now. The Board will share its views on what’s best and what’s discretionary.
P
lanner Daniel Fama suggested the scheduling of a study session to discuss.
M
otion: Upon motion of Member Blake, seconded by Member Moore the Historic Preservation Board CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN the consideration of a Tier -1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit (PLN - 2021-160) to allow the construction of an approximately 525 square - foot rear addition to a Structure of Merit located at 705 El Patio Drive, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Blake, Foulkes, Moore, and Walter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
10.f
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: HPB Minutes, dated 09-22-2021 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
CAMPBELL, CA
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED
FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
Prepared For:
CITY CAMPBELL PLANNING DIVISION
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
R
evised Draft Date: 11/5/21
10.g
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 1
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
T
he owner of the property located at 705 El Patio Drive is seeking to renovate their existing single-story 1,055.4-square-foot home and add a 529.5-square-foot addition to it. The home is listed on the City of Campbell Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Structures of Merit (2021HRI) as part of the El Patio California Mission Revival District. During the initial review of this project, it became apparent that significant alterations to the front of the home had been performed without securing a building permit. These changes to the façade of the original home greatly changed the appearance of the home as viewed in an earlier photograph prepared for the 1977–78 Historic Resource Survey DPR523A Form by Leslie A.G. Dill Architect.
As
a consequence, the City of Campbell Planning Department asked me to make a recommendation based on answering the following questions:
1. W
ould it be feasible to reconstruct the original historic appearance of the home by removing all traces of the non-permitted façade work?
2. If
it were possible to return the front of the home to its original appearance, would this, along with the proposed new room addition to the rear of the home and other alterations as illustrated in the drawings prepared by Detail Ink dated August 4, 2021 (consisting of 6 pages), still leave this historic resource eligible to remain on the City of Campbell’s Historic Resource Inventory? T
o answer the above questions, one must determine if this home at 705 El Patio Drive merits being listed on the Historic Resource Inventory, assuming the past non-permitted alterations had not been performed and enough historic homes remained along El Patio Drive to qualify as a potential historic district that this property had once been associated with.
H
ISTORY OF RANCHO DEL PATIO TRACT NO. 2
I
n 1882, Francis Marion Righter purchased 10 ½ acres that extended east of the railroad tracks to the Los Gatos Creek. Righter built a house and planted an apricot orchard. The original Righter house was destroyed by fire in 1896 and replaced with the present house at 599 El Patio Drive, a city landmark built by George Whitney.
10.g
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 2
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
F. M. Righter died on April 19, 1929. The following year, on April 9, 1930, the San Jose Evening News reported that building contractor Bert J. Smith of San Jose had purchased the Righter property. Smith subdivided the 10 ½ acres into 19 house lots and recorded the Rancho Del Patio Tract No. 2 on February 17, 1931 (Santa Clara County Recorded Maps [SCC] Book Y Page 26). The Righter house sits on the two-acre Lot 19. Most of the remaining lots were about one-third of an acre. The San Jose Mercury on May 17, 1931, reported that B. J. Smith had “opened a new subdivision on the Righter tract, adjoining the Ainslee cannery, where five homes are under way.” The houses were built in a Mission Revival style.
T
he location of the first six houses of the Rancho Del Patio tract, all built in 1931, are documented in completion notices published in the San Jose newspapers and in the Building and Engineering News of San Francisco:
Lot Current Address Date Owner Source
2 598 El Patio Drive February 13, 1932 Z Hodges SJ News, 2/27/1932
3 616 El Patio Drive October 28, 1931 Walter W Sides BEN, 11/7/1931 11* 677 El Patio Drive December 11, 1931 B F Harrison BEN, 12/26/1931 13 705 El Patio Drive December 18, 1931 Raymond R.
Allison
BEN, 12/26/1931
16 661 El Patio Drive December 7, 1931 Lloyd W. Hitchman BEN, 12/12/1931
10.g
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 3
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
17 649 El Patio Drive December 7, 1931 John P Morley BEN, 12/12/1931
*The Lot 11 number could be a typographical error. More likely the house was on Lot 15, now 677 El Patio Drive.
These six houses, plus the Righter House and the house at 197 Poplar Avenue (built on portions of lots 6 and 7), were the only houses enumerated on El Patio Drive in the 1940 census. The Ainsley cannery land to the south of El Patio Drive was subdivided into house lots in 1945 (SCC Recorded Maps Book 7 Page 54). Portions of Lot 8 were repurposed as Poplar Avenue to connect the new subdivision to El Patio Drive. Reverse street address listings in the 1968 San Jose suburban city directory and an aerial photo taken on May 9, 1968, show that only 12 houses had been built in the subdivision by 1968:
The vacant land to the north of the Rancho Del Patio subdivision was developed as the Pruneyards Villas condominium complex in 1979 (SCC Recorded Maps Book 417 Page 36). As housing density increased in the surrounding neighborhoods, the large lots of the Rancho Del Patio tract were resubdivided between 1980 and 2015, as shown on the County Surveyor Record Index (sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com). Recorded tract maps are labeled in pink text:
10.g
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 4
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
The six original Mission Revival bungalows of Rancho del Patio now make up a small fraction of the 29 single-family residences on El Patio Drive and on the two streets converted from original subdivision lots, El Patio Court and Poplar Avenue. Of those original bungalows, 598, 661 and 677 El Patio were either demolished or so extensively remodeled that their integrity has been completely lost.
The houses at 616, 649, and 705 El Patio still retain some integrity, but all have been altered to a greater or lesser extent.
The housing stock along El Patio Drive does not represent one historic time period or style; instead, it is a collection of houses built between 1890s and the 2010s. The three remaining Mission Revival houses built by Bert J. Smith in 1931 represent only a dim reminder of the intention of the builder to create a subdivision of houses in a Spanish-influenced style appropriate for the Rancho Del Patio name. The El Patio Drive does not meet the Criteria A/1 standards to qualify as a potential historic district. The individual houses now on the city’s historic resource inventory, 616, 649, and 705 El Patio Drive should be evaluated on their own merits as representative examples of Mission Revival architecture with sufficient integrity to their 1931 date of construction.
10.g
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 5
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are common sense historic preservation principles in non-technical language. They promote historic preservation best practices that will help to protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resource These Standards offer a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions and making alterations. The Guidelines, on the other hand, offer general design and technical recommendations to assist in applying the Standards to a specific property. Together, they provide a framework and guidance for decision-making about alterations and/or changes that are to be made to historic properties. As noted in these Standards, reconstruction of a historical resource is a permitted means and tool used in historic preservation. Reconstruction is defined as, “the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. ʺ
When reconstruction is used as a justifiable treatment and a means to preserve—by recreating missing components or features on a historical building, when no other property with the same associative value in an historic district has survived, and when there is sufficient historical documentation available to ensure an accurate reproduction or depiction of that missing component or feature, then reconstruction may be considered as a preservation treatment.
STANDARDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION
These Standards will be applied when taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that interprets the property and its restoration period.
2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken.
10.g
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 6
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research.
4. M
aterials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal.
5. Di
stinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved.
6. De
teriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
7. R
eplacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically.
8. C
hemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
9. A
rcheological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
10. De
signs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.
DESCRIPTION OF NON-PERMITTED ALTERATIONS
The home at 705 El Patio Drive is designed in the Mission Revival Style that was extremely popular in the 1930s. It is a small one-story building and is clad in textured stucco with a flat-topped parapet roof along the sides and a cross-gabled roof with a Spanish tile roof at
10.g
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 7
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
the front of the building. The entrance to the home is accessed from the driveway by a straight brick-paved narrow walk that terminates at a half-circular tile-and-brick entrance landing with steps that is placed beneath a recessed shallow arch entryway. At either side of the door, decorative wrought iron wall-mounted light fixtures are placed. To the right of the recessed doorway, a new rectangular divided lite mulled window is placed flush with the outside front wall of the building—replacing the original recessed putty glazed steel tripartite window (fixed center panel with casements attached on either side) as seen in the earlier photograph of the home. To the left of this entrance, the original clad fireplace chimney with the Moorish-influenced double-arched brick chimney cap stands. The original hand-tooled heavy-textured stucco surface finish appears to have been removed in favor of a lighter troweled texture finish that seems to have been applied over the entire exterior of the home as part of the owner’s non-permitted remodel.
Beyond this feature, the façade wall continues a short distance until it terminates at the east corner edge of the building. Positioned in the center of this wall is a new divided lite single-hung rectangular window that has been substituted for the original putty glazed steel casement window that once occupied this opening.
In comparing the earlier photograph of the home that appears on the DPR Form with what is viewed from the street today, it appears as if they are two completely different structures. Gone are the original three box-formed columns that once dominated the front gabled wall of the home, in addition to the deeply recessed feature casement window next to the entryway to the home. These character-defining features were unique and were not found on any of the other six homes constructed on El Patio at the time. In addition, it appears the property owner may have also added the stucco walls with gate openings, which separate the rear and side yards of the property from the street, along with the tile-faced and brick half-circular main entrance landing and the brick-paved walkway, as part of the same remodel.
RECOMMENDATION
The reconstruction of the primary street façade of the home located at 705 El Patio Drive certainly can be achieved; however, to do so successfully will require both the financial resources and the unconditional dedication to properly execute this work in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Regardless of these efforts, it is my opinion that such measures will probably not add any additional historic value to this property, especially in light of the extensive past non-permitted building alterations to the exterior of this home and the new room addition currently proposed by the property owner. As a consequence of these collective building modifications to this small home the original historic integrity of the home has been significantly diminished. The National Register criteria recognize seven aspects to integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain
10.g
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 8
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITTED FAÇADE ALTERATIONS
historic integrity, a property must always possess most of the above aspects including its association with a residential neighborhood or historic district. If the property has lost this integrity, it can no longer convey the reason for its historic significance. Therefore it is my opinion that the city should consider removing the property at 705 El Patio Drive from the City of Campbell’s Historic Resource Inventory.
Q
UALIFICATIONS
MARK SANDOVAL, AIA, meets the professional qualification requirement for both Architect and Historic Architect used by the National Park Service and as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61; has been licensed to practice in the State of California since 1993; and is registered as Public Works Contractor with State of California Department of Public Relations. He is a Professional Member of the American Institute of Architects and has served as a past member of the Board of Directors for the Santa Clara Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Mark has served on the Planning Commission for the City of Larkspur, the Historic Preservation Board for the City of Campbell, and the Historical Commission for the City of Los Altos. He has also had the privilege to lecture before a number of undergraduate classes offered by the Urban Studies Program Department at Stanford University as a guest speaker.
M
r. Sandoval also has extensive experience in repurposing historical buildings and utilizes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the State of California’s Historic Building Code, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the performance of all historic preservation-related projects. Clients include the City of Los Altos, City of Belvedere, City of Capitola, City of Campbell, City of Mountain View, and Redevelopment Agency of the City of San José, in addition to private groups and organizations such as the Los Altos Community Foundation, the Los Altos History Museum, the Farrington Foundation, and the Community of Rossmoor at Walnut Creek.
B
ONNIE MONTGOMERY, is Cultural Resource Historical Consultant and has a M.A., from San Jose State University, Department of History. Specialization in American history. Phi Alpha Theta history honor society and a M.A., University of Maryland at College Park, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences. Awarded teaching and research assistantships. Certified and licensed as a speech- language pathologist, 1990–1994. She also has a B.A., Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, Department of Modern Languages, Literature, and Linguistics. Major in linguistics, concentrated studies in French and Japanese. Graduated summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa.
10.g
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 705 EL PATIO DRIVE
Campbell, CA
M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.
Date 11/5/21
Page: 9
REVIEW OF NON-PERMITED FAÇADE ALTERANTIONS
Bonnie has extensive experience in researching and writing historical context statements and property histories and in preparing DPR523 forms and assist in preparing HABS documentation and National Register applications. She has also been responsible for preparing city historical landmark nominations and Mills Act applications.
R
EFERENCES
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, rev. 1990.
Th
e Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. (Authors: W.
Brown Morton, III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl. Project Directors: Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Online at www.nps.gov/tps/.
P
reservation Brief 14, New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns. (Authors: Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D.
Weeks) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Online at www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior-additions.
10.g
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Mark Sandoval Report (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Project
Location 705 El Patio
Job Desc Historic Architectural Replacement
Date 2/14/2022 Pg of
Qty Item/Description Matr'l Labor Sub-Con Final
200 yds Remove and replace stucco 12000 12000
same amount to remodel existing stucco 0
Re-Frame columns 400 600 1000
Window treatments and embelishments 300 300 600
4 Steel putty-base or Wood sidelite windows 2500 600 3100 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Construction Total 3200 1500 12000 16700
Drawings, Specefications, Copies 100
Engineering
Drafting 1000
Pln'g- Plan Check, Permit Fees 500
Bldg- Plan Check, Permit Fees 1500
Utility Fees (Water/Elect) By Owner
Trash & Debris Removal 1200
Portable Restroom 300
Fencing and Gates 0
Inspections 200
Total Site Development 4800
Overhead, Mngm,nt, Insurance 12% 2004
Builder's Profit 8% 1336
Total Materials, Labor, Mngm'nt, Site Dev, O&P 24840
10.h
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Cost Estimates (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) 1 Daniel Fama
From: M. Sandoval Architects, Inc. <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Daniel Fama
Subject: Re: 705 El Patio Follow-up
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Daniel,
I'm guessing the total would be something in the nature of $28,250. This sum would include the following:
Full architectural and engineering design and consulting services including estimated expenses in the amount of approximately $24,750; and
Preparing a new historic evaluation for the property including the updating of the current DPR forms in the amount of $3,500.
The above budget numbers are rough, and would not included any design work or construction support services for the owner's new proposed room addition, only as the new construction work may relate to its interfacing with the historical aspects of the existing building's character defining features and surfaces.
I hope the above estimate is helpful to you.
Warm regards,
M
ark Sandoval, AIA
10.h
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Cost Estimates (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
Requirements
(Excerpt from Appendix G, Certified Local Government Application and Procedures, August 1999, pp 41-47.)
Local governments may be certified to participate in the CLG program by complying with the
following requirements:
I Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties:
A. State enabling legislation provides for local jurisdictions to enact appropriate historic preservation
legislation. California Government Code Sections
65850, 25373, and 37361 enable city and county legislative bodies to provide for “the protection, enhancement; perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value.” B. Local governments must adopt local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to
enforce the designation and protection of historic and
archeological resources.
