Agenda, regular meeting — Campbell City Council, April 4, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

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.

The City Council meeting will be live -streamed on Channel 26 or Channel 88, 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 receive a confirmation email containing information abo ut 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 distributed to the Co uncil. 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, April 4, 2023 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 Regular Meeting of March 21, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve the regular meeting minutes of March 21, 2023.

2. Approving Bills and Claims
Recommended Action: Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $489,791.46.

3. Monthly Investment Transactions Report (February 2023) Recommended Action: That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for February 2023.

4. Monthly Treasurer's Report (February 2023)
Recommended Action: That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Treasurer’s Report for the month ended February 28, 2023.

5. Initiate Proceedings of the Campbell Lighting and La ndscaping District, Fiscal Year 2023-24 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution initiating proceedings, describing the improvements, and directing staff to prepare the Engineer’s Report for the Campbell Li ghting and Landscaping Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

6. Accept Grant Funds from the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for an Officer Wellness Program and Authorize a Corresponding Budget Adjustment (Resolution/Roll Cal Vote) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution to accept the California Officer Wellness Grant funds from the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) in the amount of $30,189.55 to provide additional funding for a contracted dedicated mental health clinician for police department staff; and to authorize a corresponding budget adjustment.

7. Approval of City Council Code of Conduct Policy for City Board Members and Commissioners
Recommended Action: That the City Council approve a City Council Code of Conduct Policy for City Board Members and Commissioners related to conflicts of interest.

8. Review of Campbell Statement of Values (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resol ution am ending Campbell’s Statement of Values.

9. Resolution Congratulating Nicholas Welzenbach on Being Selected “Citizen of the Year” by the Campbell Chamber of Commerce (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Reso lution congratulating Nicholas Welzenbach on being selected Campbell’s 2022 “Citizen of the Year.”

10. Resolution Congratulating Sports Basement on Being Selected “Business of the Year” by the Campbell Chamber of Commerce (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution congratulating Sports Basement on being selected Campbell’s 2022 “Business of the Year.”

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.

11. Review of Historic Preservation Board Recommendations, Confirmation of Direction, and Authorization to Proceed with Drafting of a Zoning Code Amendment for the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan), Inclusive of (1) Creation of Penalty Provisions to Discourage Unpermitted Alterations and Demolitions of Historic Structu res, (2) Clarification of Permitting Requirements for Historic Properties, and (3) Establishment of a New Mills Act Program.

Recommended Action: That the City Council authorize staff to prepare Zoning Code Amendments for the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan), inclusive of (1) Creation of penalty provisions to discourage unpermitted alterations and demolitions of historic structures, (2) Clarifi cation of permitting requirements for historic properties, and (3) Establishment of a new Mills Act Program.

NEW BUSINESS

12. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Two Grant Agreements with Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) for the Community Energ y Resilience Program and Community Decarbonization Demonstration Program, in the Amounts of $197,972 and $500,000 (Respectively) for the Campbell Police Operations Building (Project No. 23-RR) and Campbell Library Renovations (Project No. 23-SS) (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute two Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) Grant Agreements for t he Community Energy Resilience Program and Community Decarbonization Demon stration Program, in the amounts of $197,972 and $500,000 (respectively), for the Campbell Police Operations Building (Project No. 23-RR) and Campbell Library Renovations (Project No. 23-SS).

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS

13. Council Committee Reports
Recommended Action: That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.

ADJOURN

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Materials related to an item on this agenda s ubmitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are a vailable for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of City 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 pr ior 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

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 21, 2023 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 Furtado participated virtually from 405 W. Latimer Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008.

Pursuant to Government Code § 54953 (f)(2) Mayor Bybee stated that Councilmember Lopez had requested to participate remotely as the result of a contagious illness.

Councilmember Lopez disclosed publicly that there were no individuals 18 years or older present in the room.

ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Anne Bybee Mayor Present
Susan M. Landry Vice Mayor Present
Dan Furtado Councilmember Remote
Sergio Lopez Councilmember Remote
Elliot Scozzola Councilmember Present

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Dr. Liz Dietz of the American Red Cross in recognition of American Red Cross Month.

Mayor Bybee thanked Dr. Dietz for leading the Pledge and noted that as she was participating virtually, a Certificate of Appreciation would be mailed to her.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS

1. Proclamation Declaring the Month of March 2023 as “American Red Cross Month” in the City of Campbell
Recommended Action: That the City Council proclaim the month of March 2023 as “American Red Cross Month” in the City of Campbell.
1 Packet Pg. 5
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 2

Mayor Bybee highlighted key points within the Proclamation for Red Cross Month, noted the proclamation would be mailed out, and invited Dr. Dietz to speak.

Dr. Dietz recognized Councilmember Furtado for his service as a U.S. Veteran.

She stated the Red Cross has been helping others with disaster relief, providing blood products, training, and basic life supports since 1891. In addition, the American Red Cross provides services and works closely with the armed forces.

She spoke of the current disaster relief services that are being provided to the citizens of Pajaro and surrounding Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. Dr. Dietz thanked the Mayor and City Council for the rec ognition and encouraged all who are interested to volunteer with the American Red Cross.

Councilmembers expressed their appreciation to Dr. Dietz and the American Red Cross for all their extraordinary efforts.

COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS
Mayor Bybee noted that one email communication was received by Jeff Cristina.

ORAL REQUESTS

Veronica River Lee Harris, Campbell resident and Cloud City Representative, spoke in support of marijuana -based products and services and requested the City Council create a democratic committee on cannabis in Campbell.

COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
TRUST is a community service that helps Santa Clara County residents during an urgent mental health or substance use situation. Call Centers and field response teams are available 24/7 to answer calls for help. Call 988 for the local 408 area code.

Nominations are opened for Bike Champion of the Year for each of the Bay Area’s nine counties. Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition is looking for those special individuals who inspire bicycling in San ta Clara County. To nominate a bicycle champion in our community, go to bikesiliconvalley.org/. The deadline is March 31.

Mark your calendars: The Campbell Police Foundation is hosting a fundraising breakfast on Saturday, March 25 from 9 to 10:30 a.m. at the Home Church on Winchester Boulevard in Campbell. Tickets are $25 per person and can be purchased at campbellpolicefoundation.org.

On April 8, the Campbell Kiwanis Club will be hosting the 41 st annual Campbell Eggstravaganza Easter egg hunt for children ages 1 -12. It’s a mor ning of free events that include face painting, jump houses, kids games, pictures with the Easter bunny, and of course the traditional egg/candy hunt. The free event starts at 9:00 a.m. at Campbell Community Center.

1 Packet Pg. 6
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 3
The Bunnies and Bonnets Parade will fol low that same day at 11:00 a.m. in downtown Campbell. The Downtow n Business Association sponsors this annual Easter Parade tradition that features marching bands, dancers, community groups, local organizations and more. Put on your finest Easter hat or rabbit ears and come join in the fun.

The Civic Improvement Commis sion awards grants up to $500 per neighborhood for activities and projects that address the quality of life, safety, cleanliness, and engagement throughout neighborhoods. The 2023 Neighborhoo d Association Assistance Grant application period is now open and will close at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 31. To find out more about this grant opportunity, or to apply, please visit cambpellca.gov.

The AARP Tax Aid Program will provide income tax assistance free of charge thr u April 14 at the Campbell Community Center. The AARP Tax -Aide Program provides tax assistance to anyone, free of charge, with a focus on taxpayers who are over 50 and have a low to moderate income. To learn more, please visit campbellca.gov.

On Saturday, April 15 at 3:00 p.m., Campbell CERT will be holding its 5 th annual Taste of Campbell Fundraiser. Enjoy an afternoon experiencing loc al wines, beers, cuisine, and live music at the Campbell Community Center Orchard City Banquet Hall. Proceeds from this event help pay for emergency supplies, equipment, and training in support of our community. Ticket and pricing information is available at campbellcert.org.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Mayor Bybee asked if anyone wished to remove an item from the Consent Calendar.

In regards to item 8, Vice Mayor Landry thanked Director Capurso and the Public Works staff and stated that the Safe Routes to School project will also be discussed at t he upcoming Education Subcommittee meeting on April 4.

In regards to item 7, Councilmember Lopez expressed his appreciation that the Climate Adaptation Plan is moving forward.

The Consent Calendar was considered as follows:

2. Minutes of City Council Executive Session Meeting of March 7, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve the executive session meeting minutes of March 7, 2023.

This action approves the executive session meeting minutes of March 7, 2023.

3. Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting of March 7, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve the regular meeting minutes of March 7, 2023.

This action approves the regular meeting minutes of March 7, 2023.

4. Approving Bills and Claims
Recommended Action: Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $1,556,489.07.

1 Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 4
This action approves the bills and claims in the amount of $1,556,489.07 as follows: bills and claims checks dated February 20, 2023, in the amount of $452,689.39; and bills and claims checks dated February 27, 2023, in the amount of $1,103,799.68.

5. Agreement with t he Santa Clara County for the Senior Nutrition Program Home and Community Based Services Infrastructure Funding for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizi ng the City Manager to execute the FY 2022 -23 Senior Nutrition Program Congregate Meals- HCBS Infrastructure Funding Agreement with the County in the amount of $44,322 and approve a budget adjustment to the Senior Nutrition Program budget (101.525) to recognize and appropriate grant funds.

Resolution 12950 authorizes the City Manager to execute the FY 2022 -23 Senior Nutrition Program Congregate Meals - HCBS Infrastructure Funding Agreement with the County in the amount of $44,322 and approve a budget adjus tment to the Senior Nutrition Program budget (101.525) to recognize and appropriate grant funds.

6. Approval of a Used Car Dealer Permit for Silicon Valley Enthusiast LLC (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopts a Resol ution approving the issuance of a Used Car Dealer Permit to sell used cars at 3293 S. Winchester Boulevard.

Resolution 12951 approves the issuance of a Used Car Dealer Permit to sell used cars at 3293 S. Winchester Boulevard.

7. Authorization to Submit a Climate Adaptation Planning Grant Application (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the Community Development Director to apply for a Climate Adaptation Planning Grant for a Climate Action Plan.

Resolution 12952 authorizes the Community Development Director to apply for a Climate Adaptation Planning Grant for a Climate Action Plan.

8. Authorization to Award Contract and Execute Agreement for Campbell Safe Routes to School Maps Project (CIP No. 22-OO) (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to award the contract to and execute the consultant services agreement with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for the Campbell Safe Ro utes to School Maps Project.

Resolution 12953 authorizes the City Manager to award the contract to and execute the consultant ser vices agreement with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for the Campbell Safe Routes to School Maps Project.

M/S: Landry/Lopez - That the City Council approve the consent calendar.

The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

1 Packet Pg. 8
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 5
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Landry
SECONDER: Lopez
AYES: Bybee, Landry, Furtado, Lopez, Scozzola

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES

9. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Variance for Property Located at 68 Page Street to Allow Construction of an Approximately 1,053 Square -Foot One -Story Single - Family Dwelling, Inclusive of a 313 Square -Foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), with a 529 Square -Foot Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), with Substandard Front - and Street-Side Setbacks (14 ½ -Ft and 3-Ft Respectively), Including Retention of an Existing Detached Non - Conforming Garage. File No.: PLN-2022-101. (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of a Variance.

Senior Planner Fama presented a staff report dated March 21, 2023. He spoke of the property site, the appr oved project, and the basis for the Planning Commission’s decision and the appellant’s appeal.

Following Council questions, Mayor Bybee opened the public hearing and asked if the appellants Brittany and Shaun Sozua would like to speak.

Brittany Sozua, Ca mpbell resident, on behalf of her neighborhood requested an appeal of the Planning Commission Variance approval at 68 Page Street. She stated concerns with the 3 -foot setback along Maple Avenue, the nine exteri or doors, the six bedrooms, and the three kitc hens noted in the proposed project.

Ms. Sozua disputed the setback requirements as they are unprecedented and inconsistent with City requirements. She requested the City Council consider a 6 - foot variance on the north side of Maple Avenue.

Mayor Bybee asked if anyone from the public wished to speak.

Pat Clark, Campbell resident, stated safety concerns for his children with the 3 - foot setback and with having the property doors open directly onto the street.

Adrian Sarmento, Campbell resident, stated conce rns with the proposed project noting the small site should not have a single -family home, an ADU and a JADU all at that location.

Ed Barrera, Campbell resident, for the purpose of safety, requested the corner of Maple Avenue and Page Street have a yellow stripe to not allow parking in front of the house, to ensure that those needing to walk in the small walkway have room in the event of an emergency. Additionally, to accommodate residential parking during const ruction, he requested parking permits for indi vidual residents.

1 Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 6
Patrick Gasaway, Campbell resident, stated concerns with the 3-foot setback and felt approving the setback would set a poor precedent in Campbell.

Russ Biswell, Campbell resident, stated co ncerns with Variance 3 -foot setback and reques ted the City Council decline the Variance and require a 6 -foot setback.

Rich Chuang, Campbell resident, stated concerns with the design and layout of the house with its six bedrooms, six bathrooms, three kitch ens, and the exterior doors to all bedrooms. He stated concerns that the property would be used as a short-term rental property.

Jon Dixon, Campbell resident, stated concerns that the design resembles individual studio apartments and felt that was not appropriate for his community.

Teresa Sudo, Campbell resident, stated safety concerns with the exterior doors opening right onto the sidewalk, and the potential of the house being used for short-term rentals.

Following public comment, Mayor Bybee invited the property owner to speak.

Julia Lu, representative for property owner Yanjun Wang, stated she understood the neighborhood concerns, did not violate any of the laws, and requested the City Council approve their request.

Mayor Bybee invited the appellants to provide closing comments.

Shaun Souza, Campbell resident, reiterated neighborhood concerns, requested the approval of a larger setback, and requested a deeper review be conducted by City staff into the true intended use of the property.

Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Bybee closed the public hearing.

Councilmembers expressed concerns with the 3 -foot setback and the site plan and asked if there were any requirements prohibiting them from regula ting the design.

Senior Planner Fama respon ded that this housing development project falls under the Housing Accountability Act, and the law does limit the City’s ability to regulate this project pursuant to objective development standards. Currently, the City has no objective development standards that pertain to the number or placement of exterior doors. In order to compel changes, those changes would need to be rooted in the need to establish findings for approval of the variance.

Mayor Bybee acknowledged that although the Council was not suppo rtive of the site plan, they could not legally deny the variance without demonstrating in the findings that it is detrimental to the neighborhood.

Council discussed what the requirements were if they approved the appeal. 1 Packet Pg. 10
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 7

Senior Planner Fama stated they would need a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain for staff to return with a resolution to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.

Mayor Bybee asked staff if it was possible to take no action and refer this back to the applicant so they can address the setback and site plans concerns.

City Attorney Seligmann stated yes, they could also continue it to another Council meeting with a request that the applicant consider the Council input.

Council had a general consensus for the City A ttorney recommendation to continue the item and refer it back to the applicant for consideration.

Councilmember Lopez encouraged the applicant to hear the feedback and discussion, especially with regards to the setback.

Mayor Bybee reopened the public hearing.

M/S: Landry/Scozzola – That the City Council continue this item until the May 2, 2023 City Council meeting and ask staff to evaluate the comments made by Counci l and the community and work with the applicant. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Landry
SECONDER: Scozzola
AYES: Bybee, Landry, Furtado, Lopez, Scozzola

10. Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinanc e to Extend Interim Ordinance No. 2291 that Adopted Urgency Revisions to Title 21 Relat ed to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) to Conform with Recent State Legislation (AB -2221 and SB -897). (Ordinance//Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: It is recommended that City Council adopt an ordinance to extend Interim Ordinance No. 2291 to June 30, 2023.

Senior Planner Fama presented a staff report dated March 21, 2023.

Following Council questions, Mayor Bybee opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mayor Bybee closed the public hearing.

After discussion, M/S: Landry/Lopez – That the City Council adopt Ordinance 2291 to extend Interim Ordinance No. 2291 to June 30, 2023. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Landry
1 Packet Pg. 11
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 8
SECONDER: Lopez
AYES: Bybee, Landry, Furtado, Lopez, Scozzola
City Clerk Sanders read the full title of Ordinance 2292.

M/S: Landry/Scozzola – That the City Council waive further reading of Ordinance 2292. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Landry
SECONDER: Scozzola
AYES: Bybee, Landry, Furtado, Lopez, Scozzola

11. Authorization of the Semi -Permanent Parklet Grant Program Per Section 53083 (A)(6)(B) of the Government Code (AB 562 ) (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution determining findings for the City’s Semi-Permanent Parklet Grant Program are consistent with Section 53083 (a)(6)(b) of the Government Code (AB 562).

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scozzola
SECONDER: Landry
AYES: Bybee, Landry, Furtado, Lopez, Scozzola
Economic Development Manager Parks presented a staff report dated March 21, 2023.

Following Council questions, Mayor Bybee opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mayor Bybee closed the public hearing.

Councilmembers expressed their appreciation to Economic Development Manager Parks and staff for their efforts and work on the City’s Parklet program.

After discussion, M/S: Scozzola/Landry – That the City Council adopt Resolution 129 54 determining findings for the City’s Semi -Permanent Parklet Grant Program are consistent with Section 53083 (a)(6)(b) of the Government Code (AB 562). The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scozzola
SECONDER: Landry
AYES: Bybee, Landry, Furtado, Lopez, Scozzola

NEW BUSINESS

12. Review of Campbell Statement of Values
1 Packet Pg. 12
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 9
Recommended Action: That the City Council review Campbell’s Statement of Values and reaffirm it with any desired adjustments.

City Clerk Sanders presented a staff report dated March 21, 2023.

Following Council questions, Mayor Bybee asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. There were no members of the public wishing to speak.

Councilmember Lopez suggested adding language that al though the City is in Districts, Councilmembers are elected to serve the City as a whole; and wished to memorialize that in the Statement of Values.

Councilmember Furtado agreed that language stating that although Councilmembers are elected by district, they share the responsibility for the City as a whole and shared values extend throughout the entire City.

Councilmembers expressed support for the additional language and discussed where to appropriately include the new language into the Statement of Values.

Vice Mayor Landry suggested adding the language under the Community section of the Statement of Values and beginning with “I will…”

Mayor Bybee recommended that staff take Council’s direction to complete the statement and return with for approval a s a Consent Calendar item at a future meeting.

After discussion, M/S: Scozzola/Lopez – That the City Council review Campbell’s Statement of Values and reaffirm it with Council working for Campbell as a whole even though elected by district; and that staf f may finalize language as appropriate. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scozzola
SECONDER: Lopez
AYES: Bybee, Landry, Furtado, Lopez, Scozzola

13. Code of Conduct Policy for Boards and Commissions
Recommended Action: Consider adoption of a Code of Conduct Policy for City Boards and Commissions.

Assistant City Manager Gaeta presented a staff report dated March 21, 2023.

Following Council questions, Mayor Bybee asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. There were no members of the public wishing to speak.

Vice Mayor Landry suggested adding language to the policy addressing when Councilmembers or Commissioner write articles, to note that they do not represent the Council or Commission they serve on.
1 Packet Pg. 13
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 10

Councilmembers expressed concerns with FAQ #8, in that stating no at the beginning of the response may be to o definitive. They requested it be revised for clarity. In order to protect freedom of speech, Councilmember Lopez expressed concerns with the restrictive language pertaining to “special interest groups.”

Councilmember Lopez also suggested adding language at the beginning of the policy stating “The intent of this policy is not to infringe on free speech rights.” Assistant City Manager G aeta responded that language could be added to the beginning of the policy that indicates nothing shall be construed to in fringe on either the right of Association or the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

M/S: Lopez/Landry – That staff accept d irection on the points raised by Council and bring the final policy back for future consideration as a Consent Calendar item on a future agenda. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Lopez
SECONDER: Landry
AYES: Bybee, Landry, Furtado, Lopez, Scozzola

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

14. Adoption of Fiscal Year 2024 City Council Priorities Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 2024 City Council Priorities.

City Manager Loventhal presented a staff report dated March 21, 2023.

Councilmembers stated general support for the Council Priorities that were presented.

Following Council questions, Mayor Bybee asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. There were no members of the public wishing to speak.

Councilmember Scozzola s uggested adding information to the City website related to tenant rights.

Vice Mayor Landry discussed including short -tern rental policies, adding in additional language other than accessibility to promote C ity inclusivity and documenting the preservation and maintenance of the City’s tree canopy.

Councilmembers discussed the potential of adding revenue measures to the ballot as well as impact fees and a vacant parcel tax.

Staff responded that due to the l engthy process associated with adding a measure to the ballot, as well as staff capacity, it may be difficult to achieve adding those additional revenue measures as part of these Priorities. 1 Packet Pg. 14
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 11 Following Council discussion, City Manager Loventhal commented t hat the Council’s items of interest from the FY 2024 City Council Priorities will be incorporated into future workplan discussions to be heard on April 25.

Councilmember Lopez requested further discussions on a marijuana ordinance.

M/S: Landry/Lopez – That the City Council adopt the proposed Fiscal Y ear 2024 City Council Priorities with the additions of evaluating a cannabis program, modify Inclusivity to include more inclusive terms, and add short - term rentals, tree canopy, revenue sources, vacant parce l tax and tenant rights.

Councilmember Lopez se conded with the friendly amendment that staff will reflect what their capacity and ongoing workload is when considering the added priorities.

Vice Mayor Landry accepted the friendly amendment.

Councilmember Furtado was not supportive of adding the topic of marijuana to the Council priorities.

Following discussion, the motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Landry
SECONDER: Scozzola
AYES: Landry, Lopez, Scozzola
NAYS: Bybee, Furtado

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS

15. Council Committee Reports
Recommended Action: That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.

Councilmember Scozzola attended the Silicon Valley Clean Energy me eting and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Board meeting.

Vice Mayor Landry attended the Campbell Chamber of Commerce Celebrate Campbell event.

Councilmember Lopez attended the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Dir ectors meetings and workshops; and the Bay Area Quality Management District Board of Directors meetings.

Mayor Bybee attended the Campbell Chamber of Commerce Celebra te Campbell event, and the Campbell Little League Opening Day Ceremony with the City Manager and Public Safety Personnel.

1 Packet Pg. 15
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting Page 12 Mayor Bybee acknowledged and thanked staff, first responders, and the Public Works Maintenance Crew for keeping everyone safe, and m itigating damages during the challenging weather conditions over the last few weeks.

ADJOURN
Mayor Bybee adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m.

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Anne Bybee, Mayor

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

1 Packet Pg. 16
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 21, 2023 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Approving Bills and Claims

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $489,791.46.

DISCUSSION

The bills and claims that have been aud ited and approved by staff for payments made are noted below:

Type Check Date Amount
Payroll March 02, 2023 $73,266.02
Bills & Claims March 06, 2023 $187,919.98
Bills & Claims March 13, 2023 $228,605.46
Total $489,791.46

FISCAL IMPACT

Requested action does not require a budget adjustment. Adequate funding was available to cover all expenses as listed.

