- CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL -
CLIENT: PROJECT :
Name: Francesca & Lee Smith Name: Smith Residence
Address: 324 Lawson Place Location: 324 Lawson Place
Glendale, CA 91202 Glendale, CA 91202
Date: March 12, 2024 Project #:
Upon acceptance of this proposal a contract containing terms mutually agreeable to both parties shall be drawn and executed prior to scheduling and performance of scope of work. If this proposal has not been accepted within thirty (30) days of the above bid date, or the scope of work is modified, Thomas & Takei, Inc. reserves the right to revise and/or adjust the quoted price. Any deviation written, typed, or otherwise transmitted by the client on the Thomas & Takei, Inc. proposal is null and void. Thomas & Takei, Inc. will generate any adjustments or additional changes.
If Thomas & Takei, Inc. is authorized to commence and/or continue providing its services on the project, either verbally or in writing, prior to execution of a written contract, such authorization shall be deemed an acceptance of this proposal and all such services shall be provided and compensated for in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein as though this proposal was fully executed by the client.
SCOPE OF WORK
1 Remove existing window in Garage.
2 Install new owner provided Garage window (approx. 36"x48"). 3 Patch existing exterior wall finish around new window.
TOTAL = $1,500.00
Authorized Signature:
Acceptance of Proposal:
Lic. #: 932601
THE THOMAS COMPANY
A Fine Homebuilding Experience
THOMAS & TAKEI, INC.
1443 E. Washington Blvd., #161
Pasadena, California 91104
T: 626.744.9224
E: [email protected]
Dale S. Thomas, President
Accepted
Date
Date
The above prices, scope, and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. Thomas & Takei, Inc. is authorized to perform the work as specified.
Name (Print)
Thomas & Takei, Inc.
284 of 324
ATTACHMENT 7
On February 7, 2024, at 10:02 AM, Francesca Smith received an esƟmate via text from Julio at J & S Windows:
“Good morning.
Window is $1,500.
Douglas Fir, verƟcal grain, divided lites, ¼” clear tempered glass.
No install.
Lead Time: 6-8 weeks.”
285 of 324
286 of 324
287 of 324
ESTIMATE
Date
08/29/22
Estimate No.
1187
Name/Address
Franciasca Smith
324 Lawson st
Glendale, ca
ESTIMATE GOOD FOR 30 DAYS DUE TO INCREASE IN PRICE OF MATERIALS.
Felix Guevara
(818) 652-9587
felixroofi[email protected]
Lic.# C39-893967
Item Description Total
PERMITS APPLY FOR CITY PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS 650.00
TEAR-OFF REMOVE EXISTING ROOF DOWN TO WOOD AND HAUL AWAY ON
HOUSE AND GARAGE
2,900.00
DRYROT REPAIR REMOVE AND REPLACE DAMAGED PLYWOOD WITH NEW WHERE NEEDED
650.00
2X2 EDGE METAL INSTALL 2X2 EDGE METAL WHERE NEEDED
UNDERLAYMENT INSTALL SHARKSKIN REFLECTIVE UNDERLAYMENT WHERE NEEDED VALLEY METAL INSTALL 24 INCH VALLEY METAL WHERE NEEDED.
O'HAGIN ROOF VENTS INSTALL 10 ATTIC VENTS
FLASHINGS INSTALL ALL NEW PIPE FLASHING WHERE NEEDED
SHAKE LINER INSTALL 22 INCH ROLL OF #30 SHAKE LINER
CE DUR SHAKES INSTALL GOLDEN OAK CE DUR SHAKES IN ACCORDANCE TO
MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS
RIDGE INSTALL RIDGE CAPS WHERE NEEDED
PAINT AND SEAL 1)SEAL COLLAR OF ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS WITH PLASTIC CEMENT
2) PAINT ROOF PENETRATIONS TO MATCH COLOR OF ROOF
SHINGLES AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE
FINAL INSPECTION CALL FOR FINAL ROOF INSPECTION
LABOR AND
MATERIALS
THIS INCLUDES DELIVERED OF MATERIALS AND LABOR
44,000.00
PROGRESS
PAYMENTS
PROGESS PAYMENTS WILL BE DISCUSS WITH OWNERS UPON
APPROVAL OF ESTIMATE
$48,200.00Total
$48,200.00
ATTACHMENT 10
288 of 324
289 of 324
290 of 324
291 of 324
Mills Act – Historic District Contributor Application Form 4
5. Owner Statement
Provide name and signature of each owner. For any trust or corporate ownership, provide the full name of the entity and the name and role of each signatory (trustee, partner, etc.) .