C. The local legislation shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470).
D. The CLG will adopt a historic preservation plan or a historic preservation element for
the local jurisdiction's General Plan, as authorized by the California Government Code, prior to or upon applying for a CLG grant.
E. The CLG commission will participate in the environmental review of specific federally sponsored
projects, such as community development programs
involving HUD Block Grant funds unless it is determined by OHP that the necessary expertise is not available to the local government. The CLG will establish programmatic agreements with the state agreeing to ensure compliance with Section 106 provisions of the NHPA.
F. The CLG commission will participate in the environment review of local projects in
accordance with the requirements under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commission may review and comment on permit actions affecting significant listed historic properties and other resources eligible for listing, in accordance with local ordinance requirements and with CEQA. Procedural guidelines should include standards for demolition stays, design review criteria, anti-neglect requirements, and appeal strategies.
II Establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by local law:
A. The commission shall include a minimum membership of five (5) individuals with all
members having demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation.
B. At least two (2) Commission members are encouraged to be appointed from among professionals
in the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural
10.i
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: CLG Application and Procedures - Appendix G (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
history, planning, pre-historic and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, and landscape architecture or related disciplines, such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization, or cultural geography, to the extent that such professionals are available in the community. Commission membership may also include lay members who have demonstrated special interests, competence, experience, or knowledge in historic preservation.
C. A local government may be certified without the minimum number or types of disciplines established in state procedures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the state that it has made a reasonable effort to fill those positions, or that some alternative composition of the commission best meets the needs of the protection of historic properties in the local community.
D. Commission members shall be appointed by the chief elected local official, city council, or board of supervisors consistent with the provisions of the preservation ordinance. The appointing authority shall make interim appointments to fill unexpired terms in the event of vacancies occurring during the term of members of the commission. The appointing authority shall also act within sixty (60) days to fill a vacancy. Terms of office of the commission members shall be according to the local preservation ordinance.
E. The commission shall meet at least four times a year, with meetings held in a public place, advertised in advance, and open to the public, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Secti on 54950 et seq.) for open meetings.
Written minutes of commission meetings shall be kept on file, available for public inspection, and submitted to the state as a part of the CLG Annual Report.
F. Each commission member is required to attend at least one informational or educational meeting, seminar, workshop, or conference per year that pertains directly to the work and functions of the commission and would be approvable by the state. The CLG Regional Workshops sponsored by the OHP are important sources of information. The annual State Historic Preservation Conference generally provides special sessions devoted to the issues, objectives, and responsibilities of commissions. Commissions may also bring in professionals to provide training on site.
G. An annual report of the activities of the commission shall be submitted to the state at the end of each calendar year. The reports shall include, but not be limited to, such information as narrative summary of accomplishments, summaries of new and corrected survey activities, number of properties designated under local ordinance in relation to inventory for community, summaries of National Register applications reviewed, summaries of historical contexts prepared, number of federal tax certifications reviewed, number of properties on which design review was held, number of properties on which environmental project reviews were conducted, property owners of Mills Act contracts approved, summarization of local preservation activities, list of local landmark designations, description of public education activities, lists of commission members and resumes, list of staff and resumes, detailed listing of commission and staff training received, commission attendance 2 10.i
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: CLG Application and Procedures - Appendix G (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
records, summary of changes in preservation laws, summary of adoption or updates of historic preservation plan or historic preservation element of your community's General Plan, commission meeting minutes and agendas, and other pertinent activities performed by the commission.
III Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties:
The CLG shall be responsible for organizing, developing, and administering an inventory of cultural resources within the entire spatial jurisdiction of the CLG.
A. The commission shall develop procedures for conducting an inventory of culture resources. Survey activi ties shall be coordinated with and complementary to the state program to ensure that survey results produced by the CLG will be readily integrat
ed into the statewide comprehensive
historic preservation planning process.
1. The CLG shall be responsible for overseeing the compiling, recording, and updating of inventory information on cultural resources within its jurisdiction. The information shall be based on comprehensive surveys conducted in conformance with state survey standards and procedures.
Surveys completed prior to the certification of a local government may be re-evaluated in accordance with state standards and may be submitted for inclusion in the State database.
2. As part of any ongoing survey effort, procedural requirements must allow for periodic update of survey results as buildings gain maturity and as new areas are incorporated or annexed by the CLG.
3. The commission must adopt state guidelines for conducting its inventory of historic properties. State-approved inventory forms (DPR-523, A-L) and the OHP's Instructions For Recording Historical Resources shall be used to facilitate integration into the state electronic data system and for statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning purposes. Dimitri software is available for the DPR 523 forms.
4. Standards for the evaluation of properties must be consistent with the National Register of Historic Places criteria.
A. The commission shall establish internal procedures to facilitate the use of survey results in the planning process by the CLG officials and departments.
The commission shall submit survey results to the local government for adoption, then forward to OHP. Copies of the survey should be on deposit at the local planning department, building and safety office, public works department, and redevelopment agency. Li braries, colleges, and historical societies should also receive copies. OHP will make copies available for the appropriate “California Historical Resources Information System” regional center. See IV(A)(2) below for public access requirements.
IV Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program:
A The CLG shall provide opportunities for public participation in all responsibilities delegated to the CLG, in accordance with appropriate regulations, standards, and guidelines.
3 10.i
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: CLG Application and Procedures - Appendix G (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
1. Public participation shall be fully encouraged at local commission meetings. Commission meetings shall be open to the public, with published agenda and minutes in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq. ) for open meetings. The published agenda shall be mailed in advance of meetings to individuals and citizen organizations interested in the commission’s activities.
2. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the performance of the historic survey program at all levels of responsibility to identify and inventory significant cultural resources in the jurisdiction of the CLG. The public can serve as volunteers to assist in the survey effort. Survey results shall be of public record and on file at a public institution, except in the case of sensitive resources, e.g., archeological sites subject to vandalism.
3. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the nomination process for the National Register of Historic Places program. The CLG shall invite comments from the general public regarding National Register nominations.
4. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in all public hearings on projects related to CEQA and Section 106 processes.
V Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to the CLG:
A. The CLG shall prepare a comprehensive local
historic preservation plan
which would identify preservation missions, goals, and priorities. The plan would also establish preservation strategies, programs, and time schedules.
B. The CLG will participate in the review and comment on historic preservation certification applications for tax incentives. The CLG and state may establish procedures for implementation of the investment tax credit program at the local level in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation.
C. Each CLG must have a local historic preservation plan prior to or upon becoming a CLG before any additional grant applications will be considered.
The state shall monitor and evaluate the performance of the CLG for consistency with the identification, evaluation, and preservation priorities of the comprehensive state historic preservation planning process.
1. Annual Review of CLGs:
The State shall conduct an annual review of CLGs to assure that each government continues to meet the minimal requirements and is satisfactorily performing its responsibilities. As part of this review, the state shall examine the annual reports submitted by the CLGs, records of the administration of funds allocated from the HPF, and other documents as necessary. The CLG shall make thes e records available to the state.
A more thorough review and site visit to the Certified Local Government will occur at least once every three (3) years.
2. Procedures for Decertification:
If the state evaluation indicates that the CLG no longer meets the minimal requirements or that in any other way a CLG's performance is not 4 10.i
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: CLG Application and Procedures - Appendix G (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
satisfactory, the state shall document that assessment and recommend to the local government steps to bring its performance up to a satisfactory level. The CLG shall have a period of not less than 30 nor more than 180 days to implement improvements; If the state determines that sufficient improvement has not occurred, the state shall decertify the local government, citing specific reasons for the decertification. Performance shall be deemed unsatisfactory if one or more of the following conditions exist or is applicable: a) the commission fails to perform its delegated responsibilities within established time periods; b) the CLG fails to coordinate its responsibilities with the state; c) the commission substantially fails to maintain consistency of its design review decisions with the Secretary's Standards for Historic Preservation; d) the CLG fails to maintain a qualified historic preservation review commission membership; e) the CLG fails to enforce the provisions of the local preservation ordinance; f) the CLG fails to enforce its CEQA and Section 106 responsibilities; g) the CLG fails to adequately survey historical resources in its jurisdiction; and h) the CLG fails to comply adequately with proper fiscal management of HPF grants in accordance with the National Register Programs Guideline, OMB Circular A-128, and 43 CFR 12.
3. Decertification Appeal:
If the state recommends decertification, the local government may appeal to the NPS. The NPS has 45 days to respond to the appeal.
4. Decertification Without Prejudice:
CLGs may petition the OHP to be decertified voluntarily and without prejudice.
5. Financial Assistance Close-out:
The state shall conduct financial assistance close-out procedures pursuant to the National Register Program Guideline when a local government is decertified.
VI The CLG shall assume certain responsibilities for reviewing and recommending properties within its jurisdiction to the National Register of Historic Places.
A. The SHPO shall have the sole responsibility of nominating National Register properties directly to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary).
B. The CLG shall establish local procedures for the National Register nomination process consistent with the requirements in the NHPA, Section 101(c)(2).
1. Before a property within the jurisdiction of a CLG may be considered by the state to be nominated to the National Register, the state shall notify the owner, the applicable chief elected local official, and the local historic preservation commission. The
commission, after reasonable opportunity
for public comment, shall prepare a report as to whether or not such property, in its opinion, meets the criteria of the National Register. Within sixty (60) days of notice from the state, the chief elected local official shall transmit the report of the commission and his/her recommendation to the state. After receipt of such repor t and recommendation, or if no such report and recommendation are received within sixty (60) days, the state 5 10.i
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: CLG Application and Procedures - Appendix G (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
shall process the National Register nomination. The state may expedite such process with the concurrence of the CLG.
2. If both the commission and the chief elected local official recommend that a property not be nominated to the National Register, the state shall take no further action, unless within thirty (30) days of the receipt of such recommendation by the state, an appeal is filed with the state. If such an appeal is filed, the state shall follow the procedure for making a nomination pursuant to Section 101(a). Any report and recommendations made under this section shall be included with any nomination submitted by the state to the Secretary.
VII By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG. Local governments may be certified to participate in specific program activities under Programmatic Agreements.
A. The CLG may develop educational programs promoting historic preservation at the local level such as, but not limited to, sponsorship of preservation workshops, publication of preservation information, organizing preservation fairs, conducting walking tours,
preparing preservation curricula for schools,
etc.
B. Commission members may act in an advisory capacity to other officials and departments within the local government and act as a liaison on behalf of the CLG to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation issues at the local level.
C. The CLG may participate in the Mills Act program or other economic incentive programs to provide property-tax relief for owners of historic properties.
D. The CLG may participate in the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act for issuance of tax-exempt industrial development bonds, providing that the commission shall serve as a part of the required citizen advisory board.
E. The CLG may assume certain responsibilities of recommending National Register of Historic Places properties, identified in the CLG jurisdiction, directly to the State Historical Resources Commission.
F. By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG.
6 10.i
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: CLG Application and Procedures - Appendix G (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.)
NEW BUSINESS
T
here was no new business.
P
UBLIC HEARINGS
3. 705 El Patio Dr. – Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit Public Hearing to consider the Application (PLN-2021 -70) of Nicholas and Andrea Key to rescind the listing of 705 El Patio Drive as a Structure of Merit from the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Senior Planner Fama stated that this is a public hearing to consider rescinding the property at 705 El Patio from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) list.
Senior Planner Fama stated that Architectural Advisor Mark Sandoval prepared a report that was previously provided recommending the City consider removing the property because it no longer satisfies the criteria for inclusion om the City’s local list or the S tate registry. As noted from the last meeting, staff did need additional time to work with legal counsel. City Attorney, Bill Seligmann provided a revised resolution that would tie the action to recommend the recission from the HRI subject to payment of an in-lieu fee of restoration. The approach was to identify the reasonable cause to restore the building to its previous state, if that would have been an action the city would have desired, the costs come out to a value of $45,000.
S
enior Planner Fama stated that the resolution provides the legal bases to ensure that we maintain protections against the HRI properties.
T
he Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board recommend to the City Council that the property be removed from the HRI subject to payment of an in-lieu fee of $45,000.00
A
cting Chair Walter asked if there were questions from staff before he opens the public hearing.
S
enior Planner Fama clarified that the action to remove the property would be contingent on paying the fee and stated that If the Board feels this fee is not appropriate, they do not need to recommend to the council. This is just a recommendation, and the Planning Commission will propose an independent recommendation as well.
B
oard member Corteway asked for the opportunity to make a proposal to vote on an alternate version of the solution that is being proposed.
S
enior Planner Fama responded that it depends on the scope of the proposed revision.
10.j
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: HPB Minutes, dated 03-23-2022 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) Board member Corteway asked what the best way is to rationalize the calculation of the fees and is there legal precedent to create a Z oning Code Amendment when there is a violation that has happened in the past.
C
ity Attorney Seligmann responded to Board member Corteway by stating that he is not aware of this being done in the present context. He stated the law exists. There are state statutes that allow the imposition of in- lieu fees and development impact fees. City Attorney Seligmann clarified that we don’t have to adopt a new rule we just need to confirm it applies to the situation where someone removed a city resource from the HRI and now is essentially asking the city to legalize the action after the fact. Removing the property is a discretion action by the City Council, HPB and Planning Commission. In exercise of the discretion, it is accepted and recognized legal practice that we can condition a permit, and one of the ways to condition a permit is by imposing a fee subject to the existing statutory structure.
B
oard Member Moore mentioned how long she’s been on the board and stated during her time on the board that there have been plenty of people have said they didn’t want a historic home and The Board let them off the list without violation. Board member Moore stated this fee is not reasonable or fair nor would it encourage preservation work. Board member Moore stated she would like to see the City have a Mills Act available for anyone who’d like to participate in historic preservation.
A
cting Chair Walter asked if Staff has ideas on what other cities charge for similar situations.
S
enior Planner Fama responded to Acting Chair Walter that the fee is to disincentivize unpermitted demolition or alteration.
A
cting Chair Walter opened the public hearing.
Mr. K
ey, Owner/Applicant knows he broke the rules and believes this is a learning experience as he was not aware of the laws regarding his house. Mr. Key believes the historic value cannot be re-added. He came to the Board for guidance on moving forward and he stated a reasonable compromise would be to maintain the aesthetics of the home and is more than willing to pay a fee. Mr. Key stated he is concerned that penalties can be imposed without his knowledge and that he would’ve changed the work done to his property had he been aware of such fees being imposed.