Prepared by:

Celia Deniz, Accounting Clerk II

Reviewed by:

Norite Vong, Finance Manager

Item: 2
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
2 Packet Pg. 17
Approving Bills and Claims Page 2 of 2

Approved by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City
Manager

2 Packet Pg. 18

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Monthly Investment Transactions Report (February 2023)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for February 2023.

BACKGROUND

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, call ed, 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 February 2023. As shown in Attachment A, staff deposited $2.1 million into and withdrew $2.4 million from the City’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) account to manage weekly operating cash flows. $65,000 in interest from the City’s Bank of New York ( BNY) investment portfolio was posted to our Wells Fargo cash account. A $1.0 million FHLB security was called due to early redemption, offsetting a $1.0 million cash deposit for another agency purchase on March 1 . Operationally, sales taxes came in this month much better than average at $2.1 million. And t he February LAIF investment rate grew again to 2.624%. Consistent with the recommended FY 2022-23 Investment Strategy approved by Council on August 16, 2022, staf f continues to watch for longer-term investment opportunities outside of LAIF, as interest rates continue to rise to provide t he highest yet still safe return s, consistent with the City’s Investment Policy. 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 t he Monthly Investment Transactions Report.

Item: 3
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
3 Packet Pg. 19
Monthly Investment Transactions Report (February 2023) Page 2 of 2

Prepared by:

John Formale, Accountant

Reviewed by:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director

Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

Attachment:
a. Monthly Investment Activity Report-2.28.23
3 Packet Pg. 20

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Monthly Investment Transactions Report
February 1 to February 28, 2023
Account Trans. Date February 2023
LAIF - ******137
Average Monthly Yield 2.624%
Beginning Balance 73,899,222$
Transactions
Withdrawal 02/23/2023 (600,000)
Withdrawal 02/24/2023 (1,800,000)
Deposit 02/28/2023 2,100,000
Monthly Total (300,000)
Ending Balance 73,599,222$
Account Trans. Date February 2023
Bank of New York (BNY) - ******818
Beginning Balance 24,999,860$
Transactions
Investment redemption/early call-FHLB (5% Yield), 2/24/24 scheduled maturity 2/7/2023 (1,000,000) Cash deposit, March 1 purchase 2/27/2023 1,000,000
Monthly Total -
Ending Balance 24,999,860$

3.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Monthly Investment Activity Report-2.28.23 (Monthly Investment Transactions Report (February 2023))

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Monthly Treasurer's Report (February 2023)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Treasurer’s Report for the month ended February 28, 2023.

BACKGROUND

California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer submits to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The City of Campbel l’s Finance Director has the responsibility of City Treasurer. This report is prepared to fulfill this requirement.

This report provides financial transaction data for the City of Campbell’s Funds collectively, including the City’s General (Operating) Fund.

DISCUSSION

This Monthly Treasurer’s Report details and summarizes receipts, disbursements, and fund balances for the month ended February 28, 2023. As shown in Attachment A, the City recognized $ 5.0 million in revenues and incurred $ 8.4 million in e xpenditures in total, for all City funds. The City’s overall ending fund balance for February 2023 is $96.8 million, a decrease of $2.6 million from the prior month.

For the month of February 2023, the City’s General Fund recognized $ 4.0 million in revenues and incurred $7.6 million in expenditures. Of the revenues received, $5 3,000 and $ 2.2 million are attributed to property tax and sales tax, respectively. The City’s ending General Fund balance for February 2023 is $ 17.6 million, a decrease of $ 3.9 million from the prior month.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with the review and acceptance of the Monthly Treasurer’s Report.

Item: 4
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
4 Packet Pg. 22
Monthly Treasurer's Report (February 2023) Page 2 of 2

Prepared by:

Carolina Vargas, Accounting Clerk

Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

Attachment:
a. Fund Balance Report (February 2023)
4 Packet Pg. 23
City of Campbell
Changes in Total Fund Balance
For the month ended February 28, 2023
Beginning Fund
Balance
07/01/2022
Increase/
Decrease
Jul - Jan
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure
Transfer
In
Transfer
Out
Fund Balance
as of
02/28/2023
General Fund
Restricted Fund Balance - - - - - - - -
Committed Fund Balance -
General Plan Update - - - - - - - Compensated Absences 994,762.00 - - - - - 994,762.00 Liability insurance 105,930.00 - - - - - 105,930.00 Available Capital Improvement Reserve 1,144,790.00 - - - - - 1,144,790.00 Committed Capital Improvement Reserve 897,782.36 - - - - - 897,782.36 Community Center Facility 71,019.06 - - - - - 71,019.06 Heritage Theater 268,542.19 - - - - - 268,542.19 Historic Preservation - - - - - - - -
Assigned Fund Balance -
Capital Projects (Construction Tax) 517,241.90 - - - - - 517,241.90 Unemployment insurance 90,000.00 - - - - - 90,000.00 PERS 2,252,000.00 - - - - - 2,252,000.00 OPEB 347,321.00 - - - - - 347,321.00 Encumbrances 711,874.11 - - - - - 711,874.11 -
Unassigned Fund Balance -
Unassigned 1,000,000.00 981,849.01 4,002,770.54 (7,553,077.10) 395,685.50 (2,172,250.50) (3,345,022.55) City Council Reserve 362,624.00 - - - - - 362,624.00 Economic fluctuations 9,955,452.00 - - - - - 9,955,452.00 Emergency 3,207,453.65 - - - - - 3,207,453.65 General Fund Total 21,926,792.27 981,849.01 4,002,770.54 (7,553,077.10) 395,685.50 (2,172,250.50) 17,581,769.72 Special Revenue
Vehicle Impact 2,472,588.22 498,300.26 54,933.61 - - - 3,025,822.09 Gas Tax (365,514.38) 75,638.26 81,255.54 (156,918.12) 923,650.00 - 558,111.30 Asset Forfeiture 113,752.93 9,193.77 8,082.84 - - - 131,029.54 Lighting & Landscape District 1,197,274.65 (339,269.72) 6,371.26 (240,433.36) 470,170.50 (55,650.00) 1,038,463.33 Housing & Community Development 345.85 - - - - - 345.85 Environmental Services 663,921.97 309,114.65 56,510.67 (16,998.38) 252,500.00 (595,885.50) 669,163.41 Supplemental Law Enforcement 268,112.52 (29,055.90) 8,333.33 (10,238.26) - - 237,151.69 State & Other Grants (1,765,042.94) 293,491.73 - - - - (1,471,551.21) TDA Grant 389,463.19 28,572.87 - - - - 418,036.06 Federal Grants 485,117.55 20,579.40 - - - - 505,696.95 ARPA Fund (48,224.63) 88,694.43 - - - - 40,469.80 Housing Assistance 8,769,588.00 (154,363.15) - (9,383.31) - - 8,605,841.54 Community Restitution Fund - 40,623.80 6,825.00 - - - 47,448.80 Community Facilities District #1 3,373.66 82,266.79 59.15 - - (71,500.00) 14,199.60 Community Facilities District #2 181,495.32 20,749.26 1,201.56 (1,832.83) - (6,000.00) 195,613.31 Parkland Dedication 3,304,721.07 1,103,996.73 286.00 - - 4,409,003.80 Recreation - Private Grants 5,891.46 132.23 - - - - 6,023.69 Adult Center 16,320.94 365.82 - - - - 16,686.76 Special Revenue Fund Total 15,693,185.38 2,049,031.23 223,858.96 (435,804.26) 1,646,320.50 (729,035.50) 18,447,556.31 Debt Service
Measure O 5,821,476.10 (1,925,559.54) 11,177.81 - - - 3,907,094.37 LID #30 31,630.40 708.99 - - - - 32,339.39 2016 Refunding Lease Revenue Bond 11,951.65 (677,914.46) 1.24 - 382,900.00 - (283,061.57) Debt Service Fund Total 5,865,058.15 (2,602,765.01) 11,179.05 - 382,900.00 - 3,656,372.19 Internal Service Fund
Motor Vehicle Pool 1,211,824.41 1,145,758.70 399,155.68 (65,410.92) 347,900.00 (25,000.00) 3,014,227.87 Information Technology Pool 304,071.88 (162,624.77) 190,612.65 (93,575.20) 178,280.00 (24,800.00) 391,964.56 Worker's Compensation 405,180.01 217,360.20 64,446.42 (26,058.25) - - 660,928.38 Internal Service Fund Total 1,921,076.30 1,200,494.13 654,214.75 (185,044.37) 526,180.00 (49,800.00) 4,067,120.81 Trust/Agency
Successor Agency 281,097.15 787,525.59 1.86 - - - 1,068,624.60 West Valley Solid Waste JPA 291,540.27 335,242.33 37,500.00 (46,747.06) - - 617,535.54 SCC Specialized Enforcement Team - - - - - - - Trust/Agency Fund Total 572,637.42 1,122,767.92 37,501.86 (46,747.06) - - 1,686,160.14 Capital Project
Capital Projects Fund 947,216.58 (2,716,897.83) - (137,456.66) - - (1,907,137.91) Measure O CIP Fund 50,462,160.78 2,868,340.00 - (21,023.60) - - 53,309,477.18 Capital Project Fund Total 51,409,377.36 151,442.17 - (158,480.26) - - 51,402,339.27 Total City 97,388,126.88 2,902,819.45 4,929,525.16 (8,379,153.05) 2,951,086.00 (2,951,086.00) 96,841,318.44 Fund Description

4.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Fund Balance Report (February 2023) (Monthly Treasurer's Report (February 2023))

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Initiate Proceedings of the Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District, Fiscal Year 2023-24 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Coun cil adopt a Resolution initiating proceedings, describing the improvements, and directing staff to prepare the Engineer’s Report for the Campbell Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 1980, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5831 approving the formation of the city-wide Campbell Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (LLA). The LLA requires the City Council to annually take a series of action s prior to the levy of annual assessments on properties within the LLD. The initial Council action required annually by the LLA is the adoption of a Resolution Initiating Proceedings and directing the preparation of the annual Engineer’s Report. The Engi neer’s Report is to describe the improvements to be maintained by the LLD and establish the annual assessments. This Resolution Initiating Proceedings is attached for the City Council’s consideration.

The LLA authorizes the use of LLD revenues for install ation, operation, and maintenance of a range of public improvements including the following: public lighting, traffic signals, street and median landscaping, parks and recreational improvements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, irrigation and associated drainag e improvements. The LLA also authorizes the use of revenues for acquisition of park and recreation land including acquisition of existing improvements, although Campbell has not taken advantage of this provision of the enabling legislation.

DISCUSSION

Staff is recommending no increase in LLD assessments for the upcoming fiscal year, nor any modification to the existing assessment formula rules. Any increase in assessments or modification of the assessment formula would be subject to the provisions of Pro position 218, including requirements related to special versus general benefits and property owner approval voting provisions. LLD assessments have not Item: 5
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
5 Packet Pg. 25
Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District Page 2 of 4
been raised since July 1996, when a 10% increase was approved by the City Council to cover increased maintenance costs.

LLD assessment revenues have never completely covered the costs as described by the Engineer’s Report. General Fund, Gas Tax and other revenue sources are regularly used by the City to augment the LLD’s annual maintenance and operating budget.

5 Packet Pg. 26
Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District Page 3 of 4

SCHEDULE

The proposed schedule of City Council actions for the annual LLD assessment is as follows:

April 4, 2023 City Council adopts Resolution Initiating Proceedings and orders City Engineer to prepare Engineer’s
Report.

June 6, 2023 City Council grants preliminary approval of Engineer’s Report and adopts Resolution of Intention. Time and
place for the Public Hearing are set.

June 28, 2023 Resolution of Intention published in a local newspaper of general circulation.

July 5, 2023 Resolution of Intention published in a local newspaper of general circulation.

July 18, 2023 Public Hearing is held at the regular City Council meeting. City Council considers adoption of a
Resolution Overruling Protests, if any, ordering the
improvements an d confirming the diagram and
assessments for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

August 2, 2023 Diagram and assessment is filed with County Assessor by August 2, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT

Projected LLD revenues for FY 2023-24 are approximately $1,210,000.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Direct staff to investigate increasing LLD assessments for FY 2023 -24. Any increase in assessments or modification of the assessment formula would be subject to the provisions of Proposition 218, including requirements related to special versus general benefits and property owner approval voting provisions.

2. Do not levy LLD assessments for FY 2023 -24. Not levying the assessments would require the City to find other sources of revenue or to cut services to mitigate the $1,210,000 projected to be collected in FY 2023-24.

5 Packet Pg. 27
Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District 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
5 Packet Pg. 28

RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL INITIATING

PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CITY OF CAMPBELL LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2023-24

BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Campbell, California, as follows:

1. This City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, conduct proceedings for the formation of the City of Campbell Lighting District LLA-1 and for the levy and collection of Assessments for Fiscal Year 1980 -1981, and did, on June 23, 1980, pursuant to proceedings duly had, adopt its Resolution No. 5381, a Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Formation of an Assessment Distri ct and the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments.

2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and it is the intention of said City Council to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of asses sments upon the parcels of land in said District, for the installation of improvements, including the maintenance and/or operation thereof for the Fiscal Year 2023-24.

3. The improvements to be constructed or installed, if any, including the maintenance and/or operation, shall include, in general, the following:

▪ Public lighting including traffic signals
▪ Landscaping
▪ Parks and recreational improvements including play equipment and public restrooms ▪ Appurtenances for maintenance of the above including curb, gutter, sidewalk, i rrigation and drainage improvements and for acquisition of park or recreation land, and acquisition of existing improvements, if any.

4. The costs and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance and/or operation, are to be ma de chargeable upon s aid District, the exterior boundaries of which District are the composite and consolidated area as more particularly shown on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Campbell to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and of any zone thereof and shall govern for all details as to the extent of the assessment district.

5. The City Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, directed to prepare and file with said Clerk a report, in writing, referring to the assessment district by its distinctive designation, specifying the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that year, presenting the following:

a) Plans and specifications for proposed new improvements, if any, to be made within the Assessment District;

b) An estimate of the costs of said proposed new improvements, if any, to be made, the costs of maintenance and/or operation thereof, and of any existing improvements, together with the incidental expenses in connection therewith;

5.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Resolution (Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District)

c) A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District and the lines and dimensions of each parcel of land within the district as such parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor’s map for Fiscal Year 2023-24 each of which parcels shall be identified by a distinctive number or letter on said diagram; and

d) A proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed new improv ements, in accordance with Section 22569 of the California Streets and Highways Code, including the installation, if any, and the maintenance and/or operation thereof, and of any existing improvements upon the parcels in said District i n proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such parcels respectively from said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, therefor e, and of the expenses incidental thereto.

6. The City Engineer of said City be, and is he reby, designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during regular office hours at the Public Works Department, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California 95008, or by calling (408) 866-2150.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Campbell, California, at a meeting thereof held on the ______ day of _____________, 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

______________________________
Anne Bybee, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

5.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Resolution (Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Accept Grant Funds from the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for an Officer Wellness Program and Authorize a Corresponding Budget Adj ustment (Resolution/Roll Cal Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council adopt a resolution to accept the California Officer Wellness Grant funds from the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) in the amount of $30,189.55 to provid e additional funding for a contracted dedicated mental health clinician for police department staff; and to authorize a corresponding budget adjustment.

BACKGROUND

Police d epartments across the country are looking for ways to address the mental health an d overall wellness needs of their staff. Per the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), suicide claims more law enforcement lives than either felonious killings or accidental deaths in the line of duty. There is no debate that public safety jobs expose employees to high levels of daily stress and cumulative trauma. The need to address the mental health of our public safety staff has never been greater.

In 2022, g rant funds became available through the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to address officer wellness and help police departments fund initiatives to address employee wellness. The Campbell Police Department applied for these grant funds and was recently awarded $30,189.55.

DISCUSSION

Providing Campbell P olice Department staff with access to dedicated mental health services will benefit our greatest asset, our employees . It w ill also benefit their families and the community they serve. Studies show police officers who can self -regulate are better able to handle the d ay-to-day stresses of the job. An increased level of mental wellness also correlates with fewer missed workdays, fewer uses of force, and more positive interactions with the public they serve. A dedicated mental health professional will be able to provide our workforce with counseling, coping strategies, and resilience training, leading to better overall health and wellness.

Item: 6
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
6 Packet Pg. 31
Acceptance of State of California Officer Wellness Grant Funds Page 2 of 3 In February 2023, the Campbell P olice Department contracted with a Public Safety Clinical Mental Health Counselor who focuses on emp loyee wellness from a holistic approach. The position provide s staff with : training on a variety of wellness topics ; family outreach and education ; drop-in and appointment -based one-on-one counseling services; critical incident debriefings; education on how to best interact with citizens who have mental health concerns ; resources for employees ; and resources for developing training curriculum for officers and civilian staff to maximize wellness and resiliency. In the first several months of having the counselor on staff, we have already seen positive impacts within the Campbell Police Department.

For the above reasons, staff is recommending the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the grant funds in the amount of $30,189.55, to be added to the Campbe ll Police Department’s current contract with a mental health counselor and provide for continued mental wellness services.

FISCAL IMPACT

Council approved $60,000 in funding for mental health services for the City as a whole.

This officer wellness grant in the amount of $30,189.55 will augment those funds and be applied towards the contract already in place for dedicated mental health services for the Campbell Police Department. A budget adjustment form is attached to recognize the grant revenue in FY 20 23, but a budget adjustment is not needed to increase expenditures since they are already included within the FY 2023 Adopted Budget.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Not adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of the grant funds.

2. Adopt a resolution accepting a portion of the grant funds.

Prepared by:

Andrea Atkinson, Support Services
Manager

Reviewed by:

Gary Berg, Police Chief

6 Packet Pg. 32
Acceptance of State of California Officer Wellness Grant Funds Page 3 of 3

Approved by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City
Manager

Attachment:
a. Resolution officer wellness grant funds
b. Budget Adjustment Form
6 Packet Pg. 33
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA OFFICER WELLNESS AND MENTAL HEALTH GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING A CORRESPONDING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.

WHEREAS, The Campbell Police Department identified a need to address the mental health of its employees due to exposure to high stress and cumulative job-related trauma; and

WHEREAS, The Campbell P olice Department applied for grant funds from the State of California Officer Wellness and Mental Health Grant Program and was awarded funds in the amount of $30,189.55, to be utilized towards a contract for a dedicated mental health counselor.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Campbell that the City accepts grant funds in the amount of $30,189.55 from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to help fund the dedicated mental health professional for the Campbell Police Department; and, authorizes a corresponding budget adjustment attached and incorporated by reference to recognize the grant revenue.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 2023, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

___________________________
Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:

____________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

6.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Resolution officer wellness grant funds (Acceptance of State of California Officer Wellness Grant Funds) City of Campbell
Request for Budget Adjustments
Department/Program Division Date Request No.

April 4, 2023 BA-19
Budget to be Reduced
Fund/Program Account Number Description Amount
Budget to be Increased
Fund/Program Account Number Description Amount

REVENUES
101.604 4543 Other State Grants 30,189.55
Total 30,189.55
REASON FOR REQUEST - BE SPECIFIC:

Police Chief City Manager
Police Department
Will Fuentes Gary Berg Brian Loventhal
To accept and appropriate grant Funds from the California Officer Wellness Grant. To be considered by City Council on April 4, 2023.
604 - Special Enforcement
Finance Director

6.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Budget Adjustment Form (Acceptance of State of California Officer Wellness Grant Funds)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Approval of City Council Code of Conduct Policy for City Board Members and Commissioners

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council approve a City Council Code of Conduct Policy for City Board Members and Commissioners related to conflicts of interest.

BACKGROUND

On December 6, 2022, staff presented a draft Code of Conduct policy for City of Campbell (City) board members and commissions to the City Council for consideration.

The policy provided direction for board members and commissioners on avoiding perceived conflicts of interest and identified actions that could create a perceived conflict of interest. The draft policy had also been vetted through the City Attorney, executive staff members, and the following:

• Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
• Civic Improvement Commission
• Historic Preservation Board
• Parks & Recreation Commission
• Planning Commission

Following staff’s presentation, Council directed s taff to update the policy to: include language directing members and commissioners to confer with the City Attorney if there was a question regarding the existence of a conflict of interest, both actual and perceived; include a clear definition of an actua l conflict of interest; and include language on how the policy would be enforced if violated. Council further requested staff develop a list of FAQs to aid board members and commissioners in their interpretation of the policy related to perceived conflicts of interest.

On March 21, 2023, staff returned to the City Council with an updated policy as directed. Following staff’s presentation, the City Council directed staff to further update the draft policy to: clearly provide that nothing in the policy should be construed to infringe on an individual’s first amendment right to free speech or peaceful assembly; add “writing” to the list of prohibited actions involving a perceived conflict of interest by board members and commissioners; and, include clear direction to board members and commissioners that when they appear in front of, write to, or speak to another Item: 7
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
7 Packet Pg. 36
Code of Conduct Page 2 of 3
government agency where a perceived conflict of interest exists, they must clearly indicate they are doing so as an individual and on their own be half. The City Council also directed staff to update the language in Question 8 from the Code of Conduct Policy FAQs to clarify that while a board member or commissioner may speak before the state as an individual representing their own interests, they ma y not represent the City or the special interest group before the state in a matter on which their respective board or commission has already taken a position.

DISCUSSION

Attached to this report is the second updated policy, both a red -lined and clean version (Attachments A & B), that responds to the City Council’s direction to staff. Specifically, in the “Policy Purpose” section, staff has added the following language:

“Nothing in this policy shall be construed to deny any person the right to freedom of speech or freedom of peaceful assembly.”

In addition, staff has included “writing” to the list of prohibited actions involving a perceived conflict of interest so that the policy now reads as follows:

“Prohibited actions involving a perceived confli ct of interest by member of a City board or commission may include, but not be limited to:

• Representing, appearing for, writing for, or speaking on behalf of a person or organization with which the member is affiliated on a matter that has come or will come before the City Council or any City board or commission; or

• Representing, appearing for, writing for, or speaking on behalf of a person or organization with which the member is affiliated before another governmental agency on a matter pending before th at governmental agency and the matter has come, or the member should reasonably know the matter will come, before the City Council or any City board or commission, and on which the City has not made a final decision.”

(Emphasis added.)

Finally, the polic y has been updated to include clear direction to board members and commissioners that when they appear in front of, write to, or speak to another government agency where a perceived conflict of interest exists, they must clearly indicate they are doing so as an individual and on their own behalf.

Lastly, attached to this report (Attachment C) is an updated FAQ responding to City Council’s direction to clarify actions allowed by a board member or commissioner acting as an individual and on their own behalf.

FISCAL IMPACT
7 Packet Pg. 37
Code of Conduct Page 3 of 3

There is no fiscal impact related to the adoption of the policy. Implementation of any additional processes related to the policy will be absorbed by the responsibilities of the City Manager’s Office.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the updated draft policy.