I/we hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I /we am/are the owner(s) of the property involved in this request and that the foregoing statement and the information submitted h erewith are true and correct:
___________________________________________________________________________________ Printed Name
______________________________________ ______________________________________ Signature Date
___________________________________________________________________________________ Printed Name
______________________________________ ______________________________________ Signature Date
___________________________________________________________________________________ Printed Name
______________________________________ ______________________________________ Signature Date
Edward Silver
8/21/2022
Kerry Silver
8/21/2022
292 of 324
293 of 324
294 of 324
295 of 324
296 of 324
297 of 324
298 of 324
299 of 324
CITY OF GLENDALE, CA
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 20, 2020
Hearing Date
Review of Proposed Procedure for Implementing Mills Act Program for Contributing Properties in Designated Historic Districts Subject
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Staff Member
______________________________________________________________________
Project Summary
Staff proposes a series of recommendations to implement City Council’s direction to offer Mills Act Property Tax Reduction contracts for certain contributing historic district properties that require significant restoration of historic features, structural repair, and/or system upgrades. The proposal establishes:
• a timeline for submittal and review of applications, and processing and recording contracts;
• application submittal requirements; and
• a process for ranking applications, based on the type, amount, public benefit, and expense of work proposed, for consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and City Council.
The goal is to identify and prioritize properties for which the tax reduction benefit can help offset the cost of significant work that will, in return, provide a tangible benefit to the City by restoring historic features and/or addressing issues that could impact the properties’ ongoing safety or viability.
Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 8 "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment" exemption pursuant to Section 15208 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it provides for the enhancement and protection of contributing properties in historic district overlay zones.
300 of 324
Mills Act Contracts for District Contributors 2
Staff Recommendation
Planning staff requests that the Historic Preservation Commission review and comment on the following recommendations for implementing a program, to begin in 2021, to grant Mills Act contracts, on a competitive basis, to the owners of contributing properties in historic district overlay zones. HPC comments will be forwarded to City Council, which will consider information about the new process at the time it hears a general update on the status of the City’s current and pending historic districts at its meeting currently scheduled for October 13, 2020.
______________________________________________________________________
Background
At the request of City Council, Planning staff provided a report in April 2016 regarding the possibility of extending the Mills Act Property Tax Reduction program to owners of contributing properties in designated historic district overlay zones, in addition to the current practice of issuing contracts for properties listed on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (Exhibit 1). After researching the practices of other cities and considering issues specific to Glendale’s districts, staff presented a series of options and recommendations and Council directed moving forward with the following concepts for an expanded program:
• Allow Mills Act contracts for properties that are historic district contributors and that are not otherwise eligible for the Glendale Register (GR); • Establish property valuation caps for district contributor Mills contracts of $1.5 million for single-family properties and $3.0 million for other property types; • Process no more than six Mills Act contracts per year unless staff time is available for additional processing;
• Prioritize contracts for up to four Glendale Register properties per year, whether inside or outside of historic districts (Mills applications may be for previously listed GR properties but are more commonly considered concurrently with GR nominations);
• Prepare up to two contracts for district contributors per year. Additional contracts may be prepared if less than four Glendale Register contracts are approved in a calendar year or as staff time allows;
• Establish an annual application submittal and processing schedule for Glendale Register nominations, district contributor Mills Act applications, and Mills contract processing to distribute work evenly throughout the year. • Develop a merit-based application review system to allow staff to provide ranked recommendations of Mills Act applications for consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and City Council; and that • HPC and Community Development Director design review authority encompass all exterior portions of contributing Mills Act property in line with the treatment of GR properties.
301 of 324
Mills Act Contracts for District Contributors 3
Review and Processing Timeline
Staff’s initial concern, reflected in several bullets above, that the volume of applications coming in from historic districts would overwhelm available staff-time was, to date, unfounded. No interest in the new program was expressed until 2019, when one potential applicant asked about the program; a second property owner’s inquiry was received in April 2020. This is most likely because historic district property owners had not learned about Council’s 2016 decision regarding district contributors. To increase the pool of properties considered under the proposed merit-based review system, staff recommends that greater effort be made to publicize the program so that the owners of properties most likely to produce a public benefit facilitated by the Mills Act tax reduction are aware of the opportunity. Information provided by the City through its website, GTV6, and via informational materials, along with private efforts from local neighborhood associations, historic district proponents, and the Glendale Historical Society, would assist in this promotion.