V
incent Cortana, Campbell resident , stated that his house was deemed Historic at the same time as Mr. Key’s house and the City never disclosed that they could potentially be fined for improving their house. Mr. Cortana stated that if he knew he would have asked the city to not put his house on the HRI list. Mr. Cortana mentioned that the work Mr.
Key’s did to the house improved the neighborhood and thinks it is ridiculous for Mr. Key’s to be fined for the work he’s done.
T
im O’Connell, Campbell resident, stated support of Mr. Keys, that the work done to the
10.j
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: HPB Minutes, dated 03-23-2022 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) property has improved the neighborhood.
T
ammy S., Campbell Resident, mentioned that they are shocked at the fees proposed on the Key’s. The Key’s home draws attention in a positive way and the home at 705 El Patio was a reason they almost did not purchase in the neighborhood. The improvements made by the Key Family, absolutely gave the neighborhood value.
A
cting Chair Walter closed the public hearing
B
oard Member Corteway recommended charging a lower amount. Believes that there something in place to disincentivize property owners in the future from taking unpermitted actions.
T
he Board discussed the proposed in-lieu fee amount.
M
otion: Upon motion of Member Moore, seconded by Member Corteway, the Historic Preservation Board adopts resolution 2022-03,
recommending that the City rescind the designation of 705 El Patio as a structure of merit from The City of Campbell’s Historic Resource inventory subject to an in-lieu fee of property restoration of $5000.00, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Blake, Corteway, Walter, Moore
NOES: None
ABSENT:
Chair Foulkes
None
10.j
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: HPB Minutes, dated 03-23-2022 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) /0/1/2/3/4/5/6/6/i255/8/6/1/9/9/10/9/11/i255/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/i255/14/5/5/15/10/9/11/i255/14/10/9/16/15/5/13/i255/17/i255/14/1/18/i255/19/20/21/i255/22/20/22/22/i255/8 /1/11/5/i255/23/i255 /i255
/24/25/26/27/28/26/29/30/i255/32/24/27/28/33/34/32/33/29/28/i255/35/36/37/38/37/33/37/i255/39/34/27/i255/39/33/40/41/27/i255/39/33/42/34/24/32/26/33/43/i255/38/44/i255/28/45/24/i255/46/41/47/47/41/48/26/29/30/i255/32/41/47/47/i255/40/33/47/47/i255 /49/41/28/24/50/i255
/i255/51 /52/53/54/50/i255/i255/55/26/49/47/26/29/56/i255/57/26/27/27/24/32/56/i255/58/33/59/60/33/32/56/i255/58/32/24/44/56/i255/61/34/40/45/38/26/29/36/24/32/56/i255/62/45/26/29/30/i255 /i255/63 /64/53/54/50/i255/i255/63/41/29/24/i255
/i255 /51/61/54/53/63/39/50/i255/64 /27/28/32/41/48/27/60/26/i255 /i255 /51/61/54/39/51/65/63/50/i255/63/41/29/24/i255
/i255
/0/66/1/10/67/i255/0/66/10/9/11/i255/67/5/1/68/i255/69/11/5/9/68/1/i255/70/15/5/2/i255/71/12/72/i255/22/i255/10/9/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255/67/5/73/12/67/68/i255/1/13/i255/74/12/6/6/12/75/13/76/i255 /i255
/77/5/9/10/12/67/i255/8/6/1/9/9/5/67/i255/78/1/2/1/i255/3/67/5/13/5/9/15/5/68/i255/15/66/5/i255/13/15/1/74/74/i255/67/5/3/12/67/15/i255/68/1/15/5/68/i255/14/1/18/i255/19/20/21/i255/22/20/22/22/72/i255/79/66/5/i255/3/67/12/3/5/67/15/18/i255/6/12/73/1/15/5/68/i255 /1/15/i255/80/20/81/i255/82/6/i255/8/1/15/10/12/i255/83/67/10/84/5/i255/75/1/13/i255/1/68/68/5/68/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/86/5/13/12/16/67/73/5/i255/70/9/84/5/9/15/12/67/18/i255/87/85/86/70/88/i255/1/13/i255/1/i255/77/15/67/16/73/15/16/67/5/i255/12/74/i255 /14/5/67/10/15/i255/10/9/i255/22/20/19/22/72/i255/79/66/5/i255/1/3/3/5/6/6/1/9/15/i255/13/16/4/2/10/15/15/5/68/i255/1/9/i255/1/3/3/6/10/73/1/15/10/12/9/i255/6/1/13/15/i255/18/5/1/67/i255/74/12/67/i255/1/9/i255/1/68/68/10/15/10/12/9/i255/15/12/i255/66/10/13/i255/66/12/2/5/21/i255 /15/66/1/15/i255/75/1/13/i255/15/66/5/9/i255/13/73/66/5/68/16/6/5/68/i255/74/12/67/i255/67/5/84/10/5/75/i255/4/18/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/8/67/5/13/5/67/84/1/15/10/12/9/i255/89/12/1/67/68/72/i255/8/67/10/12/67/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/8/89/i255/67/5/84/10/5/75/i255/i255 /10/15/i255/75/1/13/i255/4/67/12/16/11/66/15/i255/15/12/i255/13/15/1/74/74/90/13/i255/1/15/15/5/9/15/10/12/9/i255/15/66/1/15/i255/16/9/3/5/67/2/10/15/15/5/68/i255/1/6/15/5/67/1/15/10/12/9/13/i255/75/5/67/5/i255/2/1/68/5/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255/66/12/2/5/72/i255 /78/12/6/6/12/75/10/9/11/i255/68/10/13/73/12/84/5/67/18/i255/12/74/i255/15/66/5/13/5/i255/1/6/15/5/67/1/15/10/12/9/13/i255/13/15/1/74/74/i255/67/5/91/16/10/67/5/68/i255/1/i255/66/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/1/9/1/6/18/13/10/13/i255/4/18/i255/15/66/5/i255/0/10/15/18/90/13/i255 /1/67/73/66/10/15/5/73/15/16/67/1/6/i255/1/68/84/10/13/12/67/i255/15/12/i255/1/13/73/5/67/15/1/10/9/i255/75/66/5/15/66/5/67/i255/15/66/5/i255/13/15/67/16/73/15/16/67/5/i255/73/12/16/6/68/i255/4/5/i255/67/5/84/5/67/15/5/68/i255/15/12/i255/10/15/13/i255/66/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255 /1/3/3/5/1/67/1/9/73/5/i255/1/9/68/i255/10/74/i255/i255/10/15/i255/75/12/16/6/68/i255/13/15/10/6/6/i255/67/5/15/1/10/9/i255/13/16/74/74/10/73/10/5/9/15/i255/66/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/10/9/15/5/11/67/10/15/18/i255/15/12/i255/67/5/2/1/10/9/i255/12/9/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/86/70/72/i255/79/66/5/i255 /73/12/9/13/16/6/15/1/9/15/i255/68/5/15/5/67/2/10/9/5/68/i255/15/66/5/i255/6/12/13/13/i255/12/74/i255/66/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/10/9/15/5/11/67/10/15/18/i255/68/12/5/13/i255/9/12/15/i255/13/1/15/10/13/74/18/i255/15/66/5/i255/73/67/10/15/5/67/10/1/i255/74/12/67/i255/1/i255/77/15/67/16/73/15/16/67/5/i255 /12/74/i255/14/5/67/10/15/72/i255/77/15/1/74/74/i255/10/13/i255/13/16/3/3/12/67/15/10/84/5/i255/12/74/i255/67/5/2/12/84/10/9/11/i255/15/66/5/i255/3/67/12/3/5/67/15/18/i255/74/67/12/2/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/86/70/i255/6/10/13/15/i255/1/9/68/i255/67/5/73/12/2/2/5/9/68/13/i255/1/i255 /74/5/5/i255/10/9/92/6/5/16/i255/12/74/i255/66/1/84/10/9/11/i255/15/66/5/i255/3/67/12/3/5/67/15/18/i255/67/5/13/15/12/67/5/68/i255/12/74/i255/93/94/81/21/20/20/20/72/i255/77/15/1/74/74/i255/4/5/6/10/5/84/5/13/i255/15/66/5/i255/10/2/3/12/13/10/15/10/12/9/i255/12/74/i255/15/66/5/i255 /74/5/5/i255/10/9/92/6/5/16/i255/75/12/16/6/68/i255/74/16/67/15/66/5/67/i255/15/66/5/i255/0/10/15/18/90/13/i255/12/4/6/10/11/1/15/10/12/9/i255/16/9/68/5/67/i255/15/66/5/i255/73/5/67/15/10/74/10/5/68/i255/95/12/73/1/6/i255/96/12/84/5/67/9/2/5/9/15/i255/3/67/12/11/67/1/2/i255 /15/12/i255/5/9/74/12/67/73/5/i255/1/3/3/67/12/3/67/10/1/15/5/i255/77/15/1/15/5/i255/1/9/68/i255/6/12/73/1/6/i255/6/5/11/10/13/6/1/15/10/12/9/i255/74/12/67/i255/15/66/5/i255/68/5/13/10/11/9/1/15/10/12/9/i255/1/9/68/i255/3/67/12/15/5/73/15/10/12/9/i255/12/74/i255 /66/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/3/67/12/3/5/67/15/10/5/13/72/i255/70/15/i255/75/12/16/6/68/i255/1/6/13/12/i255/13/16/3/3/12/67/15/i255/96/5/9/5/67/1/6/i255/8/6/1/9/i255/3/12/6/10/73/10/5/13/i255/1/9/68/i255/13/15/67/1/15/5/11/10/5/13/21/i255/10/9/i255/15/5/67/2/13/i255/i255/12/74/i255 /68/5/13/10/11/9/1/15/10/9/11/i255/1/9/68/i255/3/67/12/15/5/73/15/10/9/11/i255/66/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/4/16/10/6/68/10/9/11/13/i255/74/67/12/2/i255/16/9/3/5/67/2/10/15/15/5/68/i255/1/6/15/5/67/1/15/10/12/9/13/i255/1/9/68/i255/68/5/2/12/6/10/15/10/12/9/72/i255 /77/5/9/10/12/67/i255/8/6/1/9/9/5/67/i255/9/12/15/5/68/i255/15/66/10/13/i255/67/5/91/16/5/13/15/i255/75/1/13/i255/67/5/84/10/5/75/5/68/i255/4/18/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/8/67/5/13/5/67/84/1/15/10/12/9/i255/89/12/1/67/68/i255/75/66/12/i255 /67/5/73/12/2/2/5/9/68/5/68/i255/67/5/2/12/84/1/6/i255/12/74/i255/15/66/5/i255/66/12/2/5/i255/74/67/12/2/i255/15/66/5/i255/95/10/13/15/i255/1/9/68/i255/1/i255/74/5/5/i255/10/9/92/6/5/16/i255/12/74/i255/93/81/21/20/20/20/72/i255 /i255
/79/66/5/i255/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/i255/1/13/97/5/68/i255/11/5/9/5/67/1/6/i255/91/16/5/13/15/10/12/9/13/i255/67/5/6/1/15/5/68/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255/1/6/15/5/67/1/15/10/12/9/13/i255/68/12/9/5/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255/66/12/2/5/21/i255/15/66/5/i255 /2/5/15/66/12/68/12/6/12/11/18/i255/12/74/i255/15/66/5/i255/10/9/92/6/5/16/i255/74/5/5/i255/1/9/68/i255/3/12/13/13/10/4/6/5/i255/12/16/15/73/12/2/5/13/i255/12/74/i255/67/5/2/1/10/9/10/9/11/i255/12/9/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/86/70/i255/6/10/13/15/72/i255 /i255
/0/66/1/10/67/i255/0/66/10/9
/11/i255/12/3/5/9/5/68/i255/15/66/5/i255/3/16/4/6/10/73/i255/66/5/1/67/10/9/11/i255/1/9/68/i255/1/13/97/5/68/i255/10/74/i255/1/9/18/12/9/5/i255/75/10/13/66/5/68/i255/15/12/i255/13/3/5/1/97/72/i255 /i255
/85/12/2/5/12/75/9/5/67/i255/71/10/73/66/12/6/1/13/i255/98/5/18/i255/13/15/1/15/5/68/i255/15/66/1/15/i255/66/1/84/10/9/11/i255/1/i255/66/12/2/5/i255/12/9/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/86/70/i255/10/13/i255/9/12/15/i255/1/i255/4/5/9/5/74/10/15/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255 /66/12/2/5/12/75/9/5/67/72/i255/85/5/i255/3/16/67/73/66/1/13/5/68/i255/15/66/5/i255/3/67/12/3/5/67/15/18/i255/75/10/15/66/i255/15/66/5/i255/10/9/15/5/9/15/10/12/9/i255/15/12/i255/3/67/12/84/10/68/5/i255/1/i255/9/10/73/5/i255/1/5/13/15/66/5/15/10/73/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255 /9/5/10/11/66/4/12/67/66/12/12/68/i255/1/9/68/i255/1/68/68/i255/84/1/6/16/5/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255/9/5/10/11/66/4/12/67/66/12/12/68/72/i255/85/5/i255/75/5/9/15/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255/0/10/15/18/i255/74/12/67/i255/1/i255/3/5/67/2/10/15/i255/74/12/67/i255/15/66/5/i255 /68/67/10/84/5/75/1/18/i255/1/9/68/i255/66/1/68/i255/13/3/12/97/5/9/i255/15/12/i255/13/15/1/74/74/i255/67/5/11/1/67/68/10/9/11/i255/3/5/67/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/i255/15/12/i255/4/16/10/6/68/i255/1/i255/74/5/9/73/5/i255/1/67/12/16/9/68/i255/15/66/5/i255/3/67/12/3/5/67/15/18/72/i255 /85/5/i255/75/1/13/i255/9/12/15/i255/1/75/1/67/5/i255/15/66/1/15/i255/66/5/i255/9/5/5/68/5/68/i255/1/i255/3/5/67/2/10/15/i255/15/12/i255/67/5/3/6/1/73/5/i255/15/66/5/i255/13/15/16/73/73/12/i255/12/9/i255/15/66/5/i255/66/12/16/13/5/i255/12/67/i255/74/12/67/i255/15/66/5/i255 /74/5/9/73/5/72/i255/85/5/i255/9/12/15/5/68/i255/1/15/i255/15/66/5/i255/15/10/2/5/i255/1/6/15/5/67/1/15/10/12/9/13/i255/75/5/67/5/i255/68/12/9/5/i255/15/12/i255/15/66/5/i255/66/12/2/5/i255/66/5/i255/75/1/13/i255/16/9/1/75/1/67/5/i255/15/66/1/15/i255/3/5/67/2/10/15/13/i255 /75/5/67/5/i255/67/5/91/16/10/67/5/68/i255/74/12/67/i255/13/1/10/68/i255/1/6/15/5/67/1/15/10/12/9/13/72/i255/85/1/68/i255/66/5/i255/97/9/12/75/9/i255/3/5/67/2/10/15/13/i255/75/5/67/5/i255/67/5/91/16/10/67/5/68/i255/66/5/i255/75/12/16/6/68/i255/66/1/84/5/i255 /73/12/2/3/6/10/5/68/i255/75/10/15/66/i255/0/10/15/18/i255/67/5/91/16/10/67/5/2/5/9/15/13/72/i255/85/5/i255/10/13/i255/67/5/91/16/5/13/15/10/9/11/i255/67/5/2/12/84/1/6/i255/12/74/i255/15/66/5/i255/3/67/12/3/5/67/15/18/i255/74/67/12/2/i255/15/66/5/i255/85/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255 /22/72/i255/99/100/63/101/102/103/102/104/101/105/103/i255 /i255