2. Provide alternate language to include in the updated draft policy.

3. Do not adopt the updated draft policy and provide other direction.

Prepared by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City Manager

Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

Attachment:
a. Code of Conduct_Board Members and Commissioners_April 4 2023_Marked Up b. Code of Conduct_Board Members and Commissioners_April 4 2023_Clean Version c. Code of Conduct FAQs_April 4 2023
7 Packet Pg. 38
____________________________________________________________________________________ -1-
Code of Conduct – City of Campbell Boards & Commissions April 4, 2023
Council Policy X.XX
DRAFT Code of Conduct Policy
City of Campbell Board Members & Commissioners

Policy Purpose:

The purpose of this policy is t o establish rules for individuals who serve on one of the City of Campbell’s (City) boards or commissions when there is a conflict of interest, including a perceived conflict of interest, with an item that is being or will be considered by the City Council or any City board or commission. Nothing in this policy shall be construed to deny any person the right to freedom of speech or freedom of peaceful assembly.

The provisions of this policy are in addition to any ethical obligations imposed by applicable law.

Actual Conflict of Interest:

Pursuant to Chapter 2.40 of the Campbell Municipal Code, no City board member or commissioner shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a governmental decision in which they know or have reason to know they have a financial interest.

A board member or commissioner has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of the California Political Reform Act if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the board member or commissioner, on a member of their immediate family, or on any business entity, real property, or source of income in which they have a direct or indirect investment.

Perceived Conflict of Interest:

In addition to actual conflicts of interest, a member of a City board or commission shall not participate in any decision in which the member has a perceived conflict of interest as defined in this policy.

A perceived conflict of interest means a situation where a member of a City board or commission is affiliated with a person or organization that has taken a position on a matter coming before the City Council or any City board or commission and the member would appear, to a reasonable and well- informed person, to have aligned their interest with that person or organization in such a way that would affect the independence, impartiality and objectivity of the member’s role as a City board member or commissioner.

Prohibited actions involving a perceived conflict of interest by member of a City board or commission may include, but not be limited to:

• Representing, appearing for, writing for, or speaking on behalf of a person or organization with which the member is affiliated before another governmental agency on a matter

7.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Code of Conduct_Board Members and Commissioners_April 4 2023_Marked Up (Code of Conduct)

____________________________________________________________________________________

-2-
Code of Conduct – City of Campbell Boards & Commissions April 4, 2023
pending before that governmental agency and the matter has come, or the member should reasonably know the matter will come, before the City Council or any City board or commission, and on which the City has not made a final decision.

When a member of a City board or commission appears in front of, writes to, or speaks to another governmental agency on a matter pending before that governmental agency and the matter has come, or the member should reasonably know the matter will come, before the City Council or any City board or commission, and on which the City has not made a final decision, the member shall clearly indicate they are appearing, writing or speaking as an individual and on their own behalf.

Conference with City Attorney:

Any board member or commissioner who is unclear on whether an actual or perceived conflict of interest exists shall confer with the City Attorney prior to taking any action outlined above.

When a Conflict is Deemed to Exist:

When an actual or perceived conflict is deemed to exist on a particular matter, the board member or commissioner who has the conflict of interest shall not attempt to use their official position to influence a governmental decision on that matter. In addition, the board member or commissioner shall publicly identify the conflict of interest and leave the room before the matter is discussed.

Removal:

Any violation of this policy will be reported to the City Council for further action, including but not limited to removal of the board member or commissioner from their respective board or commission. Per Title 2 of the Campbell Municipal Code, board members and commissioners may be removed by a majority vote of the City Council.

7.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Code of Conduct_Board Members and Commissioners_April 4 2023_Marked Up (Code of Conduct)

____________________________________________________________________________________

-3-
Code of Conduct – City of Campbell Boards & Commissions April 4, 2023

7.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Code of Conduct_Board Members and Commissioners_April 4 2023_Marked Up (Code of Conduct) ____________________________________________________________________________________ -1-
Code of Conduct – City of Campbell Boards & Commissions April 4, 2023
Council Policy X.XX
DRAFT Code of Conduct Policy
City of Campbell Board Members & Commissioners

Policy Purpose:

The provisions of this policy are in addition to any ethical obligations imposed by applicable law.

Actual Conflict of Interest:

Perceived Conflict of Interest:

Prohibited actions involving a perceived conflict of interest by member of a City board or commission may include, but not be limited to:

• Representing, appearing for, writing for, or speaking on behalf of a person or organization with which the member is affiliated before another governmental agency on a matter

7.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Code of Conduct_Board Members and Commissioners_April 4 2023_Clean Version (Code of Conduct)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Conference with City Attorney:

Any board member or commissioner who is unclear on whether an actual or perceived conflict of interest exists shall confer with the City Attorney prior to taking any action outlined above.

When a Conflict is Deemed to Exist:

Removal:

7.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Code of Conduct_Board Members and Commissioners_April 4 2023_Clean Version (Code of Conduct)

____________________________________________________________________________________

-3-
Code of Conduct – City of Campbell Boards & Commissions April 4, 2023

7.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Code of Conduct_Board Members and Commissioners_April 4 2023_Clean Version (Code of Conduct) Code of Conduct FAQs: Page 1 of 2
March 21, 2023

Council Policy X.XX
Code of Conduct Policy
City of Campbell Board Members & Commissioners
FAQs – Perceived Conflicts of Interest
For purposes of these FAQs “City” shall mean the City of Campbell and “board members” and “commissioners” shall mean those members belonging to a City of Campbell board or commission.

Question 1 What does it mean to say that a member of a City board or commission is “affiliated” with a person or organization?

Response In this context, it means that the board member or commissioner is closely connected with, associated with, or related to a particular person, group, party, company, etc.

Question 2 If a member of a board or commission identifies a perceived conflict of interest based on their membership in an advocacy organization and items coming before the City Council, should they: (a) recuse only on the item itself (b) step down from the board / commission permanently or (c) step down from their membership in the advocacy organization?

Response In each instance where a member believes a perceived conflict of interest exists, the member should recuse themself from the specific item.

If a member is unclear whether the policy applies to the situation, the member should consult with the City Attorney, as provided for in the policy.

Question 3 If a member of a board or commission is appointed to an organization during their time on the board or commission and the appointment could present a perceived conflict of interest in the future, should the member immediately step down from the board or commission?

Response Perceived conflicts of interest should be considered when they are believed to arise and, on a case-by-case basis. If at that time it is determined that a perceived conflict of interest does in fact exist, the member should recuse themself from the item being considered.

Question 4 If the City has taken a position on proposed state legislation, can a member of a board or commission advocate separately regarding that legislation (i.e., on behalf of an organization)?

Response Yes, if they do so as an individual and not as a member of the board or commission and not as a representative speaking on behalf of the City.

7.c
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Code of Conduct FAQs_April 4 2023 (Code of Conduct) Code of Conduct FAQs: Page 2 of 2
March 21, 2023

Question 5 Can a member of a board or commission, who is also a member of an advocacy organization, advocate to another city (i.e., Cupertino) on an issue (i.e., developing trails) before that city?

Response Yes, if they do not hold themselves out to that city as a member of a City board or commission or represent that they are speaking on behalf of the City of Campbell.

Question 6 If a member of a board or commission is part of an advocacy organization and advocating on a certain issue, how would they know if the issue will come before the City of Campbell’s Council in the future?

Response They likely won’t. Perceived conflicts of interest should be considered when they arise and, on a case-by-case basis. If at that time, it is determined that a perceived conflict of interest does exist, the member should recuse themself from the item.

Question 7 Does this policy prohibit board members or commissioners from participating in other non-City organizations?

Response The policy alone would not prohibit board members or commissioners from participating in other non-City organizations.

Question 8 If a member of a board or commission is affiliated with a special interest group can that member represent the special interest group’s position before the state on a matter that the board or commission has already taken a position?

Response While a board member or commissioner may speak before the state as an individual representing their own interests, they may not represent the City or the special interest group before the state in a matter on which their respective board or commission has already taken a position.

7.c
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Code of Conduct FAQs_April 4 2023 (Code of Conduct)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Review of Campbell Statement of Values (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council adopt a resolution amending Campbell’s Statement of Values.

BACKGROUND

The City Council adopted Resolution 10621 in March 2006, to formally approve a Statement of Values. In February 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 10998 amending the Statement of Values to include additional language. This do cument identifies the six core values as the standards by which City officials should perform their duties on behalf of the citizens they represent and serve . These values are listed as follows: Community; Honesty; Civility; Equality; Teamwork; and Accountability.

DISCUSSION

The Statement of Values is a “living” document; it is reviewed bi -annually in odd - numbered years following a Council election. This allows the newly seated City Council an opportunity to review the Statement of Values and discuss any changes that might be desired.

At its regular meeting of March 21, 2023, the Statement of Values was presented to the City Council to either reaffirm or makes any desired adjustments. At that meeting, the City Council discussed adding in language pertai ning to governing the City ’s residents as a whole despite being elected by Districts. Following discussion, the City Council approved a motion directing staff to prepare the necessary amendment and a gendize for the next Council meeting.

The following sta tement was added to the Community core value for approval, “I will represent and serve all residents as a whole, even though Councilmembers are elected by District.”

Attached is the revised Campbell Statement of Values for the Counci l’s discussion or approval.

FISCAL IMPACT

Item: 8
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
8 Packet Pg. 47
Amending Campbell Statement of Values Page 2 of 2
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not renew the Statement of Values.

2. Provide alternative language for the Statement of Values.

3. Provide other direction to staff.

Prepared by:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

Attachment:
a. Resolution - Statement of Values
b. Campbell Statement of Values Revised
8 Packet Pg. 48
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF VALUES

WHEREAS, the Campbell Statement of Values was developed to identify the core beliefs of the community and expresses the standards for the highest integrity and ethical conduct expected from the City ‘s elected officials, appointed commissioners and board members, Executive Staff and candidates for local office; and

WHEREAS, the Campbell City Council officially adopted the Campbell Statement of Values by Resolution 10621 on March 21, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the Campbell Statement of Values was revised by Resolution 10998 on February 17, 2009 ; and

WHEREAS, the Statement of Values is intended to be a “living” d ocument, reviewed bi- annually in odd numbered years following a Council election; and

WHEREAS, the Campbell City Council has reviewed the Statement of Values and desires to add language in the Community section to state: “ I will represent and serve all residents as a whole, even though Councilmembers are elected by District.”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Campbell does hereby amend the Campbell Statement of Values as stated above.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 2023, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

________________________
Anne Bybee, Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

8.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Resolution - Statement of Values (Amending Campbell Statement of Values)

CAMPBELL STATEMENT OF VALUES
Preamble:

To promote and foster the highest degree of public trust, the Campbell City Council has adopted a Statement of Values reflecting the core beliefs of the community. These key values are deeply held beliefs that influence a person’s attitude, actions and dec isions.

Values, in turn, form the basis for ethical decisions. Ethics are standards or principles for how we treat one another.

The Campbell Statement of Values expresses the standards for the highest integrity and ethical conduct expected for elected offi cials, appointed commissioners and board members, executive staff and candidates for local office. These individuals have the responsibility to assure that they understand and follow, in every respect, the ethical standards so that the public can continue to have full confidence in its officials, candidates, and the democratic process. Ethical behavior requires a commitment to live by the values expressed below.

This Statement of Values is expected to be a “living” document and reviewed or updated periodically; initially in February 2007 and in February of odd-numbered years thereafter.

Community
As I serve Campbell:
• I value the importance of building and preserving community in Campbell • I am a steward for the community’s economy, environment, culture and safety • I am engaged and responsive when serving the community; the needs and concerns of all residents are important to me
• I take into consideration the long-term financial needs of the City while also balancing Campbell’s identity as a small town with connected neighborhoods • I will represent and serve all residents as a whole, even though Councilmembers are elected by District.

Honesty
As I serve Campbell:
• My words and deeds will be based on truthfulness
• I will conduct myself with the highest degree of sincerity • I will not knowingly use inaccurate information nor omit relevant information to support my position or views
• I take responsibility for my actions and do not leave false impressions

Civility
As I serve Campbell:
• I treat everyone the way I want to be treated, with respect and dignity • I practice patience, courtesy, and civility in all interactions • I understand differences of opinion and policy disagreements are part of the democratic process; I respect the opinions of those with whom I differ

8.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Campbell Statement of Values Revised (Amending Campbell Statement of Values) • I support effective two-way communication by listening carefully, asking questions and determining an appropriate response

Equality
As I serve Campbell:
• I value everyone’s opinion and listen to all sides
• I encourage public input as well as equal access and treatment for all • I am impartial and make decisions based on the merits of the issue

Teamwork
As I serve Campbell:
• I will actively participate in a positive and constructive manner • I encourage and support collaboration and strive for consensus building • I value diversity and seek divergent viewpoints from people of all backgrounds • I am approachable and open-minded
• I understand that my position may not always prevail but that I support the democratic process and the decisions resulting from it
Accountability
As I serve Campbell:
• I hold myself accountable to the highest ethical standards • I take responsibility for my conduct and am willing to expla in my actions and decisions
• I recognize that the responsibility for making decisions about the use of public resources is a public trust

As a representative of, or candidate for an office in, the City of Campbell, I agree to uphold the – Campbell Statement of Values adopted by the City Council. I affirm that I have read, understood and will conduct myself in accordance with the City of Campbell’ s Statement of Values.

Name Date

Adopted by the Campbell City Council on March 21, 2006.

Updated February 17, 2009, Resolution #10998

8.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Campbell Statement of Values Revised (Amending Campbell Statement of Values) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Resolution Congratulating Nicholas Welzenbach on Being Selected “Citizen of the Year” by the Campbell Chamber of Commerce (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt a Resolution congratulating Nicholas Welzenbach on being selected Campbell’s 2022 “Citizen of the Year.”

BACKGROUND
Every year, t he Campbell Chamber of Commerce recognizes an outstanding individual in the community and names that person as its “Citizen of the Year.” Nominees are chosen for both their generous and their outstanding contributions to the Campbell community and the award recipient is honored at the Campbell Chamber of Commerce’s annual “Celebrate Campbell” event.

This event is designed to give credit to those who dedicate their time and donate their services for the betterment of our community. The Chamber has been honoring the community’s silent heroes for over 50 years. The Gala also serves as a fun draising event for the Campbell Community Foundation Scholarship Fund.

DISCUSSION
At its March 11, 2023 “Celebrate Campbell” event, Nicholas Welzenbach was chosen as the Campbell Chamber of Commerce’s 2022 Citizen of the Year.

Nicholas Welzenbach is a second-generation funeral professional. He has been serving families for nearly 20 years. He began his career in San Diego. He and his wife Kendall relocated to the Bay Area 10 years ago. Nicholas is the Managing Partner of Darling Fischer in Campbell & Los Gatos as well as Los Gatos Memorial Park.

Nicholas is an active member of the community. He serves on the Board for both the Campbell Chamber and the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce and is an active Los Gatos Rotarian. He and his staff work daily to ca re for families, while also working to reinvent funeral service around Celebrations of Life and by helping families find new and unique ways to tell their loved one’s stories.

Item: 9
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
9 Packet Pg. 52
Resolution Congratulating Nicholas Welzenbach on Being Selected “Citizen of the Year” 2022 Page 2 of 2
In addition to funeral and cemetery services, Nicholas enjoys spending time w ith his family. He and his wife Kendall have a daughter Audrey, and a son Lachlan.

Upon adoption of this resolution, Mr. Welzenbach will be invited to a future meeting and recognized for his achievement as Citizen of the Year with a framed resolution sig ned by all members of the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recognition.

Prepared by:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Approved by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City
Manager
Attachment:
a. Resolution Citizen of the Year 2022
9 Packet Pg. 53
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL CONGRATULATING NICHOLAS WELZENBACH AS 2022 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR WHEREAS, Nicholas Welzenbach was selected by the Campbell Chamber of Commerce as the 2022 Citizen of the Year in rec ognition of h is commitment and significant contributions to the Campbell community , and was honored on March 11, 2023, at the annual “Celebrate Campbell” banquet; and
WHEREAS, Nicholas Welzenbach is a second -generation funeral professional , serving families for 20 years; and
WHEREAS, Nicholas Welzenbach began his career in San Diego and relocated to the Bay Area 10 years ago; and
WHEREAS, Nicholas Welzenbach is the Managing Partner of Darling Fischer in Campbell & Los Gatos and Los Gatos Memorial Park; and
WHEREAS, Nicholas Welzenbach is an active member of the community , serving on the Board for both t he Campbell Chamber and the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce ; and
WHEREAS, Nicholas Welzenbach and his staff work daily to care for families to reinvent funeral service around Celebrations of Life an d by helping families find new and unique ways to tell their loved ones stories; and
WHEREAS, Nicholas Welzenbach ’s attitude and community spirit exemplifies the qualities of the Campbell Citizen of the Year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESO LVED that the City Council of the City of Campbell congratulates Nicholas Welzenbach on being named Campbell’s 20 22 Citizen of the Year and recognizes his service to and involvement in the Campbell community.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of _______, 2022 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

9.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Resolution Citizen of the Year 2022 (Resolution Congratulating Nicholas Welzenbach on Being Selected “Citizen of the Year” City
Council
Report
TITLE: Resolution Congratulating Sports Basement on Being Selected “Business of the Year” by the Campbell Chamber of Commerce (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt a Resolution congratulating Sports Basement on being selected Campbell’s 2022 “Business of the Year.”

BACKGROUND
Every year, t he Campbell Chamber of Commerce recognizes an outstanding business in the community and names that business as its “Business of the Year.” Nominees are chosen for both their generous and outstanding contributions to the Campbell community. The award recipient is honored at the Campbell Chamber of Commerce’s annual “Celebrate Campbell” event.

DISCUSSION
At its March 11, 2023 “Celebrate Campbell” event, Sports Basement was chosen as the Campbell Chamber of Commerce’s 2022 Business of the Year.

Sports Basement has grown from a one -off shop in a San Francisco warehouse open only on the weekends to 10 fully stocked Bay Area locations . Sports Basement has added a rentals program, developed ski shops and bike shops in house.

Ten percent of Sports Basement’s earnings are redistributed into the community through their Basementeers program, where they partner with thousands of local schools and non -profits. Through this program and their partnerships for their events, fests, and races, the community has been given over 10 million dollars.

Sports Basement Campbell has been a supporter of the Campbell fun runs through the donation of store certificates.

Item: 10
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
10 Packet Pg. 55
Resolution Congratulating Sports Basement on Being Selected “Business of the Year” 2022 Page 2 of 2
Sports Basement locations are a hub for local clubs, non -profits, and corporate partners. They host over 7,000 events a year, which equates to about 20 events per day around the Bay. Their stores transform into whatever the community needs them to be; serving as meeting halls, call centers, movie theaters, art galleries, yoga studios and more.

Their staff are the driving force behind all of their stores. They’re active community members running on their local trails and volunteering for th eir local animal shelters.

Their instructors can be found swimming at local pools and as fellow competitors in some of countries hardest races. They bring their passion and expertise to work so you know that you’re getting guided to the right equipment by someone who’s been there.

Upon adoption of this resolution, Sports Basement representatives will be invited to a future meeting and recognized for their achievement as Business of the Year with a framed resolution signed by all members of the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recognition.

Prepared by:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Resolution Business of the Year 2022
10 Packet Pg. 56
RESOLUTION NO. ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL CONGRATULATING SPORTS BASEMENT ON THEIR SEL ECTION AS 202 2

BUSINESS OF THE YEAR
WHEREAS, Sports Basement has been selected by the Campbell Chamber of Commerce as the 2022 Business of th e Year in recognition of successful business operations in the Campbell community , and was honored on March 11, 202 3 at the annual “Celebrate Campbell” banquet; and
WHEREAS, Sports Basement opened its Campbell location in 2013; and WHEREAS, Sports Basement has grown from a one -off shop in a San Francisco warehouse open only on the weekends to 10 fully stocked Bay Area locations; and WHEREAS, Sports Basement has added a renta l program, and developed in-house ski shops and bike shops; and
WHEREAS, Ten percent of Sports Basement’s earnings are redistributed into the community through their Basementeers program; and
WHEREAS, the Sports Basement Basementeers program helps to partner with thousands of local schools and non -profits, and has d onated over 10 million dollars to the community through these partnerships; and
WHEREAS, Sports Basement locations are a hub for local clubs, non -profits, and corporate partners, hosting over 7,000 events a year, which equates to about 20 events per day around the Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Sports Basement Campbell has been a supporter of the fun runs through the donation of store certificates.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Campbell congratulates Sports Basement , on being named Campbell’s 2022 Business of the Year and recognize s their valued service to the Campbell community and continued involvement in civic endeavors.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______, 20 22 by the following rol l call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Anne Bybee, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

10.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Resolution Business of the Year 2022 (Resolution Congratulating Sports Basement on Being Selected “Business of the Year”

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Review of Historic Preservation Board Recommendations, Confirmation of Direction, and Authorization to Proceed with Drafting of a Zoning Code Amendment for the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan), Inclusive of (1) Creation of Penalty Provisions to Discourage Unpermitted Alterations and Demolitions of Historic Structures, (2) Clarification of Permitting Requirements for Historic Properties, and (3) Establishment of a New Mills Act Program.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council authorize staff to prepare Zoning Code Amendments for the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan), inclusive o f (1) Creation of penalty provisions to discourage unpermitted alterations and demolitions of historic structures, (2) Clarification of permitting requirements for historic properties, and (3) Establishment of a new Mills Act Program.

BACKGROUND
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update:

The Community Development Department's FY23 Workplan was revised to include an update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update, inclusive of (1) Creation of Penalty Provisions to Discourage Unpermitted Alterations and Demolitions of Historic Structures, (2) Clarification of Permitting Requirements for Historic Properties, and (3) Establishment of a New Mills Act Program . This Workplan item was created over the course of last year:

• Penalties/Permitting: At its meeting o f August 2, 2022, the City Council authorized removal of a property from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) following unpermitted alterations that had been made to the property and resulted in loss of the structure's historic integrity. This event revealed that the Campbell Municipal Code does not provide any specific penalties or fines for unauthorized alterations (or demolition) of historic structures. As a result, the Council added an update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to the Community Development Department's FY23 Work Plan as part of its action to remove the aforementioned property from the HRI. Specifically, the update was to include "provisions to establish fines and penalties for unauthorized damage or destruction of historic resources and to clarify the permitting Item: 11
Category: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND

INTRODUCTION OF

ORDINANCES
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023
11 Packet Pg. 58
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 2 of 11
requirements for historic properties," as noted in the staff report (reference Attachment A).

• Mills Act Program Update : The Mills Act is a State law allowing cities to voluntarily enter into contracts with owners of historica lly designated properties that allow a reduction in property taxes in exchange for restoration of the historic resource. The City Council initiated a three -year "pilot" Mills Act Program in 2011 that allowed up to five Mills Act contracts to be executed, which was expanded to ten contracts in 2015. The Council ultimately approved eleven contracts, most recently in 2021.

On behalf of the Historic Preservation Board (HPB), Board Member Corteway, acting as the Mills Act Audit Review ad hoc subcommittee, presented an audit of the approved Mills Act contracts to the City Council at its October 18, 2022, meeting (reference Attachment B – Staff Report).

Although individual Council members expressed concerns about the types of improvements that had been authorized in prior contracts, the Council accepted the results of the audit and authorized preparation of an expanded Mills Act Program as part of the Historic Preservation Ordinance FY23 Work Plan item.