In keeping with the policies of most cities in the region and the annual cycle inherent to the statewide Mills Act program, staff recommends that applications be considered on an annual schedule tied to the calendar year, with the program for contributors commencing in 2021. In the initial year, this will allow time for word of the program to spread among historic district property owners and increase the pool of worthy candidates. The timeline proposed in the next section will also allow staff to process Glendale Register and district contributor Mills Act applications in accordance with the annual numbers established by Council.
Merit-Based Review
Mills Act contract approvals for Glendale Register properties are not tied to an applicant’s proposed work program. Instead, HPC and City Council consider each Mills Act application individually, with any work believed necessary to improve that property’s historic character or physical condition being added as conditions of the Mills Act contract.
While some contracts require significant work, generally performed within the first three to four years, others require little or no work because the property has few alterations or signs of deterioration. Because GR properties are among our most important historic resources and many are intrinsic to an understanding of the city’s history, the Mills Act tax savings helps ensure they will remain in good condition for decades to come. No change is proposed for the Glendale Register Mills Act process at this time, though staff and HPC have previously discussed possible improvements relating to the ongoing inspection of the properties.
Historic district contributors, on the other hand, are not necessarily “historic” in their own right and are not typically eligible for the GR. Instead, when seen as component parts of a neighborhood that derive meaning from their shared history, they help establish the “sense of place” that makes our historic districts such desirable places to live and visit.
While contributors are considered historic under CEQA, their importance is collective, rather than individual. This makes it difficult to establish that one is more important, or more worthy of a Mills contract, than any other. Establishing a policy of “first-come, first- served” for district Mills Act applications would be easiest to administer, but would lead to 302 of 324
Mills Act Contracts for District Contributors 4
inequities in the distribution of tax relief if there were no assessment of a property’s specific preservation needs, the amount of work required to address them, and how this work will benefit the city.
The sheer number of district contributors also points toward the need for a merit-based review system. Today, there are 733 contributing properties in seven designated districts.
For comparison, there are 111 privately owned properties listed in the GR. Two pending districts, South Cumberland Heights and Casa Verdugo are currently being surveyed, and a nomination for a third, Bellehurst, has been accepted by the City. Together, these contain 634 properties. If all three were designated and contained the required minimum of 60% contributors (which would be 380), there could soon be 1113 contributing properties in Glendale. It is likely this number would be considerably higher since, on average, 82% of current district properties are contributors. With so many potential candidates, a merit-based review system will provide an objective means to identify the properties that will benefit both owners and the city to the greatest degree. ______________________________________________________________________
Proposal for Implementing the Expanded Mills Act Program The following items establish policy goals and a process for implementing the Mills Act program for historic district contributors per City Council’s previous direction. They focus on how to provide a fair and objective assessment of properties’ needs, applicants’ proposed expenditures to fulfill their work plans, and the level of public benefit this work will provide.
Property Valuation
In 2016, City Council established a valuation cap of $1.5 million for single-family district contributors to be eligible for the Mills Act. While property values have risen somewhat in the intervening years, staff believes this threshold remains appropriate and in keeping with the policies of other local jurisdictions. Council also established a cap of $3.0 million for non-single-family properties but, at this time, none are found in the city’s designated or pending historic districts.
Timeline
Mills Act contracts are processed on an annual cycle, with the County Assessor’s Office requiring that all contracts approved within a calendar year be recorded with the County Recorder’s Office by December 31st. Most local cities with Mills Act programs establish a timeline within each calendar year for application submission, review, and contract processing. Council previously approved a rough draft of the following annual timeline for district contributors, which staff will implement in 2021:
January 1 – May 31
• District Contributor Mills Act applications and submittals accepted. (Glendale Register nominations and Mills applications will continue to be accepted and processed throughout the year).
• Preliminary review of applications for completeness.
• Conduct property inspections as time allows.
303 of 324
Mills Act Contracts for District Contributors 5
June – July
• Complete review and analysis of applications.
• Complete all property inspections.
• Verify relative accuracy of proposed expenditures with Building & Safety staff. • Assign work plan points, determine expense-to-tax reduction ratios, and calculate final application scores.
• Prepare ranked list of all complete applications submitted by the deadline. • Determine number of applications to be considered (based on number of Glendale Register nominations and availability of staff time) .
July – September
• HPC hearing to review all district applications, consider staff’s prioritized list and recommended number of contracts for the year, and vote on HPC recommendation to City Council.
• City Council hearing to review applications and HPC recommendation, and vote to authorize contracts for specific properties.
October - December
• Contracts prepared by staff, signed by property owners and City Manager, and recorded with County.