/8/16/4/6/10/73/i255/85/5/1/67/10/9/11/i255/15/12/i255/73/12/9/13/10/68/5/67/i255/67/5/91/16/5/13/15/i255/12/74/i255/71/10/73/66/12/6/1/13/i255/1/9/68/i255 /69/9/68/67/5/1/i255/98/5/18/i255/74/12/67/i255/3/67/12/3/5/67/15/18/i255/1/15/i255/80/20/81/i255/82/6/i255/8/1/15/10/12/i255/83/67/10/84/5/i255/15/12/i255/67/5/13/73/10/9/68/i255 /15/66/5/i255/6/10/13/15/10/9/11/i255/12/74/i255/1/i255/68/5/13/10/11/9/1/15/5/68/i255/77/15/67/16/73/15/16/67/5/i255/12/74/i255/14/5/67/10/15/i255/74/67/12/2/i255/15/66/5/i255 /85/10/13/15/12/67/10/73/i255/86/5/13/12/16/67/73/5/i255/70/9/84/5/9/15/12/67/18/i255/87/85/86/70/88/72/i255/78/10/6/5/i255/71/12/72/76/i255/8/95/71/92/22/20/22/19/92 /80/20/72/i255/77/15/1/74/74/i255/10/13/i255/67/5/73/12/2/2/5/9/68/10/9/11/i255/15/66/1/15/i255/15/66/10/13/i255/10/15/5/2/i255/4/5/i255/68/5/5/2/5/68/i255 /0/1/15/5/11/12/67/10/73/1/6/6/18/i255/82/106/5/2/3/15/i255/16/9/68/5/67/i255/0/82/107/69/72/i255/79/5/9/15/1/15/10/84/5/i255/0/10/15/18/i255 /0/12/16/9/73/10/6/i255/14/5/5/15/10/9/11/i255/83/1/15/5/76/i255/108/16/9/5/i255/22/19/21/i255/22/20/22/22/72/i255/8/67/12/109/5/73/15/i255/8/6/1/9/9/5/67/72/i255 /8/67/12/109/5/73/15/i255/8/6/1/9/9/5/67/76/i255/83/1/9/10/5/6/i255/78/1/2/1/21/i255/77/5/9/10/12/67/i255/8/6/1/9/9/5/67/72/i255 /i255
10.k
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: PC Minutes, dated 05-10-2022 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) /0/1/2/3/4/5/6/6/i255/8/6/1/9/9/10/9/11/i255/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/i255/14/5/5/15/10/9/11/i255/14/10/9/16/15/5/13/i255/17/i255/14/1/18/i255/19/20/21/i255/22/20/22/22/i255/8 /1/11/5/i255/23/i255 /i255
/24/5/13/12/16/25/26/5/i255/27/9/28/5/9/15/12/25/18/29/i255/30/5/i255/13/15/1/15/5/31/i255/15/32/5/i255/25/5/26/12/2/2/5/9/31/5/31/i255/33/23/34/21/20/20/20/i255/35/5/5/i255/36/1/13/i255/10/9/35/6/1/15/5/31/i255/1/9/31/i255/31/10/31/i255/9/12/15/i255/35/5/5/6/i255 /15/32/1/15/i255/10/15/i255/36/1/13/i255/1/9/i255/1/26/26/16/25/1/15/5/i255/26/12/13/15/29/i255 /i255
/37/32/5/i255/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/i255/1/13/38/5/31/i255/32/12/2/5/12/36/9/5/25/i255/39/5/18/i255/11/5/9/5/25/1/6/i255/40/16/5/13/15/10/12/9/13/29/i255 /i255
/41/5/5/10/9/11/i255/9/12
/i255/12/9/5/i255/5/6/13/5/i255/36/10/13/32/10/9/11/i255/15/12/i255/13/3/5/1/38/i255/0/32/1/10/25/i255/0/32/10/9/11/i255/26/6/12/13/5/31/i255/15/32/5/i255/3/16/4/6/10/26/i255/32/5/1/25/10/9/11/29/i255 /i255
/0/32/1/10/25/i255/0/32/10/9/11/i255/1/13/38/5/31/i255/15/32/5/i255/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/i255/10/35/i255/15/32/5/18/i255/36/5/25/5/i255/13/16/3/3/12/25/15/10/28/5/i255/12/35/i255/25/5/2/12/28/10/9/11/i255/15/32/5/i255/3/25/12/3/5/25/15/18/i255/35/25/12/2/i255 /15/32/5/i255/30/24/27/i255/1/9/31/i255/36/32/1/15/i255/36/1/13/i255/15/32/5/10/25/i255/25/5/26/12/2/2/5/9/31/1/15/10/12/9/i255/35/12/25/i255/15/32/5/i255/35/5/5/i255/10/9/42/6/5/16/29/i255 /i255
/43/10/26/5/i255/0/32/1/10/25/i255/44/16/26/32/4/10/9/31/5/25/i255/36/1/13/i255/13/16/3/3/12/25/15/10/28/5/i255/12/35/i255/25/5/13/26/10/9/31/10/9/11/i255/15/32/5/i255/3/25/12/3/5/25/15/18/i255/35/25/12/2/i255/15/32/5/i255/30/24/27/i255/1/9/31/i255/i255 /13/16/3/3/12/25/15/10/28/5/i255/12/35/i255/1/i255/33/34/21/20/20/20/i255/35/5/5/29/i255 /i255
/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/5/25/i255/39/25/5/18/i255/36/1/13/i255/13/16/3/3/12/25/15/10/28/5/i255/12/35/i255/i255/15/32/5/i255/3/25/12/3/5/25/15/18/i255/35/25/12/2/i255/15/32/5/i255/30/24/27/29/i255/30/5/i255/36/1/13/i255/12/38/1/18/i255/36/10/15/32/i255/15/32/5/i255 /30/8/44/i255/25/5/26/12/2/2/5/9/31/1/15/10/12/9/i255/12/35/i255/33/34/21/20/20/20/i255/4/16/15/i255/36/12/16/6/31/i255/4/5/i255/1/11/25/5/5/1/4/6/5/i255/15/12/i255/31/10/13/26/16/13/13/10/9/11/i255/1/i255/32/10/11/32/5/25/i255/35/5/5/29/i255/30/5/i255 /9/12/15/5/31/i255/15/32/1/15/i255/10/15/i255/10/13/i255/10/2/3/12/25/15/1/9/15/i255/15/12/i255/2/12/31/10/35/18/i255/15/32/5/i255/0/12/31/5/i255/15/12/i255/3/25/5/28/5/9/15/i255/15/32/10/13/i255/13/10/15/16/1/15/10/12/9/i255/35/25/12/2/i255/12/26/26/16/25/25/10/9/11/i255/1/11/1/10/9/29/i255 /30/5/i255/25/5/26/12/2/2/5/9/31/5/31/i255/3/25/12/28/10/31/10/9/11/i255/30/24/27/i255/32/12/2/5/12/36/9/5/25/13/i255/10/9/35/12/25/2/1/15/10/12/9/i255/36/10/15/32/i255/15/32/5/i255/25/5/40/16/10/25/5/2/5/9/15/13/i255/12/35/i255/32/1/28/10/9/11/i255 /1/i255/32/10/13/15/12/25/10/26/i255/32/12/2/5/29/i255
/i255
/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/5/25/i255/39/1/2/38/1/25/i255/36/1/13/i255/26/12/9/26/5/25/9/5/31/i255/36/10/15/32/i255/15/32/5/i255/10/13/13/16/5/i255/12/35/i255/15/32/10/13/i255/13/5/15/15/10/9/11/i255/1/i255/3/25/5/26/5/31/5/9/15/29/i255/30/5/i255/36/1/13/i255 /13/16/3/3/12/25/15/10/28/5/i255/12/35/i255/25/5/2/12/28/10/9/11/i255/15/32/5/i255/32/12/2/5/i255/35/25/12/2/i255/15/32/5/i255/30/24/27/21/i255/15/32/12/16/11/32/15/i255/15/32/5/i255/35/5/5/i255/13/32/12/16/6/31/i255/4/5/i255/32/10/11/32/5/25/i255/15/32/1/9/i255 /33/34/21/20/20/20/i255/1/9/31/i255/25/5/26/12/2/2/5/9/31/5/31/i255/1/i255/35/5/5/i255/12/35/i255/33/23/20/21/20/20/20/29/i255/i255 /i255
/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/5/25/i255/24/10/28/6/10/9/i255/36/1/13/i255/13/16/3/3/12/25/15/10/28/5/i255/12/35/i255/25/5/13/26/10/9/31/10/9/11/i255/15/32/5/i255/3/25/12/3/5/25/15/18/i255/35/25/12/2/i255/15/32/5/i255/30/24/27/29/i255/30/5/i255/15/32/12/16/11/32/15/i255 /15/32/5/i255/13/15/1/35/35/i255/25/5/26/12/2/2/5/9/31/5/31/i255/35/5/5/i255/12/35/i255/33/23/34/21/20/20/20/i255/36/1/13/i255/15/12/12/i255/32/10/11/32/i255/1/9/31/i255/1/31/28/10/13/5/31/i255/1/i255/35/5/5/i255/12/35/i255/33/34/21/20/20/20/29/i255 /i255
/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10
/12/9/5/25/i255/45/10/13/13/5/25/i255/36/1/13/i255/13/16/3/3/12/25/15/10/28/5/i255/12/35/i255/25/5/2/12/28/10/9/11/i255/15/32/5/i255/3/25/12/3/5/25/15/18/i255/35/25/12/2/i255/15/32/5/i255/30/24/27/i255/6/10/13/15/i255/1/9/31/i255/1/i255 /33/34/21/20/20/20/i255/35/5/5/29/i255/30/5/i255/9/12/15/5/31/i255/10/15/i255/36/1/13/i255/10/2/3/12/25/15/1/9/15/i255/35/12/25/i255/13/15/1/35/35/i255/15/12/i255/10/2/3/6/5/2/5/9/15/i255/1/i255/26/12/31/10/35/10/5/31/i255/2/5/15/32/12/31/i255/15/12/i255/1/31/31/25/5/13/13/i255 /15/32/10/13/i255/15/18/3/5/i255/12/35/i255/13/10/15/16/1/15/10/12/9/i255/1/9/31/i255/15/12/i255/32/1/28/5/i255/1/i255/13/15/25/12/9/11/i255/31/5/15/5/25/25/5/9/26/5/i255/10/9/i255/15/32/5/i255/35/16/15/16/25/5/29/i255/i255 /i255
/0/32/1/10/25/i255/0/32/10/9/11/i255/9/12/15/5/31/i255/15/32/1/15/i255/1/6/6/i255/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/5/25/13/i255/36/5/25/5/i255/13/16/3/3/12/25/15/10/28/5/i255/12/35/i255/25/5/13/26/10/9/31/10/9/11/i255/15/32/5/i255/3/25/12/3/5/25/15/18/i255/35/25/12/2/i255 /15/32/5/i255/46/10/13/15/29/i255/30/5/i255/5/26/32/12/5/31/i255/15/32/5/i255/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/i255/26/12/2/2/5/9/15/13/i255/15/32/1/15/i255/2/12/31/10/35/10/26/1/15/10/12/9/13/i255/13/32/12/16/6/31/i255/4/5/i255/2/1/31/5/i255/15/12/i255/15/32/5/i255 /0/12/31/5/i255/15/12/i255/3/25/5/28/5/9/15/i255/15/32/10/13/i255/35/25/12/2/i255/12/26/26/16/25/25/10/9/11/i255/10/9/i255/15/32/5/i255/35/16/15/16/25/5/29/i255 /i255
/47/48/49/50/48/51/52/i255/54/55/48/51/i255/56/48/49/50/48/51/i255/57/58/i255/59/48/56/56/50/60/60/50/48/51/61/62/i255/63/62/61/58/64/i255/60/61/65/48/51/66/61/66/i255/57/58/i255/59/48/56/56/50/60/60/50/48/51/61/62/i255 /67/50/68/69/50/51/64/i255/49/70/61/i255/71/69/72/51/51/50/51/73/i255/59/48/56/56/50/60/60/50/48/51/i255/72/66/48/55/49/61/66/i255/67/61/60/48/69/74/49/50/48/51/i255/75/48/76/i255/77/78/77/79/i255 /62/61/65/48/56/56/61/51/66/50/51/73/i255/49/70/72/49/i255/49/70/61/i255/59/50/49/58/i255/59/48/74/51/65/50/69/i255/62/61/60/65/50/51/66/i255/49/70/61/i255/66/61/60/50/73/51/72/49/50/48/51/i255/48/80/i255/81/82/83/i255/84/69/i255 /71/72/49/50/48/i255/85/62/50/68/61/i255/72/60/i255/72/i255/86/49/62/74/65/49/74/62/61/i255/48/80/i255/47/61/62/50/49/i255/80/62/48/56/i255/49/70/61/i255/59/72/56/55/57/61/69/69/i255/87/50/60/49/48/62/50/65/i255/67/61/60/48/74/62/65/61/i255 /88/51/68/61/51/49/48/62/58/64/i255/60/74/57/89/61/65/49/i255/49/48/i255/55/72/58/56/61/51/49/i255/48/80/i255/72/i255/90/83/64/82/82/82/i255/80/61/61/i255/50/51/91/69/50/61/74/i255/48/80/i255/55/62/48/55/61/62/49/58/i255 /62/61/60/49/48/62/72/49/50/48/51/i255/72/51/66/i255/72/69/69/i255/72/55/55/69/50/65/72/57/69/61/i255/55/61/62/56/50/49/i255/80/61/61/60/i255/57/58/i255/49/70/61/i255/80/48/69/69/48/92/50/51/73/i255/62/48/69/69/i255/65/72/69/69/i255/68/48/49/61/52/i255 /i255 /93/94/84/86/52/i255/i255/67/50/68/69/50/51/64/i255/95/50/60/60/61/62/64/i255/63/62/61/58/64/i255/96/74/65/70/57/50/51/66/61/62/64/i255/59/70/50/51/73/i255 /i255 /75/97/84/86/52/i255/i255/63/72/56/98/72/62/i255
/i255 /93/96/86/84/75/99/52/i255/97 /60/49/62/48/92/60/98/50/i255 /i255 /93/96/86/99/93/88/75/52/i255/75/48/51/61/i255
/i255
/67/84/71/97/67/99/i255/97/100/i255/99/87/84/i255/59/97/47/47/54/75/88/99/94/i255/85/84/101/84/102/97/71/47/84/75/99/i255/85/88/67/84/59/99/97/67/i255 /i255
/103/10/25/5/26/15/12/25/i255/104/1/13/15/36/12/12/31/i255/25/5/3/12/25/15/5/31/i255/15/32/5/i255/0/10/15/18/i255/0/12/16/9/26/10/6/i255/2/5/15/i255/15/12/i255/25/5/28/10/5/36/i255/15/32/5/i255/32/12/16/13/10/9/11/i255/5/6/5/2/5/9/15/i255/36/10/15/32/i255 /8/6/1/9/9/10/9/11/i255/0/12/2/2/10/13/13/10/12/9/i255/25/5/26/12/2/2/5/9/31/1/15/10/12/9/13/29/i255/37/32/10/13/i255/26/12/9/26/6/16/31/5/13/i255/15/32/10/13/i255/3/12/25/15/10/12/9/i255/12/35/i255/15/32/5/i255/30/12/16/13/10/9/11/i255
10.k
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: PC Minutes, dated 05-10-2022 (PLN-2021-70 ~ 705 El Patio Drive.) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider a City -Initiated Zoning Code Text Amendment (PLN -2021-187) Adding New Chapter 21.25 (Two -Unit Housing Developments) and Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) to the Campbell Municipal Code to Implement Senate Bill No. 9 (SB -9) and Amending Various Other Sections of the Municipal Code Pertaining to the Regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); an Amendment to the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan and a General Plan Amendment to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan to Incorporate by Reference the Proposed SB -9 Implementation Provisions. (Ordinance/Resolutions/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions (1) Introduce an ordinance to add new Chapter 21.25 (Two -Unit Housing Developments) and Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) to the Campbell Municipal Code to implement Senate Bill No. 9 and amending various sections of the Municipal Code pertaining to the regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs); (2) Adopt a resolution approving an Amendment to the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan to incorporate by reference the proposed SB -9 impl ementation provisions; and (3) Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan to incorporate by reference the proposed implementation SB-9 provisions.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Planning Commission rec ommends that the City Council find that the proposed actions are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(j) and Section 66411.7(n), and Public Resource Code Section 21080.17, whic h exempts local ordinances from environmental review that implement State law pertaining to SB -9 (two-unit development and urban lot splits) and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), respectively.