At this meeting, t he Council also provided direction that a n ew Mills Act Program should clearly focus on facilitating improvements that promote "structural, architectural, and historical integrity" and that are not "everyday expenses" common to homeowners at large and include greater accountability from contract-holders.

HPB Meetings: Starting in October 2022, the HPB held three study sessions to review the three components of the update; penalty provisions, permitting requirements, and the Mills Act program following previous City Council direction. The staff memorandums are included as attachments for the Council's reference and are summarized in the 'Discussion' section of this report.
• Attachment C – October 26, 2022, HPB Staff Memo (Penalties) • Attachment D – December 7, 2022, HPB Staff Memo (Permitting) • Attachment E – January 25, 2023, HPB Staff Memo (Mills Act)

DISCUSSION
Penalties: On the principal that the best penalty is one that never needs to be used, the HPB's recommended penalties are intended to establish a strong disincentive from engaging in unlawful activity by removing any potential monetary or development advantage that could be gained by altering or removing a historic resource. This would be accomplished by a two-prong penalty structure, as follows:
11 Packet Pg. 59
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 3 of 11
• Forced Reconstruction/Restoration : Where an unla wfully altered structure retains its historic integrity 1, the HPB recommends that restoration be mandated by the City. The determination as to whether sufficient historic integrity remains would require an analysis by the City's Historical Advisor, at the homeowner's cost. This approach would ensure that those properties that can remain on the HRI do so.

As a general rule, maintaining a property that has lost its historical integrity on the HRI undermines the purpose of the list and dilutes the import of ot her registered properties.

However, forced restoration where a resource has lost its historical integrity, as well as forced reconstruction of an unlawfully demolished structure, may be appropriate in situations where the resource is located in a historic district where its pre -alteration appearance contributed to the district’s architectural character/theme.

The HPB, therefore, recommends that forced restoration/reconstruction be required for any unlawful alteration or demolition within the Alice Avenue Hi storic District, irrespective of historic integrity. These homes each contribute to the district ’s historical character, such that restoration would serve a broader goal of maintaining the integrity of the district as a whole.
• Monetary Penalty2: When rest oration and/or reconstruction is not feasible or warranted, as discussed above, the HPB recommends that a monetary penalty be assessed. Specifically, a fee in -lieu of reconstruction/restoration of an altered or demolished structure equal to replacement value of the historic building, based on 100% of the building permit valuation . The purpose of this fee would be to capture the monetary value of the resource and to establish a monetary disincentive.

This specific methodology is proposed because it would re sult in a consistent calculation based on established per square -foot valuation figures that do not vary based on subjective construction estimates or appraisal judgment. Moreover, building permit valuation captures the monetary value of the physical struc ture, but not design services or contractor's overhead/profit that may exceed the scope of an in -lieu fee. 3 The actual cost of the fee would vary based on the size of the subject structure, but would be substantial.

For example, using the current buildin g permit valuation of $280/square -foot, a 1,200 square-foot structure subject to the $336,000 in-lieu fee.

The penalties described above would be imposed administratively by the Community Development Director. However, a homeowner would be provided with a right to appeal to the City Council, upon a recommendation of the HPB. This would provide property

1 See the National Park Service's Glossary of Terms for a definition of "historic integrity". 2 Note that the October 26, 2022, HPB Staff Report character this penalty as a "fine," however per advice of the City Attorney it would be structured to constitute a "fee". 3 Per California Residential Code § R108.3
11 Packet Pg. 60
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 4 of 11
owners the ability to challenge the City's enforcement action and/or to allow the City Council to grant an exception if extenuating circumstances are found to exist.

Permitting: The current historic permitting processes are somewhat ambiguous such that clarification is required to ensure that the proposed penalty provisions can be enforced. Such changes would also serve to ensure that homeowners have a clear understanding of what types of actions require City approval, and which do not, so violations do not inadvertently occur.

The overall approach builds on the existing permit processes, adding a new "tier" of a Historic Resource Alteration Permit and alignin g an existing process with industry standard terminology by creating a "Certificate of Appropriateness." As proposed, the level of review would be based on the relative risk of a proposal adversely affecting an historic resource, such that a minor change w ould continue to be either entirely exempt or be approved ministerially ("over the counter") by staff, while other proposals that require case -by-case consideration would be subject to a degree of discretionary review. This would allow for a greater number of changes to be approved either ministerially by Planning staff or administratively approved by the Community Development Director (CDD) so that homeowners do not need to wait for a monthly HPB meeting for routine changes, as summarized by the table, below:

Proposed Permit Processes
Hearing
Bodies Exempt Certificate of
Appropriateness
Historic Resource
Alteration Permits
Zoning
Exception
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Advisory
Body
N/A
N/A N/A HPB PC and

HPB HPB
Decision-
Making
Body
Staff CDD CDD City
Council
Planning
Commission

The exact scope of each permit type is identified in the Permit Process Summary Table, included as Attachment G, and is broadly summarized, below:

• Exempt: Includes activity generally considered "ordinary maintenance and repair" not subject to building permit (with certain exemptions) as well as interior improvements and renovations that do not affect the outward appearance of the structure (e.g., kitchen remodels, interior electrical/plumbing work, etc.). Although the latter category will often require a building permit, a Planning Division review is not required (hence the work is "exempt").

• Certificate of Appropriateness : Includes activity generally requiring a building permit but than can be evaluated objectively, to ensur e that it does not impair the historic resource (i.e., the work is "appropriate"), such that approval can be granted ministerially by a staff planner (under the Community Development Director's authority) without public notice or review.

11 Packet Pg. 61
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 5 of 11
• Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1: Includes alterations generally to the non-street-sides of buildings 4 (i.e., public facing) that do not alter/remove existing features and that would not normally require third party historic consultant review. Tier 1 Permits wo uld be considered by the Community Development Director for approval through the existing administrative decision review process, which is used for a variety of standard permit types (e.g., Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permits).

The administrative process does not include a public hearing but requires a 10 - day public notice prior to a decision and provides for a 10 -day appeal period following a decision. Appeals are typically considered by the Planning Commission. However, staff recommended that such appeals be first considered by the HPB, who would provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission, due to the HPB's subject matter expertise.

• Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 2: Includes alterations generally to the street-sides of buildings, changes that could affect a "character defining feature," as well as all proposed additions. Tier 2 Permits would first be considered by the HPB in a public hearing, who would render a recommendation to the Community Development Director, who then would subsequently issue a "Notice of Decision" affirming the HPB's recommendation. For expediency, this action would be accomplished by a new truncated administrative review process without a 10 -day prior notice, but with a 10 -day appeal period foll owing the Director's decision (appealable to Planning Commission).

• Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 3 : Includes proposed demolition, relocation, or "significant alterations," generally requiring outside historic consultant review and subject to formal environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Tier 3 permit application would require independent recommendations by the HPB and Planning Commission, with a final decision by the City Council.

• Zoning Exception : Incl ude requests for deviations from zoning standards to further the use and preservation of an historic resource. This is an existing permit type that was restructured in the 2018 update (previously known as an "Historic Exception"), but that has yet to be us ed in its current iteration. Consistent with how standard Variances are considered, the HPB recommends pushing -down the decision -making authority for a Zoning Exception request from the City Council to the Planning Commission, with recommendation by the HPB.

Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Process Improvements
As part of its review of the permit processes for historic properties, the HPB also reviewed the process to add and remove properties from the HRI. To better protect the

4This requirement would also apply to properties where principal frontage of the buildi ng does not face the street.
11 Packet Pg. 62
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 6 of 11
City's existing historic re sources and to encourage the addition of additional historic resources onto the HRI, the HPB is recommending two process improvements:
• Revised Structure of Merit Designation Criteria : The HPB recommends minor changes to the designation criteria for Structu res of Merit to better capture the importance of architectural styles found within the community as well as the contribution of individuals in Campbell's history. This would be accomplished by more references to historical signifiers that are "notable," "l ocal," and "representative" to the Campbell "community".
• Historic Resource Analysis: The HPB also recommends that a historic analysis only be required for HRI designation when the HPB and Planning Commission disagree on the request. This would align the p rocess to add a property to the HRI with the process to remove a property, and in doing so, eliminate a barrier for homeowners who do not wish to outlay the upfront cost for a historic analysis.

Mills Act: The Mills Act program was created by City Council resolution, however, the core program details were administratively established by the HPB and staff. This resulted in a differing of expectations on implementation between the Council and the HPB. To avoid this outcome with a new program, the HPB recomme nds that the overall framework of the program be codified within the Zoning Code, but that certain elements be approved by Council resolution. The recommended changes aim to maintain consistency with the Council's direction that the program should only fin ance projects that promote "structural, architectural, and historical integrity" and that are not "everyday expenses" common to homeownership generally. Per the Council’s direction, staff has worked with HPB to propose a new Mills Act program that is limited to financing projects of significant capital cost, not normal ongoing maintenance.

• Eligibility: In addition to being open to existing properties listed on the HRI, the HPB recommends that the Mills Act program also be open to potentially historic properties, contingent on a concurrent application to add the property to the HRI.

This approach would further the City's preservation effo rts by inducing owners to voluntarily add their properties to the HRI in exchange for a Mills Act contract.

• Qualifying Improvements: The HPB reviewed and is recommending a detailed list of improvements, included as Attachment H , that contribute to the " structure integrity" or "architectural/historical integrity" of a historic resource and that require a significant capital cost (i.e., not "everyday expenses"). For the purposes of this exercise, the category of "structure integrity" included both the liter al structural elements of a building (foundation, beams, framing, etc.), as well as the building's critical systems, including mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP). The category "architectural and/or historic integrity" included architectural compone nts such as windows, doors, cladding, roofing, as well as decorative elements integral to historic character such as trim, scalloping, etc. The list also includes examples of improvements that would not qualify to provide greater clarification. 11 Packet Pg. 63
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 7 of 11

• Consideration Criteria: Consistent with the purpose of the Mills Act program and Council direction, the HPB recommends the following minimum approval criteria:
(1) Invest at least 100% of estimated property tax savings back into the property (expenditures), as demonstrated by the proposed workplan, for a minimum of Investment-to-Savings (ISR) of 1.0 (expenditures ÷ savings); AND (2) Show estimated expenditures of at least $100,000 (in 2023 dollars) over 10 years (the minimum contract term).

This recommendation would set a minimum floor for applications, excluding those where there is less than $100,000 of qualified work to be done (suggesting the property is in relatively good condition). Moreover, it would also prioritize applications for properties that are at the greates t danger of deterioration, since those properties would generally require the greatest amount of expenditure and therefore rank higher if there were more applications than available contracts in a given year.

• Number of Contracts: In lieu of an overall numeric cap on the number of contracts, the HPB recommends establishing an annual (initial) limit of five (5) contracts per year. This approach would allow a measured expansion of the program, easing its administration, and also allow the City to refine the program details each subsequent year. For equity, it would be necessary to establish an annual submittal deadline and review applications together so that they may be judged on their merits based on the consideration criteria, discussed above.

• Contract Duration: The HPB recommends that the duration of a contract should be tied to the proposed expenditures relative to the anticipated property tax savings.

For example, a proposal that would result in tax savings of $250,000 over 20 years with $250,000 in expe nditures should have a "total term" of 30 years, inclusive of a 20-year "initial term" of full tax savings, with 10 -additional years of diminishing tax savings (as per state law).5 The HPB's also recommends a maximum "initial term" of 30 years, to align with the standard mortgage period. Note that prior to the end of the "initial term," a contract -holder may propose additional eligible work or document that they expended more than they saved and request that the City Council, upon HPB recommendation, extend the contract for an additional period of time.

Joint PC/HPB Meeting : The Planning Commission and HPB held a joint study session on February 28, 2023, to introduce the Planning Commission to the HPB's update effort

5 Per State law, Mills Act contracts have a minimum term 10-year term and automatically renew annually for one additional year, rendering them indefinite unless the City or contract-holder wishes to end the agreement. Action to end an agreement is through a mechanism known as a Notice of Non-Renewal, which ends the automatic renewal of the contract allowing it to expire in 10 years (at any given point in time, the contract always has 10 years remaining due to the automatically renewing nature of the contract). Issuance of Notice of Non-Renewal has the effect of then "winding-down" the tax savings in the remaining ten years.
11 Packet Pg. 64
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 8 of 11
and present a high -level summary of its preliminary recommendations, as well as to solicit the Planning Commission’s feedback for Council consideration. Although the Planning Commission has only a limited role in historic preservation, the Historic Preservation Ordinance is codified within Title 21 (Zoning Code) of the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC). Amendments to the Zoning Code require review and recommendation by the Planning Commission prior to adoption by the City Council.

The Planning Commission's commentary was generally supportive of the HPB's recommendations (reference Attachment F – Meeting Minutes). However, several comments and questions may warrant further discussion:

• Question: Is the proposed development limitation a violation of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB-330)?

o Staff Response : Yes. Upon further review by the City Attorney's Office, the previously recommended development limitation on a property where the historic violation occurred would conflict with the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB -330). Although this type of measure is employed by other jurisdictions in the state, these provisions predate SB - 330’s January 1, 2018, deadline for any zoning standards that serve to restrict a property. As such, this element of the HPB's recommendation was removed from this report.

• Comment: The recommended list of eligible improvements/projects for a Mills Act contract seems overly restrictive by being limited to structural integrity items.

o Staff Response: The HPB's recommendations are intended to reflect the Council's direction, and in this regard, would be more restrictive than other Mills Act programs reviewed in other cities. If the Council is concerned that staff and/or the HPB has recommended provisions that too conservatively reflect the Council's direction, the HPB could revisit the recommended details. This could take the form of lowering the financial thresh old for program eligibility to less than the recommended $100,000 (over 10 years) and/or allowing more "routine repair" activities to quali fy as eligible expenses.

• Question: Why was the Mills Act Program not more popular?

o Staff Response: The HPB explaine d that it has been difficult to engage the owners of historic homes in preservation efforts. However, if the Council does authorize the creation of an expanded Mills Act Program, there will be an HPB/staff effort to market the program more broadly.

• Question: Why limit the Mills Act Program to just five contracts per year?

11 Packet Pg. 65
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 9 of 11
o Staff Response: The prior Mills Act program was limited to a numerical lifetime total of 10 contracts. Instead of recommending a new numerical cap that would inevitably get exhausted, th e HPB recommended an annual limit of five (5) contracts. This approach would allow a measured expansion of the program, easing its administration, and also allow the City to refine the program details each subsequent year. • Comment: Concerned that somebod y could end up incurring a punitive fee simply because they could not afford the upkeep on their house. o Staff Response : The proposed punitive fee is not intended to address property neglect, which can be remedied using current code enforcement tools - a measured and gradual process. The fee is intended to address a situation where a homeowner demolish es or substantially alter s a historic house (i.e., without a permit ). However, through proactive outreach and the strong disincentive effect created by a pote ntial six figure fee, it is hoped that this enforcement tool would not need to be used. • Question: What would the money be used for if a punitive fee is assessed? o Staff Response: As an in -lieu fee, any funds would be intended to help offset the value los s to the community of a historic structure by being restricted to supporting the City's historic preservation efforts, as directed by the City Council. This could include funding of neighborhood surveys (to identify potentially historic structures), prepar ation of historic resource evaluations (to add properties to the HRI), promotional efforts, or individual grants to improve historic properties.
• Question: Who determines if restoration is feasible?
o Staff Response : The City would rely on its historic pres ervation consultant, a licensed architect specializing in historic buildings, to make this determination.
• Comment: Want to ensure that something is recorded on the property titles so that people know and understand that they have a historic property. o Staff Response : As part of the update effort, the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance would authorize the City to record the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms on the title of each historic property. This would ensure that prosp ective buyers of these properties are aware of their historical designation, since DPR forms would be identified in routine title searches.
11 Packet Pg. 66
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 10 of 11
Additionally, staff anticipates mailing out a flyer to all current historic property owners explaining the new permit and penalty provisions, and the new Mills Act program.

ALTERNATIVE
The following alternatives could be considered by the City Council:

1. Further Refinement: If the Council would like HPB to refine certain elements of its recommendation, the Council coul d provide further direction, and additional study sessions with the HPB will be held before returning to Council. • Partial Authorization : The Council need not authorize the entirety of the HPB's recommendations. For example, a more limited scope could focus on revising permitting and penalty procedures and deferring a Mills Act program expansion until a future time.
• No Action : The Council may decline to authorize an update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance if it determines that there are more pressing p riorities for Planning Division staff. However, this will continue to leave the City’s historic properties at risk to unlawful alteration and/or demolition with little consequence.

NEXT STEPS
Staff originally anticipated that the ordinance preparation work could be done during the spring for consideration in the summer and fall. However, in consideration of competing workload demands (i.e., General Plan/Housing Element/MFDDS implementation) the ordinance preparation work will be delayed until the summer.

OUTREACH
This meeting, as well as all previous and subsequent meetings regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance update, have been noticed to all current HRI property owners.

FISCAL IMPACT
Preparation of an update of the Historic Preservation Ordinanc e would not incur any fiscal impact.

Prepared by:

Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
11 Packet Pg. 67
Rob Eastwood, Community
Development Director
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Page 11 of 11
Approved by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City
Manager
Attachment:
a. City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18)
b. City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02)
c. HPB Study Session Memo (10-26-2022)
d. HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07)
e. HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25)
f. Meeting Minutes (2023-02-28)
g. Permit Process Summary Table (2023-02-28)
h. Mills Act Eligible Projects Table (2023-02-28)
11 Packet Pg. 68
City
Council
Report
TITLE: Receive a Report from the Historic Preservation Board Regarding Review of the Mills Act Program and Recommended Program Improvements, and Consider Authorizing E xpansion of the Mills Act Program as Part of the Recently Authorized Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council receive an update on the Mills Act Program and authorize preparation of an expanded Mills Act Program to be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan).

BACKGROUND
Program History : The Mills Act is a State law allowing cities to voluntarily enter into contracts with the owners of historically design ated properties that allow a reduction in property taxes in exchange for the continued maintenance and restoration of the historic structure. Under the terms of the contract, the property taxes are reduced using a formula specified by the Revenue and Taxat ion Code, allowing the savings to be reinvested into the property. The fiscal impact to the City from reduced property taxes under the Mills Act is limited as less than 15% of property tax revenue is appropriated to local cities.

In furtherance of General Policy 1, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11333 at its October 4, 2011, meeting initiating a three -year "pilot" Mills Act Program, allowing up to five Mills Act contracts to be executed (reference Exhibit A). During this initial three - year period, the City Council authorized three Mills Act contracts. On February 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11776, approving an extension of th e "pilot" Mills Act Program, allowing a combined maximum of ten Mills Act contracts (reference Exhibit B).

Council Direction: On December 4, 2018, in approving the eighth Mills Act contract, the City Council also provided direction regarding review and ex pansion of the Mills Act Program. Specifically, the Council indicated a comprehensive review the existing contracts and an overview of the program would be required prior to considering expansion of the program beyond ten contracts , including an evaluation if the 1 See Policy LUT-8.1 (Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources) and Policy CNR-1.1 (Historic Resource Preservation).

Item: 9
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
9 Packet Pg. 47

11.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Mills Act Program Review Page 2 of 6
homeowners were using property tax savings to invest in improvement, maintenance, and restoration of the historic home.

HPB Activity : Beginning in February of 2019, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) began its evaluation of the Mills Act progr am, and subsequently created a Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee in January 2020 to support the ongoing evaluation. The two -member subcommittee, consisting of Board Member Blake and Vice Chair Walter, was tasked with assisting staff in reviewing contract holde r materials, and working on program improvements, per HPB Resolution No. 2020-02 (reference Exhibit C).

During this time, staff sought copies of records (invoices/receipts) that had been provided by the contract -holders to the County Assessor's Office to facilitate an evaluation of the existing contracts. The Assessor's Office responded that this information was not public record and that Revenue and Taxation Code § 451 obligated the Assessor's Office to hold the information confidential, even from the Cit y. The legality of this position was affirmed by the City Attorney.

As this information could not be obtained from the County Assessor’s Office, the City requested this documentation directly from the contract -holders. On February 24, 2020, staff issued letters to the existing contract-holders requesting copies of materials so that an evaluation could be conducted (reference Exhibit D – Example Letter). All contract - holders provide responsive documents to the City, which were generally sufficient to conduct a review. A Planning Division intern was tasked to review these materials and assisting the subcommittee. Unfortunately, the onset of the COVID -19 pandemic in March 2020 delayed this work due to the layoff off temporary staff, including the Planning i ntern, compounded with City's operational challenges during the early pandemic period.

In early 2021, the HPB subcommittee continued to work on the program evaluation with limited staff support and conducted inspections of three of properties that are un der the oldest contracts. As required by the resolution allowing its formation, the subcommittee presented its work during regularly scheduled HPB meetings, most recently at the June 22, 2022 meeting (reference Exhibit E – Meeting Minutes), which is summarized, below.

A second ad-hoc sub-committee, consisting of Board Member Corteway, was created on March 23, 2022, under adopted Resolution No. 2022 -02, to conduct a detailed financial audit of the submitted mater ials. Board Member Corteway presented his preliminary results to the HPB at its July 27, 2022 meeting (reference Exhibit F – Meeting Minutes), which is summarized, below
Current Program Status: The Council has authorized a total of eleven contracts to date.

The program, therefore, is currently closed to new applications.

DISCUSSION
9 Packet Pg. 48

11.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Mills Act Program Review Page 3 of 6
Audit Results : Board Member Corteway has reviewed the submitted receipts/invoices and permit records, and compared the expenditures against public property tax records.

He combined this information into a spreadsheet that is included digitally as Exhibit G2.

The following executive summary has been provided by Board Member Corteway:
• In total, by the calculations completed in this au dit, which are based on the data provided (now partially-validated by permit data), these Mills Act homeowners spent $684,214 on the improvement, maintenance, and restoration of their homes. The tax benefits they received by virtue of becoming a Mills Act home totaled $270,636 on a County-level basis, and $37,889 on a City -level basis over the same period. It follows that $413,578 more was spent by the homeowners than the tax benefits received on a County basis, and $646,325 more was spent than the tax bene fits received at the City-level.
• Homeowners of properties designated as Structures of Merit in the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory with Mills Act contracts have spent a significant amount of money on the improvement, maintenance, and restorati on of their homes. On a cumulative basis, these expenditures far exceed any tax benefits provided to them by virtue of the Mills Act. Three of the eight homes under consideration did not provide verifiable, transaction / receipt -level evidence of expenditures that exceeded the tax savings on a County basis, but all exceeded on a City basis. The County - level deltas in these three cases are very small. It is also very likely that eligible expenses did exceed tax savings for these three homes, however some of the data provided to the County via its Mills Act survey was destroyed or lost in the process. It follows that the benefit to the quantifiable market and non -quantifiable historical values of each home far exceeds the loss in tax revenue to the County of S anta Clara and the City of Campbell.
• It could aid the efficiency of the ongoing implementation of the Campbell Mills Act program if the Santa Clara County Assessor’s office would maintain reporting provided to them by the homeowners for the County’s Mills Act survey purposes and share this information with the City of Campbell. There are gaps in data solely caused by the County destroying or losing this information. However, it must be noted that despite these gaps in reporting, it is conclusive that homeo wners’ expenditures far exceed their tax reductions. It follows that with a complete data set, it would be proven that the homeowners’ expenditures would exceed tax reductions by an even greater amount than this audit has found.
• With few exceptions, each Mills Act homeowner acted in good faith to provide ample information, and with sufficient detail to adhere to the requirements of their Mills Act contracts.
• This audit found no intentional or blatant attempts on the part of the homeowners to claim inelig ible expenses as being applicable towards the maintenance, improvement, or restoration of these homes.