BACKGROUND
At its October 19, 2021, meeting the City Council a uthorized preparation of an interim SB-9 ordinance to be adopted on an urgency basis prior to January 1, 2022. The intent was to provisionally establish objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards, and Item: 11
Category: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
INTRODUCTION OF
ORDINANCES
Meeting Date: August 2, 2022
11 Packet Pg. 101
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 2 of 14
a permitting process ahead of January 1st to allow for the orderly implementation of SB-
9. The interim ordinance was adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2021 for an initial period of 45 -days pursuant to State law. The City Council subsequently extended the interim ordinance until October 1, 2 022 to allow sufficient time for preparation of a formal ordinance and holding of the required public hearings.
The Planning Commission considered the draft ordinance at its meeting of March 22, 2022. The Comm ission discussed how prescriptive the proposed objective design standards should be and the appropriateness of allowing only precise lot types and prohibiting all others. The Commission recommended adoption of the draft ordinance on a 4-2-1 vote (Commissioners Ostrowski and Kamkar dissenting, and Ching absent) and recommended that staff report back on the status of the City's SB -9 implementation in one year's time.
Several days later, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released its official " SB-9 Fact Sheet ". Although the City's draft S -B9 ordinance was generally consistent with HCD's guidance regarding the law, the document opin ed that the law not only applies to lot splits and the construction of duplexes, but also applies to construction of just one single family unit, not two units as previously understood. This new guidance required revisions to the draft ordinance that was considered by the Planning Commission . Staff also recently identified conflicts between the City's ADU ordinance (adopted in 2019) and HCD's 2020 Accessory Dwelling Un it Handbook, and has proposed modifications in the draft ordinance to reconcile these conflicts.
The scope of these changes was substantial enough to warrant additional review by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65857. The Planni ng Commission, therefore, reconsidered the draft SB -9 ordinance at its meeting of July 12, 2022. At this meeting, the Commission discussed applying additional proposed design requirements, but ultimately decline d recommending any additional revisions, referencing that Citywide architectural design requirements would be addressed as part of the upcoming Objective Standards update . By a unanimous vote (7 -0), the Commission recommended adoption of the draft ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Background – SB-9: On September 16, 2021, Senate Bill No. 9 (SB -9) was signed into law by Governor Newsom. SB -9 functionally eliminating single-family residential zoning in California as of January 1, 2022, by allowing all properties within a "single -family residential zone" to be developed with two units and to be subdivided into two parcels, subject to various eligibility standards and restrictions. In short, the law allows for two new types of development activities that must be reviewed ministerially without any discretionary action or public input:
11 Packet Pg. 102
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 3 of 14
• "Proposed Housing Development " allows a single -family residential parcel to accommodate two primary dwelling units instead of one, as well as allowable ADUs.
• "Urban Lot Splits" allows a single-family residential parcel to be divided into two parcels (one-time) and for each parcel to also accommodate two housing units (inclusive of primary dwellings and ADUs.
Limitations on the City : SB -9 imposes the following limitations on the City in its implementation of the law.
• The City may only impose objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards.
Any applicable standards shall not physically preclude the construction of two units of less than 800 square feet each, per property.
• The City must revi ew and process SB -9 applications ministerially and without any environmental analysis (CEQA).
• The City may not impose a residential setback greater than 4 -feet for side and rear property lines.
• The City may not impose any setback requirements for a new residence constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is demolished.
• The City may not impose off-site improvement or right-of-way dedication requirements as a condition of a parcel map for an urban lot split. • The City may not require more than one parking space per new unit (or lot), and for properties within one -half mile walking distance of either a high -quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or within one block of a car share vehicle, no parking spaces may be required.
• The City may not require correction of an existing non-conforming condition. • The City may only deny an S B-9 proposal if the Building Official finds that it would have a "specific, adverse impact (as defined), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact." Limitations on Applications: The following limitations on SB-9 applications:
• The units may not be utilized as a short -term rental (defined as a rental term less than 30 days).
• The project would not result in the demolition of more than 25 percent of existing exterior structural walls of an existing dwelling if the property has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years or otherwise as allowed by City ordinance.
• The original parcel was not previously created through an Urban Lot Split allowed under SB-9 (hence the one-time nature of the provision). 11 Packet Pg. 103
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 4 of 14
• Each new parcel must be "approximately equal" in lot area provided t hat one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent the size of the original parcel and no parcel shall be less than 1,200 square feet.
• The subdivider must sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units on one of the created lots as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of approval of a parcel map for an urban lot split.
• Neither the subdivider nor any person "acting in concert" with the subdivider can subdivide an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split.
Objectives: The proposed ordinance is largely based on the interim ordinance adopted by the City Council. However, it has been revised to incorporate feedback from the Council and to clarify and modify various standards upon further review by st aff.
Associated amendments to the San Tomas Area and Campbell Village Neighborhood Plans have also been prepared that will incorporate by reference the new municipal code chapters that implement SB -9. Staff has identified the following objectives to be achieved in preparing the proposed ordinance:
• To create clarity for staff and the community in implementing SB -9 provisions while ensuring a degree of consistency between SB -9 and the City's existing codes.
• Reinforce the applicability of existing development standards to SB -9 projects, except where specifically preempted by the law (i.e., setbacks and parking). • Establish objective design standards addressing architectural elements, materials, colors, privacy, and scale in SB -9 projects (of particular importan ce, since the City lacks any such objective standards).
• Establish objective subdivision standards for SB -9 projects, including provisions that prohibit the creation of irregular lots in single family neighborhoods. • Implement a clear and standardized permit ting procedure for proposed housing developments and urban lot splits.
• Provide a process to waive development standards that physically preclude construction of up to two units of at least 800 square feet, as required by SB-9. • Create clarifying definitions that resolve ambiguities in SB -9 including identifying the number and type of ADUs that may be constructed in association with an SB - 9 project.
• Establish other definitions that objectively define certain terms to clarify the implementation of development standards.
Proposed SB -9 Standards : The following is an overview of the key provisions of the proposed ordinance:
11 Packet Pg. 104
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 5 of 14
◼ Qualifying Criteria : Consistent with SB -9, the ordinance would apply to all single-family residential ("R-1") zoned properties, except for the following:
o Properties located within a flood zone (unless the new dwellings are designed to satisfy certain standards).1
o Properties within a delineated earthquake fault zone.2 o Properties identified as a hazardous waste site (unless the site has been cleaned and certified for residential use).
o Properties listed on the City's historic resource inventory (HRI). o Proposals that would include demolition housing subject to an affordable housing convent, rent control, or that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
◼ Qualifying Project: The “SB 9 Fact Sheet” prepared by HCD references that the law not only applies to lot splits and the construction of duplexes, but also applies to construction of just one single family unit, not two units as previous ly understood. In practice this presents a challenge in adequately reviewing proposed SB-9 projects because development could be piecemealed without the ability of staff to comprehensively understand the potential build -out on the property, including a dup lex. This comprehensive review is necessary to ensure that no SB -9 project would result in a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by feasible methods or measures, whi ch could be the basis for denial , per SB 9.
In order to address this, the City's draft ordinance would continue to require proposed SB -9 projects to plan for creation of two primary dwelling units by showing both units on submitted application plans, inclu sive of construction of new units and/or retention of existing units. However, applicants would not be compelled to construct both units. New CMC Sec. 21.25.090.D would thus allow for a phased approval of SB 9 projects, providing a one -year timeframe for t he applicant to obtain a building permit for each unit, for a total approval period of up to two years. If only one unit is constructed, the SB -9 approval would remain valid for that unit but expire for the other unit. In such a circumstance, an applicant could apply for a new SB-9 approval or simply leave the site developed with a single unit without violation of the Municipal Code. As a result, the draft ordinance would maintain consistency with the HCD guidance document referencing SB-9 allows for creation of just a single unit. 1 Approximately two dozen properties are located within a flood hazard zone per the FEMA Flood Map Service Center.
2 The Shannon-Monte Vista Fault extends through southwest corner of the City, as depicted in Figure HS - 4 of the Campbell General Plan. The USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Interactive Map shows fewer than half a dozen properties intersecting with this fault.
11 Packet Pg. 105
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 6 of 14
◼ Objective Zoning Standards : The ordinance reinforces applicability of existing development standards to SB -9 projects, including height, floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, fencing, landscaping, lighting, building separations, p rivate open space, equipment placement, and stormwater management, as currently specified by the Zoning Code and applicable area plans, with two modifications:
o Setbacks. Although the applicable front and street -side yard setbacks would continue to apply, s ide and rear setbacks are limited to 4 -feet per SB-9.
o Parking. Recognizing the physical constraints likely to be introduced by additional building area allowed by SB -9, when parking is required, the stalls may be either covered (garage or carport) or unco vered, including within a driveway.
◼ Objective Design Review Standards : New objective design review standards applicable to SB -9 projects would be created. The standards are intended to incorporate general best design practices for single -family neighborho ods, including:
o Privacy requirements including limiting the size and placement of second - story windows, and a prohibition of rooftop terraces and decks. Balconies would only be permitted on the front elevation of a primary dwelling unit. o Limits on the height of entryways, doors, and floors (plate heights). o Restrictions on roof forms to hipped cross -hipped or hipped and valley forms with a minimum slope of 4:12 and a maximum slope of 8:12 (to prevent flat, shed, or strongly angular roofs). Gabled and dormer elements are allowed.
o Limits on roofing materials to composition shingles, photovoltaic shingles, standing seam metal, clay tile, concrete tile, and slate shingles. o Requirement that stairways to access upper -level units be entirely enclosed.
o Limits on wal l material to stucco and siding (fiber cement, wood, or engineered wood) with an allowance for stone or brick veneer as an accent.
◼ Objective Subdivision Standards : To provide for the orderly creation of new parcels through SB -9 enabled lot splits, the pro posed ordinance provides the following standards:
o Defines allowable lot types (i.e., interior lots, cul -de-sac lots, corner lots, flag lots, etc.) and prohibiting "irregular lots" that do not meet these standard types.
o Requires that side property lines of newly created lots shall be aligned approximately at right angles to streets or radial to the centerline of curved streets.
11 Packet Pg. 106
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 7 of 14
o Specifies that each new parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the size of the original parcel and in no case less than 1,2 00 square-feet (per SB-9).
o Defines a minimum width requirement for the access (pole) portion of flag lots as 12-feet, consistent with the minimum Fire Code requirement. o Defines the minimum lot width as 25 -feet (equal to approximately 40% of the width of a standard 60-foot wide R-1-6 lot).
o Maintains a minimum street frontage of 25 -feet for new lots, except for flag-lots which are allowed a frontage of 12-feet.