2 https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19546/Mills-Act-Audit-Project-Summary--September-2022 9 Packet Pg. 49

11.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Mills Act Program Review Page 4 of 6
Based on the results of Mr. Corteway's analysis, staff recommends that the City Council determine that the existing Mills Act Program has been successful in that tax savings have been reinvested into the historic properties . Staff therefore recommends that the Council consider expanding the Mills Act Program, including allowing additional contracts beyond the current cap of 10. Subsequent to Council direction regarding this, staff would return with the required program modifications.

Proposed Program Improvements: Separate and related, the HPB has identified several areas for proposed improvements to the Mills Act Program. The HPB 's evaluation of other Mills Act programs throughout the State has highlighted a need to codify various program components into the Municipal Code (Historic Preservation Chapter), which would constitute creation of a new City Mills Act Program superseding the existing program. As discussed by the HPB, a new Mills Act Program (and related administrative procedures) would address the following elements:
• Allowable Improvements
• Number of Contracts
• Application Deadline
• Priority Consideration
• Contract Duration
• Approval Process
• Application Fees
• Annual Maintenance Fee
• Eligibility
• FAQ Document
• Required Technical Reports
• Application Package
• Program Oversight
The overarching intent would be to establish clear upfront expectations for homeowners considering a contract and reduce the subjectivity of application reviews. For example, a new Mills Act Program would identify the specific types of improvements that would be allowable in a proposed workplan, such critical improvements related to structural and architectural integrity (e.g., foundation repair, seismic retrofit, window repair etc.).

Should the Council direct preparation of a new Mills Act program (and allow additional contracts to approved), the details will be further refined and informed by Council direction, Planning Commission feedback, public comment, and further staff analysis.

NEXT STEPS
9 Packet Pg. 50

11.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Mills Act Program Review Page 5 of 6
If the Council is agreeable to creation of a new Mills Act Program , staff recommends that it be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Ordinance update that was recently added to the De partment's FY23 Workplan in August that addresses unauthorized modifications to historic buildings . Combining these two efforts also provides a more efficient use of staff time and improves the Historic program holistically to provide both financial incentives (Mills Act) with a deterrent ( potential penalties for unauthorized modifications) to support historic preservation.

The Historic Preservation Ordinance update will begin at the HPB's October 26 th meeting with an introductory study session. Additional study sessions with the HPB and the Planning Commission will also be held next year. Following these study sessions, staff will return to the City Council with a summary of the HPB and Planning Commission recommendations for confirmation of policy dire ction, after which staff will begin drafting of a formal ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the City from any individual Mills Act contract is fairly low given that the City receives less than 15% of property taxes with adjustment for special d istricts and assessments. For instance, if the property taxes for a $1.5M home (assessed value) was reduced from $15,000 annually to $5,000 annually, the City's share of loss would only be $1,500 per year. Some of this fiscal cost may be offset through b uilding permit fee revenue associated with the approved work for maintenance / restoration.

The City's building permit fees (inclusive of all additive fees) is approximately 4% of valuation (e.g., $400 of fees per $10,000 of project valuation cost).

Prepared by:

Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. CC Resolution 11333
b. CC Resolution 11776
9 Packet Pg. 51

11.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Address
Year Of Mills Act
Contract
Year of
Verifiable
Eligible
Expenditures
Fiscal Year For
Tax Purposes Tax Amount
County‐Level Tax Savings To
The Homeowner From Year
Prior To Mills Act Reduction
(Normalizing For 2%
Potential Annual Increase)
14% Of County‐Level Tax Savings To
The Homeowner (Approximating City
Of Campbell‐Level Tax Savings To The
Homeowner)
Permit
Traceable To
Receipts
(Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Verified
Eligible Expenditures
61 Catalpa Lane
2012 10,930$
2013 2013 15,154$
2014 2014 18,039 $              Y N 135,17 6$
2015 18,021$
2016 2016 6,330$                 (12,051)$ (1,687)$ 4,601$ 2017 6,10 4$                 (12,644)$ (1,770)$
2018 2018 8,381$                 (10,742)$ (1,504)$ 26,194$ 2019 7,710$                 (11,796)$ (1,651)$
61 Catalpa Lane Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 165,971$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (47,233)$ (6,613)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 118,738$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 159,358$
75 North 2nd Street
2014 11,024$
2015 2015 11,923 $
2016 2016 12,332 $              1,516$
2017 2017 4,142 $                 (8,437)$ (1,181)$ 1,639$ 2018 2018 5,57 6$                 (7,255)$ (1,016)$ 800$ 2019 2019 5,125$                 (7,962)$ (1,115)$ 7,276$ 2020 2020 5,021 $                 (8,327)$ (1,166)$ 15,459$ 2021 10,203$              (3,413)$ (478)$
75 North 2nd Street Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 26,690$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (35,394)$ (4,955)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (8,704)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 21,735$
110 South 2nd Street
2016 14,344$
2017 14,60 4$
2018 2018 2018 15,53 8$              3,752$
2019 2019 23,85 0$              14,603$
2020 7,277$                 (17,051)$ (2,387)$
110 South 2nd Street Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 18,355$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (17,051)$ (2,387)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 1,304$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 15,968$
140 South Peter Drive
2013 2013 17,351$
2014 17,772$
2015 2015 4,730$                 (13,397)$ (1,876)$ Y N 18,10 7$ 2016 2016 4,879$                 (13,611)$ (1,906)$ Y N 5,80 0$ 2017 2017 4,75 4$                 (14,106)$ (1,975)$ Y N 86,482 $ 2018 6,315$                 (12,922)$ (1,809)$
140 South Peter Drive Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 110,389$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (54,036)$ (7,565)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 56,353$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 102,824$
146 Alice Avenue
2015 8,935 $
2016 2016 2016 9,265 $                 Y N 19,952 $
2017 2017 9,427$                 Y N 5,550$
2018 4,085 $                 (5,530)$ (774)$
2019 2019 3,794$                 (6,014)$ (842)$ Y N 44,060$ 2020 2020 3,728$                 (6,276)$ (879)$ Y N 5,255$ 2021 3,797$                 (6,407)$ (897)$
146 Alice Avenue Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 74,817$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (24,227)$ (3,392)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 50,590$

9.g
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 71,425$
155 Alice Avenue
2014 11,74 8$
2015 2015 11,75 0$
2016 12,15 6$
2017 2017 3,907 $                 (8,493)$                                     (1,189)$                                                    3,172$ 2018 2018 4,751 $                 (7,897)$                                     (1,106)$                                                    10,360$ 2019 2019 4,37 8$                 (8,523)$                                     (1,193)$                                                    14,195$ 2020 4,29 6$                 (8,863)$                                     (1,241)$ 155 Alice Avenue Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 27,727$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (33,775)$                       (4,728)$ Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (6,048)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 22,999$
167 Alice Avenue
2017 2,40 8$
2018 2018 2018 11,06 0$              N Y 109,543 $
2019 19,541 $
2020 2020 4,549 $                 (15,383)$                                   (2,154)$                                                    Y N 128,75 0$ 2021 4,62 6$                 (15,705)$                                   (2,199)$ 167 Alice Avenue Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 238,293$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (31,088)$                       (4,352)$ Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 207,205$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 233,941$
226 Alice Avenue
2015 8,33 6$
2016 2016 2016 9,429 $                 142$
2017 2017 9,751 $                 13,339$
2018 3,481 $                 (6,464)$                                     (905)$ 2019 2019 3,237 $                 (6,908)$                                     (967)$                                                        6,844$ 2020 2020 3,191 $                 (7,157)$                                     (1,002)$                                                    1,647$ 2021 3,25 0$                 (7,304)$                                     (1,023)$ 226 Alice Avenue Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 21,972$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (27,833)$                       (3,897)$ Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (5,861)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 18,075$
GRAND TOTALS (COUNTY‐LEVEL) 413,57 8$       (270,636)$          684,214$ GRAND TOTALS (CITY‐LEVEL) 646,325 $       (37,889)$

9.g
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 61 Catalpa Lane
Address Contractor / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept (Y/N) Permit
Traceable To
Receipts (Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Notes
61 Catalpa Lane:
2013 ‐ 2014 Kitchen
Project Tobiason + Rook Builders 1/31/14 ‐ 6/4/14
Kitchen: Demolition, framing, carpentry,
stucco, plaster, doors, cabinetry, insulation,
drywall, counters, tile, plumbing, flooring,
windows, project management, painting, and
sheetmetal. 112,135$ YY N Package shows numerous invoices over time for the work done on the kitchen by this contractor. This summary spreadsheet will combine the work for which an individual service provider / contractor bills. Therefore, each line is on a per‐provider, per‐project basis. Each invoice provided by the homeowner keeps a running total of project tasks completed and costs accrued to date, less amount paid to date, resulting in a current amount due. It would be superfluous and misleading to note the details of every invoice in this summary. Doing so could potentially lead to a mis‐ interpretation of the costs and multiple‐counting of invoices, and thus an inflated number. The numbers shown here come from the latest (6/4/14) invoice which keep the running total of accrued costs. The "Description" column summarizes the various pieces of work done as part of this project.

Package provided by the homeowner includes estimates, invoices, and receipts. However it did not include the Campbell reporting form, photographs, nor County Mills Act annual surveys (Pursuant to term #7 of the Mills Act contract). Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Mills Act contract appears to be entered into in 2013
CPL Consulting Engineers & Eaton
Hall Architecture 12/18/13 ‐ 2/16/14
Structural design and construction support for
kitchen remodel. 1,163$ YY N Not duplicative of items billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders, nor any other vendors listed herein.

University Electric Home
Appliance Center 1/23/14
Appliances for kitchen project. Includes
refrigerator, dishwasher, microwave, range,
and vents. 16,741$ YY N
Not duplicative of items billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders, nor any other vendors listed herein.

City of Campbell 10/29/13 City Planning fees. 660$ YY N Are city planning fees eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act? Not duplicative of items billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders, nor any other vendors listed herein.

Eaton Hall Architecture 10/21/13
Pre‐design, schematic design, construction
documents. 4,477$                                 YY N Not duplicative of items billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders, nor any other vendors listed herein. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the items billed by CPL Consulting Engineers & Eaton Hall Architecture on a combined basis.
61 Catalpa Lane:
2013 ‐ 2014 Kitchen
Project Total 135,176$
Package provided by the homeowner includes additional estimates and billings from other providers / wholesalers which have acted as subcontractors and service providers to the primary contractor, Tobiason + Rook Builders. Products and services in these additional documents were subsequently billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders. These pass‐through costs are therefore not inserted as separate line items in this analysis, as this would be duplicative to the items billed in the above 5 lines.
61 Catalpa Lane:
2016 Front Yard
Project
R.N. Pearman Landscape
Management, Inc. 3/3/16
Front Yard: Lighting installations, concrete
removal and replacement, power‐washing and
re‐painting of landing, fertilizing and re‐
seeding, mulch installation. 4,601$                                 Y 61 Catalpa Lane:
2016 Front Yard
Project Total 4,601$
All work was completed and billed by R.N. Pearman. No subcontractors, service providers, or pass‐through costs were identified. 61 Catalpa Lane:
2018 Heating and
Air Conditioning
Project Allied Aire Service 10/2/18
Heating / Air Conditioning (Upstairs): AC
Condenser, furnace, evaporation coil, ducting,
furnace filter box, asbestos removal,
thermostat, panel breakers, copper electric
circuit, condensing unit, vibration pads,
warranty. 16,588$                              Y
Allied Aire Service 10/2/18
Heating / Air Conditioning (Downstairs):

Furnace, ducting, filter, thermostat, 120 volt
panel, waranty. 9,606$ Y 61 Catalpa Lane:
2018 Heating and
Air Conditioning
Project Total 26,194$
All work was completed and billed by Allied Aire Service. No subcontractors, service providers, or pass‐through costs were identified. 61 Catalpa Lane Grand Total 165,970 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 75 North 2nd Street
Address Contractor / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept (Y/N) Notes 75 North 2nd Street: Attic
and Security Projects Home Depot 2016
Security camera wiring and smart doorbell
camera. 280$ Y
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form and County annual survey, receipts, and photographs (All the aforementioned pursuant to term #7 of the Mills Act contract).

Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Amazon 2016 Attic fan, vent switch, and timer. 1,236$ Y Mills Act contract date is 9/18/15. 75 North 2nd Street: Attic
and Security Projects Total 1,516$
75 North 2nd Street:

Insulation and Security
Projects Universal Insulation 2017 Wall insulation. 1,015$ Y Home Depot 2017
Security lighting, outdoor security camera,
miscellaneous home repairs. 624$
Y except for miscellaneous home
repairs No receipts nor itemization for miscellaneous home repairs. 75 North 2nd Street:

Insulation and Security
Projects Total 1,639$
75 North 2nd Street:

Miscellaneous Home Repairs Home Depot 2018 Miscellaneous home repairs. 800$ N No receipts nor itemization for miscellaneous home repairs. Homeowner notes that these receipts were sent‐into the County for their annual package.
75 North 2nd Street:

Insulation and Security
Projects Total                              800$
75 North 2nd Street: Garage,
Gutters, Tree Trimming,
Drain Clearing, Fences,
Security Camera 2019 Gutters, tree trimming. 250$                                     Y Roto Rooter 2019 Drain clearing. 292$                                     Y Cal's Garage Door 2019 Garage. 186$                                     Y The Fence Man 2019 Fences. 4,240$                                  Y David Rodriguez 2019 Fences. 2,100$                                  Y Home Depot 2019 Security camera. 208$                                     Y 75 North 2nd Street: Garage,
Gutters, Tree Trimming,
Drain Clearing, Fences,
Security Camera Total 7,276$
75 North 2nd Street: Termite
Services, Porch Repair, Paint,
Concrete Sealer, Dry Rot
Repair Might Mite Termite Service 2020 Termite services. 2,850$                                  Y Home Depot 2020 Porch repair and concrete sealer. 426$                                     Y Kelly Moore 2020 Porch repair and paint. 142$                                     Y Bruce Baur Lumber 2020 Porch repair. 182$                                     Y DJS Painting 2020 Paint. 10,060$                                 Y Antonio Fernandez 2020 Dry rot repair. 1,800$                                  Y

9.g
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 75 North 2nd Street: Termite
Services, Porch Repair,
Paint, Concrete Sealer, Dry
Rot Repair Total 15,459$
75 North 2nd Street Grand Total 26,690 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 110 South 2nd Street
Address Contractor / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept (Y/N) Notes 110 South 2nd Street: Wood Trim, Chandelier, Termite
Inspection and Repair, HVAC, Microwave, Fireplace, Faucet, Kitchen Upgrades, Alarm System, Carbon Monoxide
Sensors, Security Cameras, Security Lighting, Driveway Gate, Humidity Filters, Landscaping, Gutters, French Door,
Furnace, Toilet Seats, Mills Act Enrollment, Termite
Inspection & Maintenance, Landscaping, City Planning Fees.

Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form and County annual survey, receipts, and photographs (All the aforementioned pursuant to term #7 of the Mills Act contract). Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

All expenses in this package were outlaid in 2018 and 2019, and the great majority of projects noted in the Mills Act Campbell reporting form specify dates of 2018 and 2019. However, three projects in this form are noted as being in 2020, 2025, and 2026 respectively. Based on the homeowner‐ provided commentary and backup detail, it appears this was written as such because the projects will be ongoing for multiple years through those three dates. Despite future dates noted, these were expenses incurred in 2018 and 2019 for projects completed and / or begun in those years. As such they are appropriate for being claimed in 2018 and 2019 for tax purposes.

Homeowners entered into Mills Act contract 12/17/18 after purchasing the home 8/17/18.

Home Depot 8/29/18 New faucet. 204$ Y For backup documentation, only a pick‐up confirmation was provided, and there were no receipts.

The $204.07 total was written‐in on the confirmation by the homeowner, as that document had no Home Depot‐provided expense numbers.

Costco 9/5/18 New chandelier. 90$ Y Frontier Pacific 9/12/18 Gate movement and modification. 460$ Y San Jose Plumbing 9/12/18 Kitchen sink installation. 325$ Y Rando AAA HVAC 12/4/18 Humidity filters in basement. 75$ Y Valley Heating, Cooling, Electrical 11/5/18 Furnace / AC tuneup. 325$ Y This expense / project was not noted on the Mills Act Campbell reporting form.

WindStar 9/4/18 Wood trim on door. 275$ Y City of Campbell 9/7/18 City Planning fees. 1,706$ Y It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act.

Home Depot 9/2/18 & 9/19/18 Landscaping materials. 119$ Y Homeowner was very diligent in excluding expenses from receipt that do not directly represent improvements to the home.

Costco 9/4/18 Landscaping materials. 15$ Y Homeowner was very diligent in excluding expenses from receipt that do not directly represent improvements to the home.

Home Depot 11/12/18 Replace toilet seat. 22$ Y It is indeterminate whether this expense / project was noted on the Mills Act Campbell reporting form.

Home Depot 9/13/18 Spackling 12$ Y Home Depot 11/24/18 Landscaping materials. 44$ Y Home Depot 9/8/18 Carbon monoxide detectors. 62$ Y Assumption is that this item is related to the aforementioned alarm system.

Home Depot 10/14/18 Furnace filter. 20$ Y 110 South 2nd Street: Wood Trim, Chandelier, Termite
Inspection and Repair, HVAC, Microwave, Fireplace, Faucet, Kitchen Upgrades, Alarm System, Carbon Monoxide
Sensors, Security Cameras, Security Lighting, Driveway
Gate, Humidity Filters, Landscaping, Gutters, French Door, Furnace, Toilet Seats, Mills Act Enrollment, Termite
Inspection & Maintenance, Landscaping, City Planning Fees Total: 3,752$
110 South 2nd Street: Exterior Power Wash and Painting, Home Siding, Termite Inspection and Maintenance, Smoke
Alarm, Electrical Repair, Toilet Seat, Basement Foundation Seal, Landscaping, Light Bulbs, Air Filters, Window
Coverings, Kitchen Upgrade Materials, Insulation, Outdoor Lighting, Furnace, AC Hope Painting 10/11/19 ‐ 10/27/19 Exterior power wash and painting. 6,575$ Y Ercanbrack Siding 8/28/19 Home siding repair. 1,120$ Y Taps Termite 9/24/19 Termite inspection & maintenance. 1,375$ Y CVS NA Smoke alarm batteries. 15$ Y Home Depot 3/30/19 Materials for electrical repair. 55$ Y NA 3/30/19 Labor for electrical repair. 125$ N No description of work completed or vendor used, and no invoice provided.

Home Depot 7/14/19 New toilet seat. 20$ Y Home Depot 12/13/19 Concrete seal for basement foundation. 6$ Y Home Depot 2/9/19 Landscaping materials, light bulbs, air filters. 90$ Y Home Depot 12/11/19 Water intrusion materials for basement. 71$ Y Decorview 3/11/19
Design consultation and product purchase for
window shades. 3,894$ Y Home Depot 2/24/19 Materials for kitchen upgrade and cleaning. 50$ Y Home Depot 4/26/19 Landscaping materials. 3$ Y Home Depot 4/26/19 Landscaping materials and toilet seat. 36$ Y

9.g
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Home Depot 4/26/19 Landscaping materials and insulation wires. 250$                                      Y Home Depot 2/2/19 Drain tube. 10$                                        Y Home Depot 5/26/19
Landscaping materials, caulking, and plumbing
supplies. 27$                                        Y Home Depot 5/5/19 LED light. 9$                                          Y Home Depot 11/17/19 Landscaping materials. 43$                                        Y Home Depot 5/19/19 Landscaping materials. 19$                                        Y Home Depot 3/14/19 Landscaping materials. 141$                                      Y Home Depot 3/30/19 Landscaping materials. 7$                                          Y Home Depot 10/25/19 Landscaping materials. 14$                                        Y Costco 1/29/19 Outdoor solar light. 30$                                        Y Costco 2/10/19 LED lightbulbs and 60W light bulbs. 30$                                        Y Home Depot 4/14/19 Landscaping materials and lighting supplies. 82$                                        Y Home Depot 8/18/19 Lighting supplies. 11$                                        Y Home Depot 4/26/19 Window coverings. 32$                                        Y Lowe's 7/23/19 Window coverings. 50$                                        Y Western Appliance 7/28/19
Microwave and related trimkit purchase and
installation. 415$                                      Y 110 South 2nd Street: Exterior Power Wash and Painting, Home Siding, Termite Inspection and Maintenance, Smoke
Alarm, Electrical Repair, Toilet Seat, Basement Foundation Seal, Landscaping, Light Bulbs, Air Filters, Window
Coverings, Kitchen Upgrade Materials, Insulation, Outdoor Lighting, Furnace, AC Total: 14,603$
110 South 2nd Street Grand Total 18,356 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 140 South Peter Drive
Address Contractor / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept (Y/N) Permit Traceable To
Receipts (Y/N)
Permit Provides New
Information (Y/N) Notes
140 South Peter Drive Carriage House
Baseboards, Doors, Floors, Stairs, Door
Handles, Door Locks, & Main House
Storm Cellar Door
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form, two Mills Act County Surveys (2010 ‐ 2014 & 2015) including Supplemental Form #2 (Detailing projects that took place from 2010 ‐ 2013, and projected through 2015), photographs, and receipts (All the aforementioned pursuant to term #7 of the Mills Act contract). Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Homeowners note that it has been a difficult task to recreate what had been sent to the County for their audit. Homeowners further note that the County threw these materials away. They have attempted to re‐create what the County threw away and stated that the amounts provided cover the items credited through the Mills Act. Homeowners note that while the materials provided cover the credit amount, there are additional items completed and money spent.

In the Mills Act reporting forms, the homeowner notes $150,000 in projects in 2011, $55,000 in 2012, $80,000 in 2013 (Projected), and $75,000 in 2014 (Projected). The receipt‐level detail that follows is the entirety of payment confirmation provided. Noted that the homeowner wrote that a significant amount of information that was provided to the County was not returned. Receipt‐level detail has not been provided for projects taking place between 2010 ‐ 2014.

Homeowners entered into the Mills Act contract on 11/1/13.

Unidentified Labor 2015
Labor related to these projects. 5 workers,
ranging from $30 ‐ $40 per hour. 4,620$ NY N Hand‐written. "Terrys" Store 2015 Unidentified product for this project. 496$ NY N Hand‐written.

Unidentified Store 2015 Unidentified product for this project. 1,859$ NY N Hand‐written.

Unidentified Labor 2015
Labor related to these projects. 5 workers,
ranging from $30 ‐ $40 per hour. 3,480$ NY N Hand‐written.

Unidentified Store 2015 Unidentified product for this project. 82$ NY N Hand‐written.

The Moulding Company 6/25/15 Moulding materials. 168$                                      YY N Economy Lumber 6/24/15 Lumber, drill bits, finish. 1,099$                                    YY N Fence Specialties Inc. 6/25/15 Fencing materials. 229$                                      YY N The Moulding Company 6/25/15 Moulding materials. 84$                                        YY N The Moulding Company 6/30/15 Moulding materials. 127$                                      YY N Golden State Lumber 8/26/15 Lumber. 2,414$                                    YY N Buena Vista Hardwood Floors 8/13/15 Sand and finish hardwood floors. 2,650$                                    YY N Buena Vista Hardwood Floors 10/8/15 Sand and finish stairs. 800$                                      YY N 140 South Peter Drive Carriage House
Baseboards, Doors, Floors, Stairs, Door
Handles, Door Locks, & Main House
Storm Cellar Door Total: 18,107$                       While the 2015 County Survey notes $15,670 in eligible expenses, receipts provided total $18,107. 140 South Peter Drive Tennis Court
Resurface 4/19/16 Tennis court resurface. 5,800$                                    NY N Detailed documentation was provided including the proposal, estimate, contract, and acceptance.

However there was not a receipt / evidence of payment.
140 South Peter Drive Tennis Court
Resurface Total: 5,800$
140 South Peter Drive Deck Work,
Painting, Gutter Work Aynax.com 5/14/17 Deck repair. 10,500$ YY N ROS Builder 6/21/17 Deck work. 13,800$ YY N Luis Franco 12/12/17 Painting. 38,100$ YY N Golden State Lumber 3/31/17 Lumber. 7,891$ YY N Leaf Filter North 2017 Gutter work. 16,191$ YY N 140 South Peter Drive Deck Work,
Painting, Gutter Work Total: 86,482$ While the 2017 County Survey notes $70,977 in eligible expenses, receipts provided total $86,482. 140 South Peter Drive Total 110,389 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 146 Alice Avenue
Address Contractor / Vendor Date Description Cost
Reciept
(Y/N)
Permit
Traceable To
Receipts
(Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Notes
146 Alice Avenue Windows, Cabinets,
Baseboard, Electrical Outlet, Termite Repair,
Bathroom Window, Front Porch, City Planning
Fees, Vent Gas Inserts, Fireplace
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form, receipts, and Mills Act County Surveys (2017, 2018, and 2019). It does not include photographs. Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Mills Act contract date is 4/12/16.

Sheets Enterprises 6/11/19
Windows, cabinets, baseboard, electrical
outlet, termite repair, bathroom window, front
porch. 38,942$ YY N
Homeowner also provided a proposal on 8/27/19 for work that appears to be the same or similar. It was classified as "Fenestration Restoration." However it came after the invoice. This is no the normal order in which proposals / statements of work lead to billing. Unclear as to whether the work described in the proposal lead to a billing. It is clear however that the work in the 6/11/19 receipt was fulfilled and billed.

City of Campbell 7/11/19 City Planning fees. 1,542$ YY N It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act.

Volheim & Sons 12/23/19 Vent gas inserts. 600$ YY N California Window & Fireplace 12/30/19 Fireplace 2,976$ YY N 146 Alice Avenue Windows, Cabinets,
Baseboard, Electrical Outlet, Termite Repair,
Bathroom Window, Front Porch, Vent Gas
Inserts, Fireplace Total: 44,060$
146 Alice Avenue Gas Line, Tile, City Planning
Fees Mike Fox's A & A Plumbing 1/6/20 New gas line from meter to fireplace. 1,800$ Y Sole documentary evidence is an unsigned proposal where it is handwritten that $1,800 was paid for this service. It is noted that $1,800 was "paid to the equity line" via a check for this. Paying to an equity line is not germain to the purpose of an equity line. It is understandable if it was stated that this was paid from an equity line since that line is a source of cash and the check would be a use of cash.

Motawi Tileworks 4/2/20 New tile. 3,122$ Y Documentary evidence is a sales order but this confirms neither that a sale was completed nor that product was delivered, nor that payment was made.

City of Campbell 2/13/20 City Planning fees. 333$                           Y It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act. 146 Alice Avenue Gas Line, Tile, City Planning
Fees Total: 5,255$            `
146 Alice Avenue Roofing Kent Roofing 11/14/16 Roofing. 19,952$                     NA Y N Documentary evidence is a proposal / contract but this confirms neither that a sale was completed nor that product was delivered, nor that payment was made. 146 Alice Avenue Roofing Total: 19,952$
146 Alice Avenue Drywall Repair Dan Pena Drywall 4/8/17 Drywall Repair 5,550$                       Y In early 2018, homeowner submitted a Santa Clara County Mills Act survey that claimed $32,252 in eligible expenses for 2017, however invoices provided for 2017 expenses show $5,550. City of Campbell Mills Act survey claims the same $32,252 in expenses for 2017.

In early 2019, homeowner submitted a Santa Clara County Mills Act survey that claimed $3,050 in eligible expenses for 2018, however no receipts were provided showing expenses incurred in 2018. City of Campbell Mills Act survey claimed $3,050 in eligible expenses for 2018.

Superseding any inconsistencies provided to Santa Clara County's Mills Act survey, actual paid home expenses as verified by receipts given exceed the expense totals provided to Santa Clara County.
146 Alice Avenue Drywall Repair Total: 5,550$
146 Alice Avenue Total 74,816 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 155 Alice Avenue
Address Contractor / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept (Y/N) Permit
Traceable To
Receipts (Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Notes
155 Alice Avenue Igniter, Diagnostics,
Shower Valve, Fawcet, Leak Repair
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting forms, the original copy of the 2015 Mills Act contract, Mills Act County surveys, and receipts. Photographs not provided. Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

City of Campbell Mills Act reporting form which itemizes proposed / scheduled plans for maintenance and treatment does not necessarily align with actual expenses incurred.

Homeowner notes that most photos provided to the County for its Mills Act survey were not retained. No photos were provided in package.

Homeowners entered into the Mills Act contract on 9/15/15.

Despite a Mills Act contract of 9/15/15, receipts were provided for work done in 2012.

Residential Heating and Air
Conditioning 12/22/17 Replace igniter. 330$                                    Y Residential Heating and Air
Conditioning 12/19/17 Diagnostic fee. 132$                                    Y Plumb Perfect 12/2/17 New shower valve. 1,200$                                 Y Plumb Perfect 11/27/17 New kitchen fawcet. 617$                                    Y Plumb Perfect 8/1/17 Leak repair. 753$                                    Y Plumb Perfect 5/23/17 Leak repair. 140$                                    Y 155 Alice Avenue Igniter, Diagnostics,
Shower Valve, Fawcet, Leak Repair
Total: 3,172$
County Mills Act Survey revealed a similar amount claimed for 2017 compared to receipts provided.
155 Alice Avenue Capacitor, Gate
System
Residential Heating and Air
Conditioning 6/17/19 New capacitor. 198$                                    Y Automatic Gate Installations 1/9/19 New automatic gate system. 11,622$                               NA Proposal and contract provided, however no conclusive evidence of fulfilled work or payment is included.

Van Briggle Floors 11/21/19 Unidentified labor. 2,375$ Y Nature of work is not identified. 155 Alice Avenue Capacitor, Gate
System Total 14,195$
155 Alice Avenue Painting The Painting Pros 11/2/18 Painting. 10,360$ Y 155 Alice Avenue Painting Total: 10,360$
155 Alice Avenue Total: 27,727 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 167 Alice Avenue
Address Contractor / Vendor Date Description Cost Valid Reciept (Y/N) Permit
Traceable To
Receipts (Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Notes
167 Alice Avenue Drywood Fumigation,
Chimney Cleaning, Dry Rot, Electrical,
Flooring, Windows, Roof, Stucco, Paint
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form, photographs, one (Relatively) small invoice, and a letter from a contractor attesting to the other expenses. There is no Mills Act County survey. Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Homeowners entered into the Mills Act contract on 12/31/18.

While the Mills Act contract date is 12/31/18, the dates of expenses incurred are indeterminant.

In their 2019 City of Campbell Mills Act reporting form, homeowner notes that proposed projects would total an estimated $60,450, whereas actual spend was $152,041. Further, homeowner states that there was a 10 year commitment of $235,750 in expenditures, leading to a remaining balance of $91,591. It is unclear as to what is meant by a 10 year commitment.

Additionally, the math is incorrect. If there was a commitment, and if it was $235,750, the remaining balance after spending $152,041 would be $83,709. Ten year projections are simply conjectures as to future anticipated projects, and the concept of fulfilling a "balance" or "10 year commitment" is not germain to any Mills Act requirement.

In the City of Campbell Mills Act reporting form, a total of $152,041 in eligible expenses was attested. The sum total of receipts / payment confirmations was $130,891. It could be a worthwhile exercise to verify the County's tax calculation against verifiable expenses, and compare that to expenses merely claimed on Mills Act surveys.

D 0 3 Inc. 12/17/18 New photo voltaic system on roof. 5,707$ N NY Van Hooser Enterprises 6/28/18 Drywood fumigation. 2,141$ YY N Star Custom Builders 5/23/18
Remodel of existing home, replace all windows,
relocate furnace. 95,518$ NN Y Conner Builders 3/10/18 New shingles. 6,177$ NN Y Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Chimney cleaning. 500$ NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Dry rot repair. 5,000$ NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Electrical rewiring. 20,000$ NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Flooring. 8,000$ NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Windows and trim. 37,500$ NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Roof. 35,750$ NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Stucco / paint. 22,000$ NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract. 167 Alice Avenue Drywood
Fumigation, Chimney Cleaning, Dry
Rot, Electrical, Flooring, Windows,
Roof, Stucco, Paint Total: 238,293$
167 Alice Avenue Total: 238,293 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 226 Alice Avenue "
Address Contractor / Vendor Date Description Cost Valid Reciept (Y/N) Notes 226 Alice Avenue Main Line, Permit
Fees
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form, photographs, receipts, and permits. There is no Mills Act County survey. Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Homeowners entered into the Mills Act contract on 11/15/16.

Owner Builder 3/28/16 Repair water main line. ‐$ NA The assumption is that "Owner Builder" listed as the contractor denotes that this is work done by the owner of the property. No valuation of the of the cost of the project is quantified.

City of Campbell 3/28/16 Permit fees. 142$ Y It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act. 226 Alice Avenue Main Line, Permit
Fees Total: 142$
226 Alice Avenue Shingles, Permit
Fees F F F Roofing 9/5/17 Replace shingles. 13,000$ NA Documentary evidence provided is a City of Campbell permit estimating the cost of this work to be $13,000. Proof of payment not included.

City of Campbell 9/5/17 Permit fees. 339$                                    Y It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act. 226 Alice Avenue Shingles, Permit
Fees Total: 13,339$
226 Alice Avenue Patio Bay Area Interlocking Pavers 11/15/19 Patio. 6,844$                                 Y 226 Alice Avenue Patio Total: 6,844$
226 Alice Avenue Garden Materials Garden Supply 1/21/20 Garden materials. 1,647$                                 Y 226 Alice Avenue Garden Materials
Total: 1,647$
226 Alice Avenue Total 21,972 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

11.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-10-18) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 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

11.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 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

11.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 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

11.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 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

11.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 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

11.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 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

11.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 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

11.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) 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

11.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: City Council Staff Report (2022-08-02) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update)

To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: October 26, 2022 From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Subject: Study Session to discuss scope and workplan for potential revisions to the City of Campbell Historic Preservation Ordinance , including the (1) creation of penalty provisions to discourage unpermitted alterations and demolitions of historic structures, (2) clarification of permitting requirements for historic properties, and (3) establishment of a new Mills Act Program.

File No.: PLN-2022-117

BACKGROUND
The City's recent review of a request to rescind the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) designation of 705 El Patio Avenu e following unpermitted alterations to the home brought to light that the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) does not provide any specific penalties or fines for unauthorized alterations (or demolition) of historic structures. As such, staff requested that the City Council add a focused update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to the Department's FY23 Work Plan to allow for increased penalties for unauthorized damage or destruction of historic resources , as well as related revisions to clarify the permitting requirements for historic properties. In addition, the City Council authorized preparation of an expanded Mills Act Program, which will be included as part of this update.

PROPOSED WORK PLAN
The following is a preliminary workplan schedule for the Historic Preservation Ordinance update.

In summary, the HPB will hold a series of study sessions focusing on the three components of the update (penalty provisions, permitting requirements, and Mills Act program) , beginning with the penalty provisions. The Planning Commission will then hold a study session to consider the HPB's recommendations, followed by the City Council. If the Council concurs with the HPB and Planning Commission recommendations, it may then authorize preparation of a draft ordinance, which then will be considered by the HPB and Planning Commission in public hearings before returning to the City Council for formal adoption.
• HPB Study Session (October 2022) – Penalty Provisions • HPB Study Session (December 2022) – Permitting Requirements • HPB Study Session ( Jan. 2023) – Mills Act Program (review of previous subcommittee recommendations)
• PC Study Session ( February/March 2023) – Review and comment on HPB recommendations
• Council Meeting (April/May 2023) – Review of PC/HPB recommendations, confirmation of direction, and authorization to proceed with drafting of a formal ordinance.

MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Planning Division

11.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (10-26-2022) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – October 26, 2022 Page 2
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
• Staff preparation of Draft Ordinance ( June 2023) – Staff will prepare a draft ordinance based on Council direction, including review by the City Attorney's Office. • OHP Review of Draft Ordinance ( July 2023) – Staff will forward the draft ordinance to the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP ) for review, as required by the City's CLG agreement.
• HPB Public Hearing (August 2023) – The HPB will review the draft ordinance and make a recommendation.
• PC Public Hearing (September 2023) – The PC will review the draft ordinance and make a recommendation.
• CC Public Hearing (October 2023) – The Council will consider the draft ordinance.

DISCUSSION
The lack of a substantive enforcement mechanism to deter unlawful actions leaves the City's historic properties at risk with little legal protection. Existing code provisions are intended to address matters that can be resolved by discrete action(s) by use of progressive enforcement (e.g., initial warning letter, followed by escalating citation fines, followed by legal action, etc.). This form of enforcement is well suited to address deterioration of historic properties by neglect, which if caught early enough, can be address through specific repair and maintenance measures (e.g., painting, reroofing, waterproofing, etc.).

However, wholesale demolition of a structure or unpermitted alterations that extinguish the structure's historical significance cannot be remedied since the "damage is done" (as was seen with 705 El Patio Ave.). Therefore, staff recommends the city adopt special penalty provisions to serve as a deter rent to prevent unauthorized work from being performed in the first place. 1 The City currently uses this approach to deter unlawful removal of "protected" trees, which can result in a fine equal to the value of the tree removed that can reach tens of thousands of dollars. This penalty is sufficiently stringent that very few property owners have ever been subject to it.

Review of Other Regulations : The following table provides a (non-exhaustive) list of California cities that have special penalty provisions related to the unpermitted alteration or demolition of historic structures.2 Each cited code section is an active hyperlink that links to the specific code.

Jurisdiction Code Section
(links) Limitations and Penalties3
Alameda § 13.21.10
No building permits for 5 years. Require restoration to prior appearance (if possible).

1 For further reading, see: Just Fine? Rethinking penalties for illegal demolition in local historic districts, Nathan Lott, November 2021, Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans. 2The table does not include cities whose sole penalty is to charge an unlawful action as a misdemeanor. The Campbell Municipal Code (Sec. 21.70.040) already identifies any violation of the code as a m isdemeanor punishable "by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and/or imprisonment of not more than six month " if (among other reasons) the "violation was committed willfully or with knowledge of its illegality." However, proving prior knowledge of illegality is subject to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in a criminal proceeding. 3 Note that many codes have a special definition for the term "demolition" as to also include unpermitted removal of façades and/or architectural features of an historic structure.

11.c
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (10-26-2022) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – October 26, 2022 Page 3
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
Jurisdiction Code Section
(links) Limitations and Penalties3
Glendale § 15.20.090.C
No building permits for 3 years; maintenance of lot;
pay cost to investigate violation; misdemeanor; civil
remedies; rebuild limited to same height, square
footage and footprint.

Pacific Grove § 23.76.130
Civil action in court to seek financial penalty equivalent to: "replacement value of the building in kind"; civil
action to seek reconstruction; rebuild with same floor
area ratio (FAR) and density; 5-year limit on building
beyond original structure.

Ventura § 24.455.510
No building permits for 5 years; fine the greater of: (a) $10,000; or (b) appraised value before demolition
minus appraised value after demolition.

Palo Alto § 16.49.090
Civil penalty "in sum equal to the replacement value of the building ... not to exceed ten thousand dollars.";
20-year restriction to rebuild with original FAR; criminal misdemeanor.

Pasadena § 17.62.120
"Demolition, including demolition by neglect, or
alteration...without compliance with this
Chapter…shall be abated by reconstructing or restoring
the property to its condition before the performance of work in violation of this Chapter."
Arcadia § 9103.17.150
Alteration or demolition of a designated historic
resource in violation of this Chapter shall authorize the City to issue a temporary moratorium on development
of the subject property for a period of up to, but not
exceeding 24 months from the date the City becomes
aware of the alteration or demolition.

Burlingame § 21.35.090.F.2
Any person who alters, removes, or demolishes a
designated historic resource in violation of this chapter shall be required to restore the building, object, site, or structure to its appearance or setting prior to the
violation.

Pleasanton § 18.140.030
Demolition (including alterations beyond the approvals
granted by the city) can result in (1) fines up to the
greater of the appraised value of the building or the
replacement value of the building and (2) restriction on future development limiting new development to the
original building square-footage, FAR, height, and
location (setbacks, separations, etc.) for 20 years.

San Luis Obispo § 14.01.120
Property restoration may be required. City may also
impose a 5 year stay on issuance of building permits,
except for those that may resolve the violation.

11.c
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (10-26-2022) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – October 26, 2022 Page 4
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
Jurisdiction Code Section
(links) Limitations and Penalties3
Laguna Beach § 25.45.022
The removal or demolition of any structure listed on
the register without an approved demolition permit
shall result in a five-year stay in the issuance of a
building permit for any new construction at the site
previously occupied by the historic structure.

Los Gatos § 29.10.09030(g)
§ 29.10.020
" A property owner who has unlawfully demolished a
[historic] structure shall…be subject to…a fine equaling fifteen (15) percent of the building permit valuation at the time of demolition, as determined by the Planning
Director."

Enforcement Options: The sampled cities provide several overarching approaches that may be considered to deter unlawful demolition s and alterations . Please note that the options are not mutually exclusive as some cities have adopted versions of more than one mechanism to provide greater flexibility. Additionally, following the Board's discussion, staff will need to confirm the precise legal parameters and limitations of the enforcement options with the City Attorney's Office.

Punitive Fines: Punitive fines may be assessed in several different ways , each which has various advantages and disadvantages:

1. Appraised Improvement Value: Fines may be imposed equal to an amount up to the appraised value of the building, or altered portions of the building, before demolition. For example, 186 Alice Avenue , a 1,098 square-foot, 2-bed/1-bath home sold for $1,565,000 last November. Of that assessed value, the County Assessor's Office determined an improvement value of $313,000. If the building were to be entirely demolished, that could result in a fine up to that amount. However, unless a property was recently purchased (and therefore recently assessed), it likely would be necessary to hire a licensed appraiser to conduct a current appraisal since the County's assessment value woul d not reflect true market value due to Proposition 13.

2. Replacement Value: A fine may also be based on an equivalent cost of reconstruction/restoration of the structure (similar to staff's recommendation for the 705 El Patio Avenue in-lieu fee). This approach may be challenging due to the need to obtain accurate (and consistent) contractor construction estimates. Moreover, it would be foreseeable that prope rty owners would challenge the City's estimates by furnishing their own (inevitably lower) estimates.

3. Percentage of Building Permit Value : A fine may also be based of the building permit valuation of the structure. For example, using the current building permit valuation of $280/square-foot, the 186 Alice Avenue house would have a valuation $307,000. Los Gatos uses this method by charging 15% of the building permit valuation.4 This approach has the benefit of consistent fine calculations that would not vary based on subjective construction

4 Los Gatos Town Council upheld fines for two illegally demolished homes in 2017 in the amount of $83,000 and $35,000. See Council avoids precedent, upholds fines for illegal demolitions, The Mercury News, April 18, 2017.

11.c
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (10-26-2022) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – October 26, 2022 Page 5
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
estimates (or appraisal judgment), however, would result in (relatively) lower dollar values unless a large percentage of the valuation is charge d. Also note that a valuation calculation does not include design services or contractor's overhead and therefore will be a lower dollar value than a construction estimates for replacement value.5

4. Percentage of Appraised Property Value : The Mills Act law, as codified in Government Code §50286(a) , allows for imposition of a fee upon breach of contract " equal to 12 ½ percent of the current fair market value of the property, as determined by the county assessor as though the property were free of the [Mills Act] contractual restriction ". Using the previous example of 186 Alice Avenue, a fine under this formulation would be exceed over $200,000 (depending on current valuation). Note that this approach would result in fines that differ based on property size (larger properties are more valuable) and that are divorced from the historic structure itself, and which would also vary with market fluctuations.

5. Fixed Rate: Lastly, a fixed fine approach may be considered (e.g., $100,000 for unpermitted demolition or $25,000 for an unpermitted alteration). Although straightforward to apply, use of flat fines may be seen as arbitrary by lacking a direct relationship to the structure or property and may be more vulnerable to challenge.

The following table summarizes the potential fines based on the above five options:

Summary Table – Range of Fines for Demolition of 186 Alice Avenue Fine Option Potential Fine

1. Appraised Improvement Value Up to $313,000

2. Replacement Value Based on a construction estimate(s)

3. Percentage of Building Permit Value Up to $307,000

4. Percentage of Appraised Property Value Up to $200,000 ± (based on a current Redfin and Zillow property value estimates)

5. Fixed Rate As determined by the City Council

Development Moratorium : To reduce the monetary incentive to remove or alter an historic structure some jurisdiction s impose a moratorium on new development for a defined number of years (typically five years) during which a building permit will not be issued . Within this time period, the property is fu nctionally unusable and devalued. However, leaving a property undeveloped may result in property nuisance issues, such as squatting, dumping, and/or overgrown weeds, which would require City staff time and resources to address and devalue neighboring properties.

Development Limitation : Another means to introduce a financial disincentive is to restrict the development of a historic property to the same intensity/standards of the historic structure that was unlawfully demolished or altered . For example, future development may be limited to the same square-footage, floor -area-ratio (FAR), building height, and setbacks as the unlawfully demolished/altered structure. For example , if a 1,000 square -foot home is demolished or substantially altered, th e property may only be developed with a new home not exceeding 1,000

5 California Residential Code § R108.3: "Building permit valuations shall include total value of the work for which a permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment and other permanent systems, including materials and labor."