◼ Accessory Dwelling Units : Existing State law and the City's ADU Ordinance allow for ADUs in association with single-family dwellings or duplex structures. In conformance with SB -9, the ordinance allows for ADUs in conjunction with SB -9 projects as follows:
o Single-Family Homes (No Lot Split): One ADU and JADU are allowed in addition to the two primary dwellings allowed by SB -9, for a total of four units.
o Duplex (No Lot Split) : Two ADUs are allowed per property in addition to the duplex, for a total of four units. 3 The ADUs must be detached from the duplex structure but may be connected to each other.
o Urban Lot Splits : SB-9 provides that the City may restrict the number of units to two —inclusive of primary dwellings, ADUs, and JADUs — on parcels created from an urban lot split. Consistent with SB -9, the ordinance restricts the total number of allowable units resulting from an urban lot split to two units per new parcel (for a total of four units). ◼ Review and Permitting Process : The ordinance establishes the use of an existing ministerial permit process known as a "Zoning Clearance," to review proposed h ousing development proposals and ensure that they meet the required objective standards, including a review of all existing and proposed structures compromising the proposed housing development. Approval of the Zoning Clearance would be required prior to s ubmittal of applications for building permits for the individual structures.
3Duplexes are considered "multifamily dwelling structures " under both State law and the City's local ADU ordinance. Multifamily dwelling structures are allowed two detached ADUs and one ADU for every four primary dwelling units (25%) created within non -livable space(s), such as garages, with at least one such ADU unit allowed. The ordinance clarifies that the latter part of this provision only applies to existing duplexes, consistent the Government Code which uses the term " existing multifamily dwelling structures." As such, SB-9 projects with duplexes will only be permitted the two detached ADUs. Only in very limited circumstances where an existing legal non-conforming duplex is currently located on a R -1 zoned property would a third ADU created from an existing non -livable space be allowed (resulting in the potential creation of a total of five units). However, the City's GIS consultant found only 11 such properties in the City.
11 Packet Pg. 107
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 8 of 14
Urban lot splits would be processed through the existing parcel map review process overseen by the Public Works Department. Since urban lot splits are ministerial, an applicatio n for a tentative parcel map would not be required.
However, to ensure orderly development of SB -9 projects and ensure feasibility of proposed urban lot splits, parcel map applications must be submitted concurrently with the zoning clearance application.
◼ Exceptions. Consistent with SB -9, the Community Development Director must waive any zoning or design standard that has "the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units or that would physically preclude either of the two units from b eing at least 800 square feet in floor area". This determination would occur as part of the Zoning Clearance review process. The ordinance establishes a prioritization list in determining which standards may be waived or reduced, as identified, below. The list i s organized in a manner that first encourages building outwards to encroach within the zoning setbacks, then upwards through relaxation of the floor are ratio (FAR) standard, and finally inward through reduction of the private open space, lot coverag e, and building separation requirements.
1. Elimination of the rear setback (for parcels with a rear property line abutting a non-residentially zoned property or roadway);
2. Elimination of the interior-side setback (for parcels with a side property line abutting a non-residentially zoned property or street);
3. Reduction to the street-side setback to 5-feet;
4. Reduction to the garage entry setback/minimum driveway depth to 20 - feet;
5. Increase to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR);
6. Increase to the maximum lot coverage;
7. Reduction to the front/rear building separation between structures to 5 - feet;
8. Reduction to the minimum required private open space;
9. Reduction or elimination of any other standard not otherwise identified.
Proposed ADU Revisions : Since SB -9 is likely to b e used in conjunction with existing provisions for construction of ADUs, staff has also incorporated various revisions to the Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) in the proposed ordinance. These revisions generally ease existing constraints and make mandatory revisions pursuant to AB 68 (2018) and in response to HCD’s ADU Handbook that remain outstanding. ◼ "Statewide Exemption ADUs" : The ADU Handbook identifies the potential to develop a "Statewide Exemption ADU," defined as an ADU no larger than 800 square feet, no taller than 16 -feet, and that satisfies a 4 -foot rear and side 11 Packet Pg. 108
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 9 of 14
setbacks. The ADU Handbook states that such ADUs are exempt from local development standards such as floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, design standards, and minimum open space. Although the City's existing ADU ordinance already incorporates some exceptions that allow for at least 800 square -feet of living area, the text furthers these exceptions by entirely exempting these ADUs from open space, design, and building separation requirements. ◼ Setbacks Exceptions: Allow existing non -conforming accessory structures that are converted to ADUs be expanded along the existing substandard setback (setbacks > 4 -ft). Also clarify the setback exception for eaves and architectural features also applies to the required separation requirement between buildings. ◼ Kitchen Definition: Clarify the definition of kitchen to ensure adequate cooking facilities in all new dwellings and update the JADU "kitchenette" standard to instead to require a standard kitchen per State law.
◼ Clarify FAR/Lot Coverage Exemption : Revise the exception to FAR and Lot Coverage for ADUs to specifically exempt 800 square -feet of floor area from the maximum standards as per State law.
◼ JADU Floor Area : Clarify that ADUs ar e allowed in existing and new dwellings, within the allowable floor area of the parcel.
◼ JADU Owner Occupancy : Consistent with State law, new text indicates that a property with JADU will now be encumbered with an owner -occupancy requirement that mandates t he property owner to reside in either the JADU or primary house.
◼ Number of Bedrooms: The City currently limits ADUs to two -bedrooms and two bathrooms. The ADU Handbook does not support a specified limit on the number of allowable bedrooms, stating that it "could be construed as a discriminatory practice towards protected classes…" In order to address this concern, staff had proposed amendments to the draft ordinance that increases the number of allowable bedrooms in an ADU to three (with three bathrooms). Staff believes that functionally only three bedrooms can reasonably fit into a 1,200 square -foot ADU. This change would accommodate larger families (addressing HCD's concerns) while precluding ADUs from be designed as boarding houses with a series of small bedrooms intended to be individually rented out. ◼ Multifamily Dwellings ADUs : Specifically allow the two detached ADUs associated with a multifamily dwelling (e.g., duplexes or apartments) to be connected to each other (side -by-side, back -to-front, or sta cked). Additionally, allow ADUs created from existing "non -livable areas" such as garages and carports to be expanded by 150 square feet (for an entry area) and to allow creation of additional square -footage within the existing building envelope (i.e., mezzanine).
11 Packet Pg. 109
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 10 of 14
◼ Public Improvements : State law precludes the imposition of off -site public improvement requirements, such as the construction of a new sidewalk, in association with construction of an ADU. Staff has proposed amendments to Title 11 to specificall y exclude ADUs (and JADUs) from triggering public improvements.
ANALYSIS
Potential Development Buildout : As noted, SB -9 will result in the potential creation of four dwelling units from an existing single -family parcel, generally in the four (simplified) scenarios identified in the table, below (in comparison, a single -family property is currently permitted three units, inclusive of a single -family dwelling, an ADU, and a JADU).
SB-9
Project
Type
Lot
Number of Housing Units
Detached
Units
(SFD)
Attached
Units
(Duplex)
ADU JADU Total Units
No Lot
Split
Existing
Lot 2 - 1 1 4
Existing
Lot - 2 2 - 4
With Lot
Split
New Lot 1 1 - 1 - 4 New Lot 2 - 2 - -
New Lot 1 2 - - - 4 New Lot 2 - 2 - -
New Lot 1 New Lot
1 New Lot 2
New Lot
2 11
Packet Pg. 110
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 11 of 14
The "real-world" impact of SB -9 will like ly be felt most in the R -1-6 Zoning District as approximately 80% (5,475 lots) of the City's 6,800 R -1 zoned lots have this zoning designation. Moreover, these lots are typically smaller than the those found in the City's other R-1 districts, which will re sult in more building square -footage relative to their lot area (i.e., higher FARs). However, according to UC Berkely's Turner Center's report on SB-9 published last year, economic factors will likely limit the number of new housing units that could be created under SB 9 to approximately 700 city-wide.
Onsite Building Massing : In terms of effects to the built environment, the objective standards proposed by staff prioritize the preservation of interior open space areas and thus will encourage that housing developments under SB -9 be constructed as two -level structures. While this approach maintains more on -site open space, it will likely result in more two-story buildings with 4-foot side and rear setbacks that could affect neighboring properties by additional building massing, shadowing, and perceived privacy disruption.
An alternative approach would be to establish objective standards that allow greater lot coverage with buildings and deprioritize private open space. This will result in more single-story development by allowing a greater portion of a lot to be built upon.
General Plan Conformance: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.60.070, an amendment to the Municipal C ode may only be approved if the decision -making body finds that: (1) the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan; (2) the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; and (3) the proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
The following is an analysis of these findings.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan;
The proposed ordinance incorporates objective design, development, and subdivision standards that aim at reducing the tradeoffs associated with increasingly dense development within the community. These standar ds will encourage the construction of traditionally designed homes and creation of logically shaped lots that will be compatible with established neighborhoods, consistent with the following General Plan policies and strategies:
Strategy 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 neighborh oods with consistent design characteristics.
Strategy LUT-5.2b: Residential Design Guidelines : Adopt design guidelines for new construction and remodeling of all residential structures.
Design guidelines should include provisions for height, bulk, 11 Packet Pg. 111
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 12 of 14
setbacks and garage placement so that new construction is compatible with existing neighborhood patterns.
Policy LUT-9.3: Design and Planning Compatibility : Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development, public spaces and natural
resources.
Strategy LUT-9.3e: Building Materials : Encourage the use of long -lasting, high quality building materials on all buildings to ensure the long - term quality of the built environment.
Additionally, by adopting a local im plementing ordinance for SB -9, the City will provide a predicable pathway to development of single -family properties. This approach is also in furtherance of Housing Element Policy H -5.4 and Program H -
5.4a, below, which directs the City to maintain the Mun icipal Code up -to-date with State legislation.
Policy H-5.4: Ordinance Updates : Update the Municipal Code as needed to comply with changes to State Law and local conditions relating the housing production and affordability.
Program H-5.4a: Periodic Ordina nce Amendments: Update the Municipal Code as needed to comply with changes to
State Law and local conditions/needs.
Implementation Objective : Initiate and complete the
amendment process to comply with the new
requirements within 12 months of being notified of the requirement
Lastly, as noted, the proposed revisions to the City's ADU ordinance are intended to reduce existing barriers to construction. As such, these changes would be furtherance of Housing Element Policy H -5.3 and Program H -5.3a, which encourages the City to facilitate the construction of ADUs.
Policy H-5.3: Secondary Dwelling Units : Provide for the infill of modestly priced rental housing by encouraging secondary units in residential neighborhoods.
Program H-5.3a: Secondary Dwelling Units : A secondary dwelling unit is a separate dwelling unit that provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons. It includes permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation on the same
parcel as the primary uni t is situated. Given the
limited developable land remaining in Campbell,
integrating secondary dwelling units in existing
11 Packet Pg. 112
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 13 of 14
residential neighborhoods presents an opportunity for
the City to accommodate needed rental housing. The
development of secondary dwel ling units is effective
in dispersing affordable housing throughout the City
and can provide housing to lower -income persons,
including seniors and college students. Approximately
1,000 single -family parcels in Campbell are of
sufficient size to add a secondary dwelling unit.
Implementation Objective : The City will facilitate the construction of new secondary dwelling units by
making information available to the public.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; Protecting the interest, health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the City's residents is always at the forefront of decision -making. The proposed ordinance is no exception to this general obligation . The permitting provisions and objective standards are intended to maintain the quality of life of the Campbell community by balancing the need for additional housing allowed by SB -9 and minimizing community impacts.
3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
SB-9 requires the City to permit a greater number of housing units and smaller lot sizes than otherwise allowed the R -1 zoning district. While the law creates inconsistencies with various other Zoning Code provisions such as parking and permitting procedures they are an unavoidable result of SB-9 and it is not possible to reconcile the State's requirement for multiple housing units on single-family zoned properties, since doing so creates an inherent conflict. For this reason, the proposed ordinance contains the SB-9 provisions as a stand-alone chapter in the Zoning Code in order to minimize internally inconsistencies.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council adopted SB -9 application fees earlier yea r, which have been carried forward into the FY2023 Fee Schedule. These fees should cover the City's cost to review SB-9 applications. To date, the City has accepted one SB-9 application.
Prepared by:
Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
11 Packet Pg. 113
PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance Page 14 of 14
Reviewed by:
Rob Eastwood, Community
Development Director
Approved by:
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. SB-9 Draft Ordinance
b. CC Resolution (SB-9 CVNP Amendment)
c. CC Resolution (SB-9 STANP GP Amendment)
11 Packet Pg. 114
Ordinance No. _____
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ADDING NEW CHAPTER 21.25 (TWO -UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS) AND CHAPTER 20.14 (URBAN LOT SPLITS) TO THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT SENATE BILL NO. 9 (SB -9) AND AMENDING VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUS).
FILE NO.: PLN-2021-187
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council adopts this ordinance in furtherance of Senate Bill No. 9 (2021), which requires ministerial approval of a housing development of no more than two units in a single-family zone (proposed housing development), the subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels (urban lot split), or both, and pursuant to Section 65852.21(j) and Section 66411.7(n) of the Government Code, and to amend related provisions governing the creation of accessory dwelling units in order to remove existing constraints and barriers.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan, including Housing Element Policies H-5.3 (Secondary Dwelling Units) and H -5.4 (Ordinance Updates); would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; and is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. The City Council further finds and determines that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.21(j) and Section 66411.7(n) relating to implementation of Senate Bill No. 9 , as well as pursua nt to Public Resource Code Section 21080.17 which exempts the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code relating to the construction of accessory dwelling units.
SECTION 4. Termination of Interim Ordinance . That (Interim) Ordinance No. 2277, as extended by Ordinance No. 2278, is superseded by, and shall be of no further force and effect upon the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. Adopting a SB-9 Housing Developments Chapter. New Chapter 21.25 (Two-Unit Housing Developments ) is hereby added to Article 3 (Development and Operational Standards) of Title 21 (Zoning Code) of the Campbell Municipal Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER 21.25 (TWO-UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS)
21.25.010 – Purpose
11.a
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
This Chapter establishes exceptions from the Zoning Code and provides permit procedures for proposed housing developments allowed by Senate Bill No. 9 (2021), as codified in Government Code Section 65852.21. The provisions of this Chapter shall supersede any other provision to the contrary in the Zoning Code; all other provisions unaffected by this Chapter shall remain in effect. Urban lot splits permitted by Government Code Section 66411.7 are processed pursuant to Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits).