11.c
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (10-26-2022) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – October 26, 2022 Page 6
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
square-feet in the same location as the original, and without any new structures (e.g., ADU, detached garage, workshops, etc.) being permitted. Of the cities that impose this form of pena lty, the limitation is imposed for 20 years presenting a lasting encumbrance, while still allowing use of the property, negating the potential nuisance issues associated with an outright development moratorium.

Forced Reconstruction : Lastly, some cities c ompel property owners to reconstruct /restore structures that are demolished and/or altered. As was discussed during the 705 El Patio Avenue rescission review , this approach is generally not preferred with regard to full demolitions or substantial alterations in that a new and/or restored structure is simply a representation of the original and lacks the original building's historic value. Moreover, maintaining a property that has lost its historical integrity on the HRI undermines the purpose of the list a nd dilutes the import of other registered properties.

However, in some circumstances, restoration could be found appropriate. Restoration of an altered structure may be required when the structure's historical integrity remains largely intact (i.e., the alteration did not affect character -defining features). Secondly, had the structure been located in a historic district where its pre-alteration appearance contributed the districts' architectural character, restoration may serve a broader goal of maintaining th e integrity of the district. For this reason, forced reconstruction may be considered a viable option for the Alice Avenue Historic District so that in the unlikely event a home is demolished or significantly altered that a new home would not be out of character.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend a multi-prong approach to provide as much flexibility as possible to account for unforeseen situations:
• Fine: Staff recommends a fine equal to the replacement value of the historic building, based on 100% of the building permit valuation (representing a hybrid of Options 2 and 3). This approach would rely on a consistent basis to calculate a fine related to the structure itself (rather than the property) that is not reliant on the subjective judgment of an appraiser or contractor and not affected by fluctuations in the housing market. Such an approach would be less vulnerable to an appeal in that there would be no disagreements about specific appraisals or construction estimates.
• Development Limitation: Staff also recommends a development limitation restricting the development of a property to the ex isting/prior (prior) square -footage, floor -area-ratio, building height, and setbacks, be imposed for a period of 20-years. • Forced Reconstruction /Restoration: Staff also recommends that reconstruction / restoration, overseen by the City's consulting historical architect (at the property owner's expense), be required for demolition or alteration of any structure within the Alice Avenue Historic District as well as for alterations to all other HRI properties that maintain th eir historic integrity (as determined by the City's consulting historic architect). • Appeal Process: Staff anticipates that the initial fine/penalty would be imposed administratively by the Community Development Director , with a right to appeal. This would provide property owners the ability challenge the City's enforcement action and/or to allow the City Council to grant exceptions if extenuating circumstances are found to exist.

11.c
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (10-26-2022) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – October 26, 2022 Page 7
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update

OUTREACH
This meeting, as well as all subsequent meetings regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance update, will be noticed to HRI property owners. If adopted by the City Council, the City will take action to record the DPR forms on the titles of every historic property to disclose their historic status to prospective buyers. Staff will also send a letter to e ach HRI property owner explaining the new provisions following adoption of an updated ordinance. Through proactive outreach, it is hoped that the future penalty measures may never need to be used.

11.c
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (10-26-2022) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update)

To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: December 7, 2022 From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Subject: Study Session to discuss potential revisions to the City of Campbell Historic Preservation Ordinance, including the (1) creation of penalty provisions to discourage unpermitted alterations and demolitions of historic structures, (2) clarification of permitting requirements for his toric properties, and (3) establishment of a new Mills Act Program. File No.: PLN-2022-117

BACKGROUND
As discussed at the HPB meeting of October 26, 2022, the City Council authorized a focused update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (reference Attachment 1 – Staff Report), pertaining to penalty provisions, permitting requirements, and a revamped Mills Act program . This second meeting will address revisions to the City's historic property permitting requirements, which require greater clarify in order to support the City's effort to impose penalties for unpermitted alterations and/or demolitions.

The revised schedule, below, anticipates that the Board will finalize its recommendations for a revamped Mills Act program (based on the prior subcommittee recommendations) in January. Staff will work to schedule a joint HPB/Planning Commission study session for the Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meeting of February 28, 2023 (the week after the HPB's regular February meeting). This will be followed by a hearing with the City Council, tentatively scheduled for March 21, 2023, where the Council will be asked to authorize preparation of drafting of a formal ordinance based on HPB and Planning Commission recommendations.

 HPB Study Session (October 26, 2022) – Penalty Provisions  HPB Study Session (December 7, 2022) – Permitting Requirements  HPB Study Session (Januar y 24, 2023) – Mills Act Program (review of previous subcommittee recommendations).
 Joint HPB/PC Study Session (February 28, 2023 - Tentative) – Joint discussion on HPB recommendations.
 Council Meeting (March 21, 2023 - Tentative ) – Review of PC/HPB recommendations, confirmation of direction, and authorization to proceed with drafting of a formal ordinance.  Staff preparation of Draft Ordinance ( April-May 2023) – Staff will prepare a draft ordinance based on Council direction, including review by the City Attorney's Office.  OHP Review of Draft Ordinance ( June 2023) – Staff will forward the draft ordinance to the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for review, as required by the City's CLG agreement.
 HPB Public Hearing (July 2023) – The HPB will review the draft ordinance and make a recommendation.

MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Planning Division

11.d
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – December 7, 2022 Page 2
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (2)  PC Public Hearing ( August 2023) – The PC will review the draft ordinance and make a recommendation.
 CC Public Hearing (September 2023) – The Council will consider the draft ordinance.

DISCUSSION
Existing Permitting Processes: The Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 20, 2018 (reference Attachment 2 – City Council Staff Report). The ordinance was a comprehensive update to Chapter 21.33 of the Campbell Municipal Code, which had last been amended in 2008. This update was the result of nearly two years of meetings with the HPB, Planning Commission, and City Council. Among other changes, the ordinance incorporate d new permitting and designation/rescission processes, including:
• Expedited Process: Proposals for an exterior alteration or material change to a Structure of Merit may be approved via an "expedited process" of a Zoning Clearance if the Community Development Director determines that the " character-defining features " of the structure would not be altered, as reviewed against the City of Campbell Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings (heron Design Guidelines). However, if the Director determines that the "character -defining features" of the structure would (or may) be altered, a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit is required.
• Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit: In addition to proposals that would alter the "character-defining features" of a Structure of Mer it, a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit is also required for " any alteration to a L andmark or Historic District Property". A Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit is considered by the HPB in a public hearing, from a which a recommendation to approve, approve with modifications, or deny is made to the decision-making body (as specified CMC Sec. 21.33.030, "Table A"). • Tier 2 Historic Resource Alteration Permit: For proposals that are found to be inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards or that would relocate or demolish a designated historic resource, a Tier 2 Historic Resource Alteration Permit may be granted by the City Council upon recommendation by the HPB and Planning Commission. • Zoning Exception : A new "Zoning Exception" process was created to allow the City Council to grant exceptions from "required setbacks, residential parking, sign area, allowed uses, or permit requirements," in circumstances that warrant relief from strict adherence to a zoning standard and/or to further the use and preservation of an historic resource. • Designation or Rescission of an Historic Resource: The process es for d esignation or rescission were reconciled and clarified to indicate that HPB and Planning Commission review were required for either request prior to City Council consideration. The designation criteria were also revised to more clearly distinguish Landmark properties from Structures of Merit.

Challenges: The above-described processes were created to establish differing levels of review commensurate with the scope of work of proposed (i.e., tiers of permits), allow relief from standards in certain circumstances (Zoning Exception), and to provide a more formal process to add or remove properties from the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). However, in the four and half years since the current ordinance has been in effect, staff has identified the following challenges:

11.d
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – December 7, 2022 Page 3
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (2) • Unclear Permitting Requirement s: Whether a proposal to alter a Structure of Merit is subject to an Historic Resource Alteration Permit or a Zoning Clearance (building permit) requires a subjective determination by the Community Development Director as to whether "character-defining features" of the structure would be altered. Although the intent of this provision is intended to expedite routine requests, by choosing the appropriate permit process, staff is effectively deciding to approve the application or subject it to further scrutiny without any public input or right to appeal. Moreover, the Ordinance does not define the term "character defining feature," meaning that the determination can vary over time and risks becoming arbitrary.
• Inconsistent Permitting Requirements: Notwithstanding the above ambiguity, the permit process for Landmark and Historic District properties is overly distinct from that for Structures of Merit. For these properties , a proposal for " any alteration" must be approved through a Historic Resource Alteration Permit request. The purpose of this distinction was to provide a higher level of review for Landmark and Historic District properties, which is not uncommon. However, the divergence in process is too acute and has resulted in disadvantaging these owners by subjecting them to a notably more stringent permit process than owners of Structures of Merit.
• Questionable Enforcement: For a Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit, where the HPB mak es a recommendation to the Community Development Director , the aforementioned "Table A" does not indicate what permit the Director is approving or under what process. Arguably, this lack of specificity means that the default permit applicable to the relevant zoning district remains in force. For single-family residential historic resources, the default permit is generally a Zoning Clearance, a ministerial approval where staff to simply determines whether a proposal is consistent with development standards , such as height and setbacks. As a result, it is uncertain to what extent the Board's action to recommend approval or denial of an Historic Resource Alteration Permit c an actually be enforced by staff.
• Ordinary Maintenance and Repair : The definition for "Ordinary Maintenance and Repair," below, is ambiguous and subjective. This risks homeowners performing work that they believe is covered by the definition, but that may inadvertently result in an adverse effect to the historic resource. This is particularly the case for work that does not require a building permit since the City lacks a control point to intervene before the work is performed.

This lack of clarity may also result in inconsistent guidance by staff due to the subjective nature of the language.
"Ordinary Maintenance and Repair" means any work involving the in-kind replacement of existing material with equivalent material for the purpose of protective or preventative measures to keep a structure or its systems in good working order. Any work that the design, material, or appearance of an exterior architectural feature is not considered maintenance and repair fo r the purposes of this chapter.
• High Threshold for Designation : The revised criteria to add (or remove) a Structure of Merit from the HRI sets a high threshold for designation, such that it may questionable as to how many currently designated HRI properties remain eligible for listing, leaving them at risk of rescission. Additionally, a formal historical report is always required to add a property to the HRI, while with a removal request, a report is required only when the HPB and Planning Commission disagree. This creates a inequitable barrier for owners who wish to voluntary add their properties to the HRI by imposing an unnecessary cost.

11.d
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – December 7, 2022 Page 4
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (2)

RECOMMENDATIONS
To address the challenges discussed above, staff recommends (1) revising the permitting procedures to clarify what work on historic structures is subject to City review and the applicable advisory and decision-making bodies , (2) revising/creating definitions for key terms, and ( 3) revising the eligibility criteria for Structures of Merit:

Revied Permitting Procedures: The following revised permitting procedures are proposed and are summarized in Attachment 3 (Summary Table). The overall approach builds on the existing permit processes, rather than replacing them outright. As proposed, the level of review would be based on the relative risk of adversely affecting an historic resource, such that minor changes would continue to be either entirely exempt or approvable ministerially ("over the counter") by staff, while other proposals that require case -by-case consideration would be subject to a degree of discretionary review.

This is accomplished by creating a new Tier 1 Historic Resource Alteration Permit that is administratively approved by the Community Development Director, reclassing the current Tier 1 and Tier 2 processes to a new Tier 2 and Tier 3, respectively, and formalizing the "exempt" and ministerial ("over the counter") categories. This revised process would be applicable equally to all HRI properties for greater consistency, as stated, below.

Additionally, staff's recommendations recognize that while the current Ordinance does not grant the HPB with decision -making authority for Historic Resource Alteration Permits applications, the Board has perfunctory authority since its recommendations form the basis for staff's ministerial approval. In keeping with this approach (but with greater clarity) , the new Tier 2 permits would require a public hearing with the HPB for a recommendation, followed by issuance of a "Notice of Decision" by the Community Development Director (CDD) through a truncated administrative review process that would allow for a 10 -day appeal period following the Director's decision but without an 10-day prior notice period.

Hearing Bodies Exempt
Certificate of
Appropriateness
Historic Resource Alteration Permits
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Advisory Body N/A N/A N/A HPB PC and HPB
Decision-Making Body Staff CDD CDD City Council

Lastly, staff's recommendations reflect the greater sensitivity give n to the publicly visible sides of historic structures such that changes to non-street-sides of a building would generally be considered administratively by the Community Development Director while changes to the street- sides of buildings, as well as more significant projec ts such as additions and basements, would require review by the HPB. However, this framework can be adapted by the HPB as part of this study session. For example, the Board may recommend that certain activities be considered under a Tier 1 Permit versus a Tier 2 or vice versa. It also should be noted that this framework allows refinement in the future through tailored revisions as may be recommended by the HPB and authorized by the City Council.

Proposed Permit Procedures
• Exempt Activities : Staff recommends creation of a specific "exempt" category that categorically excludes certain activities associated with historic structures from Planning Division review, consistent with the current Ordinance , past practice, and State law , including:

11.d
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – December 7, 2022 Page 5
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (2) o Work that is not subject to building permit , as specified by the Building Code (CRC § R015 and CBC § 105, as locally implemented), which would be considered "ordinary maintenance and repair," with certain exceptions, under a new definition, including:
 Construction of detached accessory structures (e.g. sheds, pergolas, etc.) under 120 square-feet.
 Patching/Repair of existing roofing material (<50 sq. ft. of roof area).  Exterior painting, except texture coating or painting of an unpainted masonry surface (e.g., brick, stone).
 Construction of walls (under 4-ft) and fences (under 6-ft), provided that the walls are not physically connected to the historic resource.  Installation and/or modification of landscape and hardscape features, unless such features have been identified in the resource's DPR 523 form.  Removal of existing window awnings (limited to aluminum awnings). o All interior improvements and renovations that do not affect the outward appearance of the structure (e.g., kitchen remodels, interior electrical/plumbing work, etc.). • Zoning Clearance /Certificate of Appropriateness: Staff recommends that use of the Zoning Clearance process be limited to routine work on a historic structure , below, that exceeds the scope of "ordinary maintenance and repair" and requires a building permit, but that can be evaluated objectively , to ensure that it does not impair the historic resource .

Issuance of Zoning Clearance is a ministerial action granted by a staff planner (under the Community Development Director's authority) that is not subject to public notice or review.

To better conform with industry standard terminology, staff also proposes that the term "Zoning Clearance" be renamed to "Certificate of Appropriateness" for this purpose. o Reroofing (including repair >50 sq. ft. of roof area ) with the same class of roofing material (e.g., tile to tile, composition-to-composition) and in the same/similar color. o Repair of existing stucco (<20% of wall area) in the same texture as the existing stucco (e.g., smooth finish to smooth finish).
o Repair of existing siding (<20% of wall area) with the same material in the same width, thickness, texture, orientation, and profile (e.g., board batten, shake, lap, etc.) as the existing siding.
o Replacement of existing shutters with new wood or composite-wood shutters in the same dimensions, design, and location.
o Replacement of street-facing or non-street-facing doors and windows within existing openings, with new doors or windows in the same material (e.g., wood to wood) and style (e.g., double-hung, casement, paneled, etc.).
o Construction of a detached accessory structure (e.g., sheds, pergolas, etc.) over 120 square-feet (to confirm adherence to design requirements). o Creation of an ADU from a garage (to verify that garage door is replaced appropriately). o Construction of a detached ADU (to confirm adherence to historic design requirements). o Installation of rooftop photovoltaic (solar) system (to ensure that historic features are not destroyed or damaged).

11.d
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – December 7, 2022 Page 6
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (2) • Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 1 : Staff recommends that n on-significant alterations that exceed the scope of a ministerial Certificate of Appropriateness be considered under a new discretionary Tier 1 Permit for review with the Design Guidelines and/or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards . These actions generally consist of routine improvements that do not alter/remove existing features and that would not normally require outside historic consultant review:
o Replacement of street-facing or non-street-facing doors and windows within existing openings, with new doors or windows in a different material and/or style (e.g., double- hung, casement, paneled, etc.).
o Creation of new non-street-facing window or door openings (including skylights). o Alteration of non-street-facing window or door openings (i.e., expansion or reduction of the opening size or closing of the opening)
o Construction or i nstallation of new non- street-facing architectural elements (e.g., window awnings, shutters, covered porch/patio, balconies, chimneys, etc.). o Removal or alteration of existing a non-street-facing architectural elements (e.g., window awnings, shutters, covered porch/patio, balconies, chimneys, etc.). o Installation of a new class of roofing material (e.g., wood shake roof to composition). o Re-stuccoing (>20% of wall area) in the same texture as the existing stucco (e.g., smooth finish to smooth finish).
o Replacement of existing siding (> 20% wall area) with the same material, in the same width, thickness, texture, orientation, and profile (e.g., board batten, shake, lap, etc.) as the existing siding.

The Tier 1 Permit would be considered by the Community Development Director through the existing administrative decision- review process, which is used for a variety of standard permit types (e.g., Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permits). The process does not include a public hearing but requires a 10- day public notice prior to a decision and provides for a 10-day appeal period following a decision. Appeals of administrative actions are typically considered by the Planning Commission. However, staff recommends appeals be first considered by the HPB, who would provide a recommendation on the appeal to the Planning Commission, due to the due to the Board's subject matter expertise. • Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 2: For proposals that would physically expand a structure (addition) or affect a "character defining feature" of an historic resource, a Tier 2 Permit would be required for conformance with the Design Guidelines and/or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, including:
o Additions to all historic resources (irrespective of size or its location). o Alteration of existing wall cladding beyond the scope of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Tier 1 Permit, including:
 Replacement of existing wall cladding with a different material (stucco -to- siding).
 Replacement of existing siding with new siding in a different material, width, thickness, texture, orientation, and/or profile (e.g., board batten, shake, lap, etc.) as the existing siding.

11.d
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – December 7, 2022 Page 7
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (2)  Painting of an unpainted masonry surface.
 Re-stuccoing in a texture different than the existing stucco.  Texturing coating of existing walls.
o Alteration of street-facing window or door openings (i.e., expansion or reduction of the opening size or closing of the opening)
o Creation of new street-facing window or door openings (including skylights). o Attachment of a wall to an historic resource (e.g., to create a courtyard). o Removal of existing portions of the historic resource (i.e., partial demolition). o Construction of a new basement or expansion of an existing basement. o Construction or installation of new street -facing architectural elements (e.g., window awnings, shutters, covered porch/patio, balconies, chimneys, etc.). o Removal or alteration of existing a street-facing architectural elements (e.g., window awnings, shutters, covered porch/patio, balconies, chimneys, etc.). o Alteration to a building roofline, including modification and/or construction of new roof shapes (i.e., hips, gables), ridgeline height/pitch, gables, dormers, parapets, overhangs, rafters, brackets, and eyebrows.
o Façade restoration that seek s to restore the " character-defining features" of an historic resource (as a per a definition for this term).
o Any proposal that is otherwise subject to a development permit (i.e., Site and Architectural Review Permit).

As noted, staff recommends that Tier 1 Permits be first considered by the HPB in a public hearing. The Board would render a recommendation to the Community Development Director who would subsequently issue a "Notice of Decision" through a truncated administrative review process without a 10-day prior notice, but with a 10-day appeal period following the Director's decision (appealable to Planning Commission). For Tier 2 Permits that are required in association with another development permit, the HPB would serve as the advisory body to the decision-making body on the development permit, as specified by the Zoning Code.
• Historic Resource Alteration Permit – Tier 3 : Lastly, f or extraordinary circumstances where an historic resources is proposed to be demolished, relocated, or altered in a manner that would constitute a "significant alteration," a Tier 3 Permit would be required:
o Demolition of an historic resource, including an addition and/or remodel project that is classified by the Building Official as a "new dwelling using portions of the original structure" per Title 18, as this constitutes a de-facto demolition. o Relocation of an historic resource.
o Proposals denied under a Tier 1 or Tier 2 permit (due to inconsistency with Design Guidelines and/or Secretary of the Interior's Standards ), but where an applicant has demonstrated that the proposal is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition, denial would result in immediate or substantial hardship, or that the historic resource no longer satisfies the criteria for designation.

11.d
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – December 7, 2022 Page 8
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (2) Consistent with the current Tier 2 process , as well as that to add or remove an historic resource from the HRI, a Tier 3 permit application would require independent recommendations by the HPB and Planning Commission, with final decision by the City Council. In most instances, a Tier 3 Permit application would req uire outside historic consultant review and be subject formal review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
• Zoning Exception : Consistent with how standard Variances are considered, staff recommends pushing-down the decision-making authority for a Zoning Exception request from the City Council to the Planning Commission, with recommendation by the HPB. A decision of the Planning Commission would be appealable to the City Council HRI Designation: The following revisions are recommended to more broadly capture the significance and value of Campbell's historic resources. • Revised Structure of Merit Designation Criteria: Staff recommends the following revisions to the designation criteria to better capture the importance of architectural styles found within the community as well the contribution of individuals in Campbell's history:
a. The proposed resource is associated with events that have made an important or notable contribution to the broad patterns of our history, community, or cultural heritage; b. The proposed resource is associated with the lives of persons important or notable to our history or community;
c. The proposed resource yields, or has the potential to yield, information important to our prehistory or history;
d. The p roposed resource embodies the distinctive or representative characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction, present within our community; e. The proposed resource represents the work of a notable or local architect, designer, engineer, or builder; or
f. The proposed resource possesses significant artistic value or materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood, community, or city.
• Historic Resource Analysis : Lastly, s taff recommends that a historic analysis only be required for HRI designation when the HPB and Planning Commission disagree on the request. This would align the process to add a property to the HRI with the process to remove a property, and in doing so, eliminate a barrier for homeowners who do not wish outlay the upfront cost for an historic analysis. However, a DPR form would continue to be required upon designation.

Definitions: As part of the drafting of a formal ordinance, the following definitional changes will be required to align the terms with the proposed permit thresholds:
• Certificate of Compliance (new definition)
• Street-Facing (new definition)
• Non-Street Facing (new definition)
• Character Defining Features (new definition)
• Exempt Activities (new definition)
• Ordinary Maintenance and Repair (revised definition)

11.d
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – December 7, 2022 Page 9
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (2)

OUTREACH
This meeting, as well as all subsequent meetings regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance update, will be noticed to HRI property owners. If adopted by the City Council, the City will take action to record the DPR forms on the titles of every historic property to disclose their historic status to prospective buyers. Staff will also send a letter to each HRI property owner explaining the new provisions following adoption of an updated ordinance.

Attachments

1. HPB Staff Report, dated October 26, 2022

2. City Council Staff Report, dated February 20, 2018

3. Summary Table

11.d
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2022-12-07) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update)

To: Chair Foulkes and Board Members Date: January 25, 2023 From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Subject: Study Session to discuss potential revisions to the City of Campbell Historic Preservation Ordinance, including the (1) creation of penalty provisions to discourage unpermitted alterations and demolitions of historic structures, (2) clarification of permitting requirements for his toric properties, and (3) establishment of a new Mills Act Program. File No.: PLN-2022-117

BACKGROUND
As discussed at the HPB meeting of October 26, 2022, the City Council authorized a focused update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance , pertaining to penalty provisions, permitting requirements, and a revamped Mills Act program . This third meeting will discuss the update to the City's Mills Act Program.