It is further established that nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as to require the physical construction of two dwelling units that comprise a proposed housing development.
However, to ensure that no proposed housing development or urban split would result in a specific, adverse impact upon the publi c health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by feasible methods or measures, all applications submitted under this Chapter shall demonstrate construction, creation, and/or retention of two dwelling units on each parcel in compliance with the objective design, site development, and subdivision standards adopted herein.
21.25.020 – Applicability
This Chapter is applicable only to voluntary applications for proposed housing developments. Owners of real property or their representatives may continue to exercise rights for property development in conformance with the Zoning Code. Development applications that do not satisfy the definitions for a proposed housing development shall not be subject to this Chapter. It is not the intent of this Chapter to override any lawful use restrictions as may be set forth in Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of a common interest development.
21.25.030 – Definitions
In addition to the terms defined by Section 21.72.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) and Section 21.23.120 (Definitions), the following terms shall have the following meanings as used in this Chapter. Where a conflict may exist, the definitions provided in this section shall prevail over any other definition.
"Acting in concert" means persons, as defined by Section 82047 of the Government Code as that section existed as of January 1, 2022 , acting jointly to pursue development of real property whether or not pursuant to a written agreement and irrespective of individual financial interest.
"Addition" means any construction which increases the size of a building in terms of site coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area. "Alteration" means any construction or physical change in the arrangement of rooms or the supporting members of a building or change in the relative position of buildings on a site, or substantial change in appearances of any building. "Building" means any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for any shelter, housing or enclosure of any individual, animal, process, equipment, goods, use, occupancy, or materials. When any portion of a structure is completely separated
11.a
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
from every other portion of the structure by a masonry division or firewall without any window, door or other opening and the masonry division or firewall extends from the ground to the upper surface of the roof at every point, such portion shall be deemed to be a separate building.
"Construction of a new primary dwelling unit" means (1) the erection or assembly of a new primary dwelling unit ; (2) creation of a new primary dwelling unit from the floor area of an existing accessory structure or primary dwelling unit; and (3) the conversion of an existing accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit to a primary dwelling unit. "Elevation," including "front elevation," "side elevation," "street -side elevation ", and "rear elevation," means the wall(s) of a building that are oriented towards the front, side, street-side, and rear yards, respectively, formed by the required building setbacks, as illustrated by Figure 1-1, Figure 1-2, and Figure 1-3.
"Entry feature" means a structural element, which leads to a front door. "Existing non-livable space(s)" and "portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space" as referenced in Section 21.23.050 (Special Provisions for Multi-family Residential Properties) and Section 65852.2(e)(1)(C) of the Government Code, respectively, refers to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, garages, carports, and similar spaces that are located within or a part of existing multifamily dwelling structures that received a certificate of occupancy prior to January 1, 2022. "Existing structure" means a lawfully constructed building that received final building permit clearance prior to January 1, 2022 and which has not been expanded on or after January 1, 2022.
"Lot types" means "corner lot," "interior lot," flag lot," "doub le frontage lot," "reverse d corner lot," and "key lot" as depicted in Figure 1-1 (Lot Types and Yards), below. Also includes a "cul-de-sac lot" that is located along the curved terminus formed by the bulb of a cul-de-sac street, as depicted by Figure 1-2 (Cul-de-Sac Lots) and a "pie-shaped lot" where the side lot lines are approximately radial to the curve of the street upon which it fronts , as depicted in Figure 1-3 (Pie-Shaped Lot). Any other lot type not defined herein shall be considered an "irregular lot".
11.a
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
Figure 1 -1 – Lot Types and Yards
Figure 1-2 – Cul-de-Sac Lots Figure 2-3 – Pie-Shaped Lot
"Parcel" and "legal parcel" mean a single unit of land created by a partition or subdivision which, at the time of creation, complied with all procedural and substantive requirements of any applicable local, state or federal law. "Natural grade" means the average existing elevation of datum points located at each corner of a proposed primary dwelling unit, measured in feet above mean sea level (AMSL). "Neighborhood plan" means both the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan and the Campbell Village Neighborhood Plan, as applicable.
"Nonconforming zoning condition" means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards, and subject to Chapter 21.58 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures).
"Proposed housing development" means an application proposing no more than two primary dwelling units on a single parcel located within a single -family residential zone as authorized by Section 65852.21 of the Government Code. This Chapter recognizes the following types of proposed housing developments. Any proposal not satisfying this definition shall not be considered a proposed housing development under this Chapter.
1. Construction of two (2) new primary dwelling units on either an existing parcel or a new parcel created from an urban lot split.
2. Construction of one (1) new primary dwelling unit and retention of one (1) existing primary dwelling unit on either an existing parcel or a new parcel created from an urban lot split.
11.a
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
3. Retention of two (2) lawful nonconforming primary dwelling units where one or both units are subject to a proposed addition or alteration on an existing parcel.
4. Retention of two (2) existing lawful nonconforming primary dwelling units on a new parcel created from an urban lot split.
5. Construction of one (1) new primary dwelling unit and one (1) accessory dwelling unit (or junior accessory dwelling unit ) on a new parcel created from an urban lot split.
6. Retention of one (1) existing primary dwelling unit and construction of one (1) accessory dwelling unit (or junior accessory dwelling unit) on a new parcel created from an urban lot split.
"Public transportation" means a high -quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
"Single-family residential zone" means an R -1 (Single -family) zoning district as specified by Chapter 21.08 (Residential zoning districts). "Subdivision ordinance" means Title 20 of the Campbell Municipal Code. "Urban lot split" means a ministerial application for a parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel located within a single -family residential zone into two parcels, as authorized by Section 66411.7 of the Government Code.
"Yards" means the open space formed by the required building setbacks, as illustrated by Figure 1-1, Figure 1-2, and Figure 1-3.
"Zoning code" means Title 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
21.25.040 – General Eligibility
A proposed housing development may only be created on parcels satisfying all of the following general requirements:
A. Zoning District. A parcel that is located within a single-family residential zone.
B. Historic Property. A parcel that is not listed on the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory, as defined by Chapter 21.33 (Historic Preservation).
C. Legal Parcel . A parcel which has been legally created in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) and S ubdivision Ordinance, as applicable at the time the parcel was created. The city engineer may require a certificate of compliance to verify conformance with this requirement.
D. Hazardous Waste Site. A parcel that is not identified as a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated
11.a
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the S tate Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use.
E. Flood Zone. A parcel that is not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100 -year flood) on the official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency unless a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been issued or if the proposed primary dwe lling unit(s) is constructed in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 21.22 (Flood Damage Prevention) as determined by the floodplain administrator.
F. Earthquake Fault Zone. A parcel that is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist on any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the proposed housing development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.
G. Natural Habitat. A parcel that is not recognized by the City as a habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).
21.25.050 – Zoning Standards
The following objective zoning standards supersede any other standards to the contrary that may be provided in the Zoning Code or a neighborhood plan, as they pertain to a proposed housing development under Government Code Section 65852.21 . Proposed housing developments shall be constructed only in accordance with the following objective zoning standards, except as provided by Section 21.25.100 (Exceptions).
A. Building Height/Number of Stories . The maximum building height and maximum number of stories shall be as specified by the applicable zoning district and/or a neighborhood plan. Building height shall be measured from finished grade except for properties subject to a neighborhood plan where maximum building height is measured from natural grade.
B. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage. The maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage shall be as specified by the applicable zoning district and/or a neighborhood plan.
11.a
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
C. Grading. A change in elevation ( AMSL) from natural grade shall be limited to the minimum extent necessary to ensure adequate drainage as demonstrated by a grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer.
D. Minimum Living Area. The minimum living area of a primary dwelling unit shall be 150 square feet, subject to the restrictions specified by Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.
E. Parking. One (1) parking stall per primary dwelling unit shall be required, except for proposed housing developments located on parcel s within one -half mile walking distance of either a public transportation stop or one block of a car share vehicle operating in accordance with California Vehicle Code section 22507.1.
Parking stalls may either be uncovered or covered (garage or carport) in compliance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district and/or a neighborhood plan and Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading), except that uncovered parking spaces may encroach into a required front or side yard fronting on a public street within an existing or proposed driveway that satisfies the minimum stall dimensions for residential parking spaces (9-feet wide by 20-feet deep).
F. Private Open Space. Each parcel shall maintain a minimum of 750 square feet of private open space per primary dwelling unit, satisfying the requirements of Section
21.08.030, Table 2-3 (General Development Standards – R-1 Zoning District).
G. Setbacks. Proposed housing developments shall be subject to the setback and building separation requirements specified by Table 1 -1 (Setback Requirements), below:
Table 1-1 – Setback Requirements
Setback (1) Requirement (2)
Property Line Setbacks
Front
Per the applicable
zoning district and/or
neighborhood plan
Garage Entry 25 feet
Interior Sides (3) 4 feet
Rear
Street Side 12 feet
Separation Between
Primary Dwelling Units (4)
For units located in front of or behind
each other 10 feet
For units located to the side of each
other 5 feet
Separation from
Accessory Structure(s)
If located in front of the accessory
structure 10 feet If located behind the accessory
structure
If located to the side of the
accessory structure 5 feet
11.a
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
Exceptions:
(1) Cornices, eaves, sills, canopies, bay windows, or other similar architectural features may extend into required setbacks and building separation distances as specified Section
21.18.040.B.1.
(2) No setback shall be required for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. (3) No interior side setback shall be required for proposed housing development units constructed as attached townhomes, provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow conveyance as a separate fee parcel. (4) Except for primary dwellings constructed as a duplex or townhomes.
21.25.060 – Site Development Standards
The following site development standards augment those standards provided in Chapter 21.18 (Site Development Standards), Chapter 21. 28 (Parking and Loading), and Chapter 21.26 (Landscaping). Proposed housing developments shall be constructed only in accordance with the following site development standards , except as provided by Section
21.25.100 (Exceptions).
A. Air Condition ing Units. Air conditioning units and similar equipment such as generators, heating, and ventilation equipment shall be ground -mounted, screened from public view, and separated from property lines as required by Section 21.18.020 (Air conditioning units).
B. Driveways. Driveways shall comply with the requirements of Section 21.28.090 (Driveways and site access), except that the following standards shall apply:
1. Each driveway shall have a minimum width of eight feet up to a maximum width of eighteen feet;
2. Each driveway shall be e ntirely paved with either concrete or pavers. All other surfacing materials, including but not limited to gravel, decomposed granite, and asphalt, are prohibited; and
3. Only a single driveway curb -cut shall be permitted per parcel designed in accordance with the City’s Standard Specifications and Details for Public Works Construction.
C. Fencing. All new fencing shall comply with the requirements of Section 21.18.060 (Fences, walls, lattice and screens), except that fences shall be permitted up to seven feet in height, with or without lattice, where a six-foot tall fence would otherwise be permitted.
D. Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of the front-yard setback area shall be paved as specified by Secti on 21.18.070 (Front yard paving) , except to allow a driveway with a width dimension not exceeding eight feet.
E. Landscaping Requirement. Front and street -side yards shall be irrigated and landscaped with a combination of plantings, including natural turf, ornamental grasses, groundcovers, shrubs, and trees , consistent with Section 21.26.030 (General
11.a
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
landscaping requirements for all zoning districts) and the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), pursuant to Section 21.26.030.F (Water efficient). Properties subject to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP) shall provide one tree per 1,500 square feet of net lot area.
F. Lighting. New exterior lighting fixtures shall be down-shielded and oriented away from adjacent properties consistent with Section 21.18.090 (Lighting design standards) and shall not emit more than one half foot candle of illumination at interior -side or rear property lines.
G. Stormwater Management. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces shall be directed to vegetated areas on the parcel and shall not drain onto adjacent parcels as specified by the Building Code, and as demonstrated by a grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer.
H. Water Meter(s) and Sewer Cleanout(s): New water meters and sewer cleanouts shall be installed on the parcel containing the units they serve. Existing meters and cleanouts located within the public right-of-way shall be relocated onto the parcel upon construction of a new primary dwelling unit.
21.25.070 – Design Review Standards
The following objective design review standards apply to construction of new primary dwelling units and to any addition and/or alteration to existing primary dwelling units as part of a proposed housing development, except as provided by Section 21.25.100 (Exceptions).
Existing features inconsistent with these standards may remain provided they are not altered or removed.
A. Balconies/Decks. Rooftop terraces and decks are prohibited. Balconies shall only be permitted on the front elevation of a primary dwelling unit(s).
B. Building Colors. Each new primary dwelling unit shall incorporate at least two (2) colors (inclusive of trim) but not more than four colors. Paints shall be uniformly applied to wall surfaces and no more than one paint color may be applied per wall (not including the trim color). Additions to existing primary dwelling units shall incorporate the same building colors as the existing structure or otherwise comply with the requirements of this provision.
C. Columns and Pillars. Exterior columns and/or pillars shall not exceed a height of 14- feet or the plate height of the first-story, whichever is less.
D. Finished Floor. The finished floor of the first-story shall not exceed 18-inches in height as measured from finished grade.
E. Front Entryway . A n entry feature framing a front door shall not exceed 14 -feet in height as measured from finished grade.
11.a
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
F. Front Doors. Front door openings shall not exceed a width of 6-feet or a height of 9- feet. Front entry doors for duplex units in a side -by-side configuration shall be separated by a distance equal to half the linear length of the structure’s front elevation.
G. Front Porch. Porches shall have a minimum depth of 5 -feet and a minimum width equal to thirty-three percent (33%) of the linear width of the front-facing wall.
H. Front Step-back. Second-story wall(s) that front a public street shall be recessed by 5-feet from the first-story exterior walls, as measured wall to wall.
I. Garages: Garages placed on the front elevation of a primary dwelling unit shall not exceed 50% of the linear extent of the front elevation.
J. Garage Conversions. The creation of a primary dwelling unit from the existing space of an attached garage shall include removal of garage doors which shall be replaced with architectural features the same as those of the existing primary dwelling unit, including the same wall cladding, building color(s), and window frames that remove any appearance that the structure was originally a garage.
K. Plate Height. The plate height of each story for a new primary dwelling unit shall be limited to 12-feet as measured from finished floor. The plate height of an addition to an existing primary dwelling unit shall match the plate height of the existing structure.
L. Roof Forms. For new primary dwelling units, roofs shall be limited to cross-hipped or hipped and valley forms with a minimum slope of 4:12 and a maximum slope of 8:12.