The revised schedule, below, anticipates that the Board will finalize its recommendations for a revamped Mills Act program at this meeting. Staff will then work to schedule a joint HPB/Planning Commission study session at the Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meeting of February 28, 2023 (the week after the HPB's regular February meeting). This will be followed by a hearing with the City Council , scheduled for April 4, 2023 , where the Council will be asked to authorize preparation of a formal ordinance based on HPB and Planning Commission recommendations.  HPB Study Session (October 26, 2022) – Penalty Provisions  HPB Study Session (December 7, 2022) – Permitting Requirements  HPB Study Session (January 24, 2023) – Mills Act Program  Joint HPB/PC Study Session (February 28, 2023 - Tentatively set at 7:00 PM) – Joint discussion on HPB recommendations.
 Council Meeting ( April 4 , 2023 - Tentative ) – Review of PC/HPB recommendations, confirmation of direction, and authorization to proceed with drafting of a formal ordinance.  Staff preparation of Draft Ordinance ( April-May 2023) – Staff will prepare a draft ordinance based on Council direction, including review by the City Attorney's Office.  OHP Review of Draft Ordinance ( June 2023) – Staff will forward the draft ordinance to the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for review (per CLG requirements).  HPB Public Hearing (July 2023) – The HPB will consider the draft ordinance.  PC Public Hearing (August 2023) – The PC will consider draft ordinance.  CC Public Hearing (September 2023) – The Council will consider the draft ordinance.

MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Planning Division

11.e
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – January 23, 2023 Page 2
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (3) Program History: The Mills Act is a State law allowing cities to voluntarily enter into contracts with the owners of historically designated properties that allow a reduction in property taxes in exchange for the continued maintenance and restoration of the historic resource. Under the terms of the contract, property taxes are reduced using a statutory formula, allowing the savings to be reinvested into the property. The Government Code provides a broad framework allowing cities to create tailored program s appropriate for each community, as discussed in the California Preservation Foundation (CPF) webinar, The Mills Act: Building the Right Program for your Community.

The City Council initiated a three-year pilot Mills Act Program on October 4, 2011, by Resolution No. 11333, which allowed up to five Mills Act contracts to be executed . During this initial three - year period, the City Council authorized three Mills Act contracts. On February 3, 2015 , the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11776, approving an extension of the Mills Act Program, allowing a combined maximum of ten Mills Act contract s. To date, the City Council has approved 11 contracts, most recently at its October 18, 2022, meeting.

Council Direction : On December 4, 2018, in approving the eight h Mills Act contract, the City Council provided direction regarding review and expansion of the Mills Act Program. Specifically, the Council indicated that it in order for it to consider expansion of the program beyond ten contracts, the City should conduc t a comprehensive review the existing contracts and directed staff and the HPB to review potential program improvements, including, but not limited to:
• Selection criteria
• Qualifying improvements
• Application form requirements
• Reporting program (e.g., annual checklist receipts, etc.) Over the course of the last four years, and with the assistance of the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee consisting of Vice Chair Walter and Board Member Blake, the HPB reviewed a variety of potential program improvements (see June 22, 2022, HPB Agenda, Item # 5). Additionally, Board Member Corteway, acting as the Mills Act Audit Review ad hoc Subcommittee, completed an audit of the existing contracts, which was presented to the City Council at its October 18, 2022 , meeting. In authorizing preparation of the focused update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Council provided direction that a new Mills Act Program should clearly focus on facilitating improvements that promote "structural, architectural, and historical integrity" and that are not "everyday expenses" common to homeowners at large. In other words, the Council provided direction that that Mills Act is intended to finance projects of significant capital costs, not normal maintenance. The Council also indicated that a new program should require more accountability from contract-holders.

DISCUSSION
Challenges: In the years since the creation of the City's Mills Act Program, certain challenges have presented themselves that should be addressed as part of a new program:
• Eligible Improvements List. The City Council resolutions that formed the existing program did not identify the types of improvements that were intended to be funded by the property tax savings, only that savings should "finance the preservation, maintenance and improvements of the qualified historic property as specified in the recorded Mills Act Contract. " As a result, the HPB developed its own list of qualified expenses, which is included in pages 11 and 12 of the City's Mills Act Application Package.

11.e
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – January 23, 2023 Page 3
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (3) The list is quite comprehensive, spanning nearly 100 individual line items, and is intended to capture "interior and exterior renovation/restoration that will extend the life of the structure and limited site work," as stated on Page 4 of the application package. However, the list was never approved or reviewed by the City Council. At its core, this has resulted in a lack of authorization from the Council as to the appropriateness of certain improvements, such as kitchen/bathroom remodels, which was observable during the Council's discussion at its October 18, 2022 meeting.

• Review Criteria/Threshold for Approval: The review criteria by which all of the existing contracts have been considered, below, were also created without Council approval, and have been difficult to apply in practice. They are oriented towards the concept of "ranking" and "prioritizing" applications. However, prior to approval of the last three contracts , each request was considered individually, meaning there was no need to rank or evaluate an application relative to another application. This resulted in situations where the HPB struggled to determine if (and why) it could recommend denial of an application, since the criteria do not create a minimum threshold for approval. The review criteria are as follows:
o Criteria No. 1: A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the greatest number or value of improvements to the historic property thereby resulting in the greatest benefit to the public. o Criteria No. 2: A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition, deterioration, abandonment, and/or general neglect. o Criteria No. 3 : A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate, in cases of economic hardship, that entering into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract will result in the preservation and maintenance of a historic property.
o Criteria No. 4 : A higher ranking will be given to those ap plications that demonstrate the highest percentage of tax savings being used to finance the property maintenance and improvements. • Contract Duration: As currently structured, the City's Mills Act contracts have an initial 10 - year duration (the minimum required by State law) and automatically renew annually, rendering them indefinite, unless action is taken by the City or contract -holder to not renew the contract.

The challenge arises that when a 10-year workplan is exhausted, there is no mechanism to ensure that continuing property tax savings is substantially reinvested into the property.

• Ongoing Compliance: When the Mills Act program was created, there was an understanding that contract-holders would provide supporting materials (e.g., receipts, invoices, contracts, etc.) to the County Assessor, who would serve as a clearinghouse. Unfortunately, since this time, the Assessor's Office informed staff that such information was not public record, even to the City, and that moving forward it would cease maintaining copies of materials. This resulted in the lack of documentation for many of the existing contracted properties, and now requiring the City to acquire receipts and invoices. Additionally, due to limited staffing and other factors, the City has not conducted an inspection at the outset of a new contract and every five years as required by the law.

Staff Recommendations : The following staff recommendation s on program improvements incorporates prior HPB and Subcommittee feedback, as well as staff's professional judgment . The overall framework of the program would be codified within the Zoning Code. However, components of the program that may need to be refined overtime would be adopted separately by Council resolution.

11.e
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – January 23, 2023 Page 4
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (3) • Eligibility: The Mills Act statute specifies that only "qualified historic properties" are eligible for a Mills Act contract, defined as properties on either the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic list/ registry. The City's current Mills Act Program also defines qualified properties as residential homes, thereby specifically excluding commercial properties.

The HPB discussed whether the program should be further restricted to properties under a certain assessed value (e.g., $1.5M), but declined to recommend such an approach.

Although limiting the Mills Act program to currently designated HRI properties is an industry standard practice, staff also recommends expanding the program to include potentially historic properties, contingent on a concurrent application to add the property HRI. This approach would further the City's preservation efforts by inducing owners to voluntarily add their properties to the HRI in exchange for a Mills Act contract. If a property failed to secure designation, the Mills Act application would not be approved. This approach is similar to the 2011 expansion of the Mills Act Program when the Council gave priority to new additions to the HRI for one year.

• Qualifying Improvements: As noted, the Council's provided direction that the Mills Act should finance projects that facilitate an histori c resource's "structural, architectural, and historical integrity" and that are not "everyday expenses". To this end, staff created a master list, included as Attachment 1 , consisting of potential improvements drawn from the current Mills Act Application Package , the Subcommittee's recommend ed improvement categories, and the permit threshold table provided at the HPB's December 7, 2022 meeting. This table categorizes each improvement as either contributing to "structure integrity" or "architectural/historical integrity" of a historic resource, or as ineligible.1

For the purposes of this exercise, the category of " structure integrity" includes both the literal structural elements of a building (foundation, beams, framing, etc.), as well as the building's critical systems, including mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP). The category "architectural and/or historic integrity" include architectural components such as windows, doors, cladding, roofing, as well as decorative elements integral to historic character such as trim, scalloping, etc.

However, the Attachment 1 table excludes items that otherwise would fit in an allowable category if they do not require a significant capi tal cost as a means to exclude "everyday expenses" for regular maintenance common to homeowners . For example, rewiring an entire house would be an acceptable improvement as it contributes to the long -term integrity of the structure, but installing new electrical outlets to mount a TV would not. Lastly, some work that otherwise would be exclude d is included if it w ould serve to restore or preserve a n original historical feature. For example, repairing (not reconstructing) a stairway would generally be excluded, except if it was the original stairway, as to preserve period wood craftsmanship.

• Number of Contracts: In-lieu of an overall numeric cap on the number of contracts , staff recommends establishing an annual limit; specifically, five (5) contracts per year to start. This approach would allow a measured expansion of the program, easing its administration, and also allow the City to refine the program details each subsequent year. For equity, it would be necessary to establish an annual submittal deadline and review application together so that they may be judged on their merits based on the consideration criteria, discussed, below.

1 Note that all work must consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and subject applicable permit review process

11.e
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – January 23, 2023 Page 5
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (3) • Consideration Criteria: The review of the most recent Mills Act applications demonstrated the benefit of weighing the proposed costs of a 10-year work plan against the estimated tax savings so as to determine the percentage of tax savings that are reinvested into a property. This exercise provided an objective measure to evaluate each proposal, and to demonstrate the extent to which each applications would reinvest property tax savings.

In this regard, staff recommends the following minimum approval criteria:
(1) Invest at least 100% of estimated property tax savings back into the property (expenditures), as demonstrated by the proposed workplan, for a minimum of Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) of 1.0 (expenditures ÷ savings); AND (2) Show estimated expenditures of at least $100,000 (in 2023 dollars) over 10 years.

For context, the table, below, identifies the anticipated savings and ex penditures of each Mills Act contract approved to date (note that actual expenditures vary, as detailed in Board Member Corteway's analysis). On average, each contract-older anticipated saving $105,000 over 10 years and to expend $160,000, for an average SIR of 1.55.

Address Savings Expenditures SIR
140 S. Peter Dr. (2013) $130,000 $360,000 2.77
61 Catalpa (2013) $ 80,000 $188,000 2.35
73 S. 1st St. (2021) $ 92,000 $209,000 2.27
146 Alice Ave. (2016) $ 80,000 $177,000 2.21
75 N Second St. (2015) $ 65,000 $ 86,000 1.32
110 S 2nd St. (2018) $130,000 $160,000 1.23
167 Alice Ave (2018) $191,000 $235,000 1.23
81 Alice Ave. (2021) $ 90,000 $ 86,000 0.96
155 Alice Ave. (2015) $ 79,840 $ 76,000 0.95
204 Alice Ave. (2021) $145,000 $128,000 0.88
226 Alice Ave. (2017) $ 70,000 $ 58,000 0.83
Average $105,000 $160,000 1.55
Staff's recommendations would serve three purposes. Firstly, it would formalize that the City's expectation that all (100%) of tax savings be invested into the property, which may exclude high-value properties where the property tax savings could not be sufficient ly expended (<1.0 SIR). Secondly, it would set a minimum floor for applications, excluding those where there is less than $100,000 of qualified work to be done (suggesting the property is in relatively good condition). Lastly, a numeric-based approach would allow for an apples -to-apples comparison between application by ranking them on the amount of proposed expenditure and/or SIR. This would prioritize applications for properties that are at the greatest danger of deterioration, as recommended by the Subcommittee, since those properties would generally require the greatest amount of expenditure.
• Contract Duration: Staff recommends that the duration of contract should be tied to the proposed expenditures relative to the anticipated property tax savings. For example, a proposal that would result in tax savings of $100,000 over 10 years with $100,000 in expenditures should have a "total term" of 20 years, inclusive of a 10-year "initial term" of full tax savings, with 10- additional years of diminishing tax savings (as per State law).

11.e
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – January 23, 2023 Page 6
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (3) However, if this proposal would result in expenditures of $200,000 an initial term of 20 -years (30-year total term) should be granted, as to allow the homeowner an opportunity to recoup the upfront costs. The table, below, conceptually shows the proposed relationship between savings, expenditures, and initial term:

Initial Term
(+ 10 years = Total Term)
10-Year
Savings
Proposed 10-year Work Plan Expenditures
$100K $150K $200K $250K $300K
$100K 10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years 30 years
$150K 10 years 13 years 17 years 20 years
$200K 10 years 13 years 15 years
$250K 10 years 12 years
$300K 10 years

To effectuate the limited term of a contract, the Community Development Director would inform the contract holder of the City's intent to file a Notice of Non -renewal prior to the contract expiration, which would serve to expire the contract in ten additional years. At that time, the owner may propose additional eligible work or document that they expended more than they saved and request that the City Council, upon HPB recommendation, postpone filing of the Notice of Non -renewal. If necessary, the City could execute an addendum to the recorded contract or record a new contract to formalize the additional proposed work. With this new approach, staff would also recommend that all the existing "legacy" contracts be subject to a Notice of Non-renewal filing after 10 years of savings, unless the homeowners can demonstrate additional expenditures.

• Review Process: The following recommendations pertain to the overall review process of Mills Act applications:
o Application Package: The current Mills Act Application Package, last updated in 2014 is a holdover document that predates the City's current electronic permit submittal platform, MyGovernmentOnline. In the future, staff would better integrate the Mills Act application requirements into a Planning Application Checklist format, and also better identify the requirement for a digital submittal of a proposed workplan, tax adjustment worksheet, site plan, preliminary title report, property tax bill, site photographs, etc.
o Application Fee: The Subcommittee's review of other cities' Mills Act application fees found that Campbell's existing fee ($1,600) falls within the surveyed range ($1,000 to $4,000). Staff recommends maintaining the current fee but re-evaluating it after a year once a new Mills Act program is created, to determine how much staff time is spent on processing applications . It is possible, if not likely, that a more specific and prescriptive program will require less staff time to implement since the review of applications should be much more straightforward.
o Pre-Application Inspection: The Subcommittee recommended that City conduct a pre- inspection of a historic property prior to submittal of a Mills Act application. Staff supports this proposal as it would provide an opportunity for a staff planner to provide better feedback to prospective applicants as a means to screen -out less meritorious requests.

11.e
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – January 23, 2023 Page 7
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (3) o Hearing Process: The HPB discussed but declined to recommend potential changes to the current review process, such as pre-application workshops, preliminary review by a subcommittee, or review by the Planning Commission. As such, staff recommends maintaining the current hearing process of a recommendation by the HPB and decision by the City Council.
o Technical Reports : Since the new Mills Act program will focus on signif icant improvements, the HPB expressed a concern that a homeowner may believe an improvement is required, but not know for sure. For example, it may not be clear to what extent , o r by what method , a foundation can be repaired . In a traditional development application, such questions are addressed by submittal of a technical report (e.g., engineering analysis) as part of the initial submittal.

However, the HPB expressed a concern that requiring an engineering or architectural report to substantiate a proposed improvement w ould act a disincentive to homeowners seeking a contract due to the additional upfront cost . Instead, for applications that involve structural or MEP work requiring an engineering report, the Subcommittee recommended that the report not be required until after a contract was approved by the City Council.

Staff is supportive of this approach, provided that in circumstances where a preparation of a technical report is required, that it be submitted prior to the execution of the contract. This would ensure that anticipated expenditures are properly documented in the workplan. For example, if a homeowner indicates that a foundation needs to be replaced, an engineering report would substantiate the need for the work before the contract is signed . If the report found the foundation was in adequate condition, and the proposed expenditures fall below the approval threshold ($100,000 and/or 1.0 SIR), the contract would not be executed. The homeowners would either abandon the application requests or submit a new workplan proposal. • Conditions of Approval: Staff recommends incorporating a provision in the new ordinance that would explicitly allow the City to impose conditions of approval on a Mills Act agreement. This would allow case-by-case consideration of specific architectural and/or site improvements (e.g., restoration of an altered feature , removal of dilapidated fencing, etc. ) or standa rd safety measures such as an electrical inspection or installation of smoke alarms.

• Program Oversight /Annual Maintenance Fee : As noted, providing oversight of issued contracts has been a challenge . To ensure better administration of the program, staff recommends the City's online permitting platform, MyGovernmentOnline (MGO) be leveraged to provide a system for ongoing oversight. Specifically, each contract-holder can be required to create an MGO acc ount allowing them to upload materials directly into a property -specific digital casefile. The MGO system can also be used to create automatic reminders to current and future staff to conduct inspections, request annual invoices/receipts, and check building permits against approved workplans. Although not necessary at the current moment, a new Mills Act ordinance should also allow for creation a fee that could fund more rigorous ongoing monitoring by a professional consultant, as was considered by San Clemente.

11.e
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) HPB Study Session Memorandum – January 23, 2023 Page 8
PLN-2022-117 ~ Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (3)

OUTREACH
This meeting, as well as all subsequent meetings regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance update, will be noticed to HRI proper ty owners. If adopted by the City Council, the City will take action to record the DPR forms on the titles of every historic property to disclose their historic status to prospective buyers. Staff will also send a letter to each HRI property owner explaini ng the new provisions following adoption of an updated ordinance.

Attachments

1. Allowable Scope of Work Table

11.e
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: HPB Study Session Memo (2023-01-25) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update)

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
7:00 P.M. TUESDAY
February 28, 2022

PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Board special joint Study Session meeting on Tuesday February 28, 2022, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair Buchbinder and the following proceedings were had, to wit:

ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair: Adam Buchbinder
Vice Chair: Alan Zisser
Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Michael Krey
Commissioner: Maggie Ostrowski
Commissioner: Davis Fields
Commissioner: Stuart Ching
Commissioners Absent: None
Board Members Present: Chair: Todd Walter
Vice Chair: Susan Blake
Board Member: Mike Foulkes
Board Member: Laura Moore
Board Member: Rob Corteway
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present:

Director: Rob Eastwood
City Attorney: Bill Seligmann
Senior Planner: Daniel Fama
Admin Analyst: Ken Ramirez

11.f
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Meeting Minutes (2023-02-28) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 28, 2023 Page 2

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chair Buchbinder opened for public comment

Hearing none, Chair Buchbinder closed public comment.

Chair Buchbinder read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows:

STUDY SESSION

1. PLN-2022-117 Study Session to review Historic Preservation Board recommendations on the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan), inclusive of (1) Creation of Penalty Provisions to Discourage Unpermitted Alterations and Demolitions of Historic Struct ures, (2) Clarification of Permitting Requirements for Historic Properties, and (3) Establishment of a New Mills Act Program. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner.

Senior Planner Fama presented report on the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update where the following Historic Preservation Board recommendations were noted;

Penalties: Forced Reconstruction/Restoration, Monetary Penalties, Development Limitation
Permitting: Multi -tier appro ach where an advisory body and decision-making body would review permits based on permit tiers.

Mills Act : Eligibility, Number of Contracts, Contract duration, and Qualifying improvements.

Senior Planner informed Planning Commission that the April 4, 2023 City Council meeting would confirm direction and authorization preparation of formal ordinance.

Historic Preservation Board members commented on the extent of the Mills Act subcommittee’s research; the strong desire from public members to apply for the Mills Act program; the extensive benefits of being in the program, the contract amount limitations ; staffing limitations if program were to be expanded.

Planning Commission inquired about ho w contract application limit was decided .

Recommended increasing Mills Act program application s. In favor of streamlining program.

Historic Preservation Board Members and Planning Commissioners discussed the significant penalties to the properties.

Planning Commission asked about the penalty enforcement mechanism and where funds gathered fees would go.

Historic Preservation Board members emphasized the penalties were intended to serve as an incentive for people to preserve the properties so that they remain on the Historic Resource Inventory list and possibly add more home to the HRI list. If fees were to be collected, they would go into a special fund where City Council would decide how to best make use of funds.

11.f
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Meeting Minutes (2023-02-28) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update) Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 28, 2023 Page 3

Planning Commissioners asked about public outreach and what has been done to inform owners about the benefits of the Mills Acts. Also, all HRI property owners have been notified of all meetings.

Historic Preservation Board members stated that outreach included connecting with realtor agencies but would like to continue doing outreach again.

Planning Commission appreciated the efforts of the Historic Preservation Board and recommended putting som ething on the titles of the homes so that homeowners know that they own a historic property. Noted that, like the Bolt and Brace program, outreach can be difficult but the benefits of the pro gram are important and helpful. Believe th e importance of the fees are intended to be incentive but noted that some people may not be able to keep up with the maintenanc e of having an older home. Also, recommended looking at other qualifying expenses outside of structural integrity , like electrical issues , but acknowledged the Historic Preservation Board’s focus of the exterior of structures and their attempt to incorporate flexibility within the program.

ADJOURNMENT

The Special joint Study Session Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Board meeting adjourned at 8:00p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, February 28, 2023, at City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA.

SUBMITTED BY: ______________________________________
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst

APPROVED BY: ______________________________________
Adam Buchbinder, Chair

ATTEST: ______________________________________
Rob Eastwood, Secretary

11.f
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Meeting Minutes (2023-02-28) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update)

PERMIT PROCESS SUMMARY TABLE
(2023-02-28)

Page 1 of 3 ends

SCOPE OF WORK1 Exempt

PERMIT PROCESSES
Certificate of
Appropriateness
Historic Resource
Alteration Permits
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Roofing

1. Patching/repair roof (<50 SF) X

2. Re-roofing (like-for-like), including patching/repair >50 SF X

3. New roofing (different material) X

4. Alteration to building roofline (roof shapes, ridge height, construction/ modification of dormers, gables, overhang, eyebrows, etc.) X

5. Installation of rooftop PV system X
Windows/Doors/Awnings/Shutters

6. Replacement of street-facing or non-street-facing doors and windows (same material and style, and within existing opening) X

7. Replacement of street-facing or non-street-facing doors and windows (different material and/or style, and within existing opening) X

8. Alteration of street-facing window or door openings
(expansion, reduction, or closing of opening) X

9. Alteration of non-street-facing window or door openings (expansion, reduction, or closing of opening) X

10. Creation of new street-facing door/window openings X

11. Creation of new non-street-facing door/window openings X

12. Replacement of existing shutters
(wood or composite wood, same style as original) X

13. Installation or removal of street-facing window shutters or awnings X

14. Installation or removal of non-street-facing window shutters or awnings X

15. Removal of aluminum window awnings X
Wall Cladding

16. Exterior painting (except unpainted masonry surface or texture coating) X

11.g
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Permit Process Summary Table (2023-02-28) (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update)

Page 2 of 3 ends

Campbell City CouncilApril 4, 2023

Campbell City Council
April 4, 2023