Gabled and dormer elements are allowed , but a ll other roof forms are prohibited.
Additions to existing primary dwelling units shall match the predominant roof form and roof pitch of the existing structure.
M. Roof Materials. For new primary dwelling units, no more than two (2) roofing materials shall be used, limited to asphalt composite shingles, photovoltaic shingles, standing seam metal, clay tile, concrete tile, and slate shingles . All other roofing materials are prohibited. Additions to existing primary dwelling units shall incorporate the same roofing material as the existing structure or otherwise comply with the requirements of this provision.
N. Stairways. A dwelling unit located entirely on a second story shall require a separate interior or exterior stairway. Enclosed stairways shall be included in the allowable floor area of the dwelling unit that it serves.
O. Wall Materials . For new primary dwelling units, n o more than two exterior wall materials shall be used, limited to stucco, horizontal or vertical fiber cement siding (in any profile), horizontal or vertical wood siding (in any profile), and horizontal or vertical engineered (composite) wood siding (in any profile). Stacked stone or brick veneer may be used as an accent material, limited to the lower half of the first story. Additions to existing primary dwelling units shall incorporate the same combination materials as the existing structure or otherwise comply with the requirements of this provision.
11.a
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
P. Windows. All second -story windows less than eight feet from rear and inter ior-side property lines shall be clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least six feet above the finished floor. All other second -story windows shall be limited to the minimum number and minimum size as necessary for egress purposes as required by the Building Code.
Q. Utilities. Gas and electric meters and connections to gas and electric meters (i.e. connections to rooftop solar panels) shall be located on side walls adjacent to interior- side property lines.
21.25.080 – General Requirements and Restrictions
The following requirements and restrictions apply to all proposed housing developments, inclusive of existing and new primary dwelling units, as applicable:
A. Accessory Dwelling Units. In addition to the two primary dwelling units comprising a proposed housing development, accessory dwelling units may be allowed as follows , consistent with Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) , except for proposed housing developments located on a new parcel created by an urban lot split which shall be limited to a total of two units as defined by Section 66411.7(j)(2) of the Government Code:
1. Parcels with two (2) single-family dwellings shall be permitted one (1) accessory dwelling unit and one (1) junior accessory dwelling unit;
2. Parcels with a duplex structure shall be permitted two (2) detached accessory dwelling units. The accessory dwelling units may be connected to each other in a side-by-side or front -to-back configuration or stacked with one unit located atop of the other unit forming a two-story structure not exceeding the maximum building height specified by Section 21.25.050 .A ( Building height/number of stories);
3. Creation of an interior accessory dwelling unit from an existing non -livable space shall only be permitted within an existing multifamily dwelling structure, as herein defined.
B. Building and Fire Codes . Title 18 and Title 17 of the Campbell Municipal Code, incorporating the Building Code and Fire Code, respectively, apply to all proposed housing developments.
C. Dwelling Unit Type . The primary dwelling unit(s) comprising a proposed housing development may take the form of detached single -family dwellings, attached townhomes, and/or duplexes. A duplex may consist of two dwelling units in a side-by- side or front -to-back configuration or stacked with one unit located atop of the other unit forming a two-story structure not exceeding the maximum building height specified by Section 21.25.050.A (Building height/number of stories).
11.a
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
D. Encroachment Permits. Separate encroachment permits for the installation of utilities to serve a proposed housing development shall be required. Applicants shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work.
E. Park Impact Fee. A fee in-lieu of parkland dedication shall be paid in association with the creation of any new dwelling units in compliance with Chapter 13.08 (Park Impact Fees and Park Land Dedication Developments).
F. Restrictions on Demolition . The proposed housing development shall not require demolition or alteration involving removal of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls, of any of the following types of housing structures:
1. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of mod erate, low, or very low income;
2. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power;
3. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. This shall be evidenced by clai ming of the Homeowners' Exemption on the Santa Clara County assessment roll.
G. Short-Term Rentals. Leases for durations of less than 30 days, including short -term rentals are prohibited. The community development director shall require recordation of a deed restriction documenting this requirement prior to issuance of a building permit.
H. Subdivision and Sales. Except for the allowance for an urban lot split provided in Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits), no subdivision of land or air rights shall be allowed in association with a proposed housing development, including creation of a stock cooperative or similar common interest ownership arrangement. In no instance shall a single primary dwelling unit be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the other primary dwelling unit.
21.25.090 – Application Process
Applications for proposed housing developments shall be submitted and processed in compliance with the following requirements:
A. Application Type. Proposed housing developments shall be reviewed ministerially by the community development director through consideration of a zoning clearance in compliance with Chapter 21.40 (Zoning Clearances). The permitting provisions of Chapter 21.42 (Site and Architectural Review ) and by reference any neighborhood plan, shall not be applied.
11.a
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
B. Application Filing. A zoning clearance application for a proposed housing development, including the required application materials and fees, shall be filed with the community development department in compliance with Chapter 21.38 (Application Filing, Processing and Fees) . A zoning clearance application may only be found complete if it satisfies the requirements of this Chapter.
C. Building Permits. Issuance of a zoning clearance shall be required prior to issuance of building permit(s) for the new and/or modified dwelling units comprising the proposed housing development , consistent with Section 21.56.050 (Issuance of building permits).
D. Approval Expiration. Approval of a Zoning Clearance shall expire twelve months of after issuance, as specified by Section 21.56.030 (Permit time limits and extensions), except when a proposed housing development is comprised of two dwelling units .
Approval of a zoning clearance for creation and/or alteration of two dwelling units shall incorporate two pre -approved phases pursuant to Section 21.56.030. A.3.b (Pre- approved phases) , where each phase provides twelve months for the applicant to secure issuance of a building permit for each approved dwelling unit. Failure to secure issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 (first dwelling unit) shall result in the expiration of the zoning clearance. Failure to obtain a building permit for Phase 2 (second dwelling unit) within the successive twelve-month period shall result in the expiration of approval for Phase 2 without effect to Phase 1. Such partial expiration of the zoning clearance shall not preclude application for a new zoning clearance for the second dwelling unit nor result in a violation of this Title. An applicant may request an extension of the permit expiration date to any of the twelve-month approval periods pursuant to Section 21.56.030.C (Extensions of time).
E. Denial. The community development director may deny a proposed housing development project only if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code , upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specif ic, adverse impact . Expiration of a zoning clearance application following a determination that the application is incomplete pursuant to Section
21.38.040.C (Expiration of application) shall not constitute a denial.
F. Appeals. As specified by Chapter 21.62 (Appeals), zoning clearances are ministerial and are not subject to an appeal.
21.25.100 – Exceptions
If any of the zoning, site development, or design review standards provided in this Chapter would have the effect of physically precluding construction of up to two primary dwelling units or physically preclude either of the two primary dwelling units from being at least eight hundred square feet in floor area, the community development director shall grant an exception to the applicable standard(s) to the minimum extent necessary as specified by
11.a
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
this section. An exception request shall be explicitly made on the application for a zoning clearance for a proposed housing development.
A. Determination. Exceptions shall be granted by the community development director according to the following order of priority (ordered from the most preferred to the least preferred) until the physical constraint to a proposed housing development is resolved, provided that if an exception does not remove a physical constraint, the exception shall not be granted.
1. Elimination of the rear setback (for parcels with a rear property line abutting a non-residentially zoned property or roadway);
2. Elimination of the interior -side setback (for parcels with a side property line abutting a non-residentially zoned property or street);
3. Reduction of the street-side setback to 5-feet;
4. Reduction of the garage entry setback/minimum driveway depth to 20-feet;
5. Increase to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR);
6. Increase to the maximum lot coverage;
7. Reduction to the minimum required private open space;
8. Reduction of the front/rear building separation between structures to 5-feet;
9. Reduction or elimination of any other standard not otherwise identified.
B. Remedy. Where a disagreement with the community development director's application of this section occurs, the proced ures for an Interpretation provided in Section 21.020.030 (Procedures for interpretations) shall be followed, including the provisions for an appeal.
SECTION 6. Adopting an Urban Lot Splits Chapter. New Chapter 20.14 (Urban Lot Splits) is hereby added to Title 20 ( Subdivision and Land Development ) of the Campbell Municipal Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER 20.14 (URBAN LOT SPLITS)
20.14.010 – Purpose
This Chapter establishes exceptions to the Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance and provides permit procedures to allow urban lot splits allowed by Senate Bill No. 9 (2021), as codified in Government Code Section Sections 66452.6 and 66411.7 . The provisions of this Chapter shall supersede any other provision to the contrary in the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Code. Subdivision standards provided for in the Subdivision Ordinance that are not affected by this Chapter shall remain in effect.
11.a
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
20.14.020 – Applicability
This Chapter is applicable only to voluntary applications for urban lot splits. Owners of real property or their representatives may continue to exercise rights for property development in conformance with this Title. Applications that do not satisfy the d efinitions for an urban lot split provided in Section 21.25.030 (Definitions) of the Zoning Code shall not be subject to this Chapter. It is not the intent of this Chapter to override any lawful use restrictions as may be set forth in Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of a common interest development.
20.14.030 – Definitions
The meaning of terms used in the Chapter shall be as defined by Section 21.72.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases), Section 21.23.120 (Definitions), and Section
21.25.030 (Definitions) of the Zoning Code. Where a conflict may exist between these sections, the definitions provided in Sections 21.25.030 (Definitions) shall prevail.
20.14.040 – Subdivision Standards
The following objective subdivision standards supersede any other standards to the contrary that may be provided in the Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Code, or a pplicable neighborhood plan as they pertain to creation of an urban lot split under Section 66411.7 of the Government Code.
A. Allowable Lot Types . Any newly created parcel satisfying the criteria provid ed by Section 21.25.040 (General Eligibility) of the Zoning Code may be approved for an urban lot split, irrespective of its current configuration. However, t he allowed creation of specific lot types resulting from an urban lot split is limited to those specified in Table 1-1 (Allowed Lot Types), below. Lot types identified with an (A) are allowable. Lot types identified with a (P) are prohibited and shall not be created.
Table 1-1 – Allowed Lot Types
Lot Type (1) Allowability
Interior Lot A
Corner Lot A
Reverse Corner Lot A
Flag Lot A
Key Lot A
Cul-de-Sac Lot A
Pie-Shaped Lot A
Double Frontage Lot P
Irregular Lot P
(1) Lot types are defined and illustrated in Section 21.25.030, Figure 1-1 (Lot Types and Yards), Figure 1-2 (Cul-de-Sac Lots), and Figure 1-3 (Pie-Shaped Lot) of the Zoning Code.
B. Flag Lots. The access corridor of a flag lot parcel (as illustrated in Section 21.25.030, Figure 1-1 of the Zoning Code) shall be in fee as part of the parce l and not as an easement and shall be of a minimum width of 12-feet and a maximum width of 15-feet
11.a
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
and be entirely paved with either concrete or pavers, consistent with the Fire Code as determined by the fire chief.
C. Lot Lines. The side lines of all parcels, so far as possible, shall be at right angles to streets or radial or approximately radial to curved streets and to center points of cul- de-sac turning circles.
D. Minimum Lot Size. Each new parcel shall be approximately equal in lot area provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision. In no event shall a new parcel be less than 1,200 square feet in lot area. The minimum lot area for a flag lot shall be exclusive of the access corridor as illustrated in Section 21.25.030, Figure 1-1 of the Zoning Code E. Minimum lot width. Each new parcel shall maintain a minimum lot width of 25 -feet.
The calculation of lot width for a flag lot shall exclude the access corridor as illustrated in Section 21.25.030, Figure 1-1 of the Zoning Code.
F. Minimum Public Frontage . Each new parcel shall have frontage upon a street dedicated in fee as a public street wi th a minimum frontage dimension of 25 -feet, except for flag-lots which shall have a minimum frontage dimension of 12-feet.
G. Number of Lots. The parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel shall create no more than two new parcels.
20.14.050 – General Requirements and Restrictions
The following requirements and restrictions apply to all proposed urban lot splits allowed by this Chapter:
A. Adjacent Parcels. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously conducted an urban lot split to create an adjacent parcel as provided for in this Chapter.
B. Dedication and Easements: The city engineer shall not require dedications of rights- of-way nor the construction of offsite improvements, however, may require recording of easements necessary for the provision of public services and facilities.
C. Existing Structures. Existing structures located on a parcel subject to an urban lot split shall not be subject to a setback requirement. However, any such existing structures shall not be located across the shared property line resulting from an urban lot split, unless the structure is converted to an attached townhome unit as provided for in Section 21.25.050, Table 1-1 (Setback Requirements, Exception No. 4) of the Zoning Code. All other existing structures shall be modified, demolished, or relocated prior to recordation of a parcel map.
11.a
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)
D. Grading. A change in elevation (AMSL) from natural grade shall be limited to the minimum extent necessary to ensure adequate drainage as demonstrated by a grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer.
E. Intent to Occupy. The applicant shall sign an affidavit provided by the community development director attesting that the applicant intends to occupy one of the newly created parcels as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split (or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a new dwelling in the case of a vacant lot) . The affidavit shall be recorded on the title of the parcel concurrently with recordation of the parcel map.
This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is "community land trust, " as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or a "qualified nonprofit corporation " as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
F. Non-Conforming Conditions. The City shall not require, as a condition of approval, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. However, no new nonconforming conditions may result from t he urban lot split other than as specified by Section
21.25.050, Table 1-1 (Setback Requirements) of the Zoning Code.
G. Number of Remaining Units . No parcel created through an urban lot split shall be allowed to include more than two existing dwelling units as defined by Government Code section 66411.7(j)(2). Any excess dwelling units that do not meet these requirements shall be relocated, demolished, or otherwise removed prior to approval of a parcel map.
H. Park Impact Fee. A fee in-lieu of parkland dedication pursuant to Chapter 20.24 (Park Impact Fees and Park Land Dedication Subdivisions) shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map.
I. Prior Subdivision. A parcel created through a prior urban lot split may not be further subdivided under the provisions of this Chapter. The subdivider shall sign a covenant provided by the community development director documenting this restriction. The convent shall be recorded on the title of each parcel concurrent with recordation of the parcel map.
J. Restrictions on Demolition . The proposed urban lot split shall not require the demolition or alteration involving removal of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls of any of the following types of housing:
1. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income;
2. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power;
11.a
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: SB-9 Draft Ordinance (PLN-2021-187 ~ SB-9 Ordinance)