Application Form and Submittal Checklist
Because the application process for district contributors will require more information from applicants than the Mills Act application for Glendale Register properties, staff will prepare a new application form and submittal requirement checklist (discussed below) specifically for district contributors.
Required Submittals
The following items will be required to accompany the application to facilitate the City’s review and help rank properties based on the merits of the proposed work plans:
Grant Deed and Legal Description
These real estate documents establish current ownership and the legal description that defines the extents of the property. They must include the County Recorder’s recording number and date, information that is required for completing Mills Act contracts.
Tax Bill or Documentation of Purchase Price
Required to establish that the valuation of the property is below the threshold set by City Council. The valuation will also be used to calculate the estimated tax reduction to allow for comparison of tax benefit/work expenditure ratio (discussed below).
Photographs and Photo Key
Photos of all exterior portions of the property, including all building facades, accessory buildings, front and rear yards, fences, walls, and hardscape and landscape features 304 of 324
Mills Act Contracts for District Contributors 6
must be included since all portions of contributors receiving Mills Act contracts are subject to historic review (as opposed to the review for other district contributors, which includes only the parts visible from the street). The pictures must be keyed onto a site plan of the property. For properties receiving contracts, the photos and photo key will serve as baseline documentation of the conditions at the beginning of the contract.
The key will also provide the basis for owners to re-photograph their properties every five years, which will allow the City to fulfill its state-mandated Mills Act inspection requirement. The application will contain information regarding the required resolution and submittal formats for the photographs.
Building Inspection Report
Applicants must submit a building inspection report prepared by a Certified Home Inspector. Work required to mitigate any significant issues found in the inspection should be included in the Proposed Work Plan. The Home Inspection report must be dated within the six months prior to the Mills Act application date. New reports must be submitted on a five-year cycle to assist with the City’s inspection requirement and identify future work needs.
Termite/Dry Rot Report
Submit a wood destroying pests and organisms (WDO) inspection report prepared by a California Structural Pest Control Board licensee. Work required to mitigate any significant issues found in the inspection should be included in the Proposed Work Plan. The WDO report must be dated within the six months prior to the Mills Act application date. New reports must be submitted on a five-year cycle to assist with the City’s inspection requirement and identify future work needs.
Work Plan
A detailed, line-item work plan, including all projects a property owner commits to completing if he or she is awarded a Mills Act contract. A blank template of the work plan form will be provided with the application form. For each work item, the plan will include a detailed description of the work, its location, whether it is visible from the street, the estimated cost, and the proposed completion date. Paid receipts and photographs of the work will be submitted to the city on an annual basis (within 30 days of the contract anniversary date) until completion of all work items to ensure owners are fulfilling the conditions of their contract.
Work completed prior to the contract date cannot be included in the work plan unless HPC recommends its inclusion at the Mills Act hearing. In addition, to enhance the fairness of the program, certain work items such as painting and roofing replacement, which are cyclical expenses for all homeowners regardless of their properties’ historic status, are not considered except in cases of significant deterioration. For example, if a roof is not deteriorated at the time of application but the owner includes a future replacement in the work plan, it would be unfortunate to force the removal of a possibly still viable roof and put it in the landfill just to fulfill an item in a work plan timeline.
305 of 324
Mills Act Contracts for District Contributors 7
Staff Review and Analysis of Applications
Planning staff will review all applications, conduct site visits, provide an objective assessment of the relative importance and benefits of proposed work plans, determine an approximate expense-to-tax benefit ratio, and develop a final “score” for each property.
Together, these will allow applications to be ranked in a way that will identify the best candidates for the tax reduction. The ranked properties will then be brought to HPC, and later Council, for consideration as Mill Act candidates.
Application Submittal and Site Visit
Staff will review all district contributor Mills Act applications as they arrive to determine if all submittal requirements are met. Incomplete applications will be returned and the owners will be able to resubmit anytime until the May 31 annual deadline. Staff will schedule a site visit for each property with a complete application. The visit will help verify that existing conditions are accurately depicted in the work programs and photographs. In addition, if staff identifies additional items that would bring the property closer to its original appearance, the owner may choose to add these to the work program prior to the HPC hearing.
Scoring System: Work Plan Points
Staff will develop a point-based scoring system to evaluate the proposed work programs based on the type of work, the property’s unique needs, and the work’s public benefit. Once a draft point system is complete, it will be brought to HPC for review and comment prior to implementation.
The system will reward properties that require significant amounts of work that would bring properties closer to their original appearance or address serious structural and systemic issues that could lead to extensive damage if not replaced or repaired.
Examples include:
• replacing inappropriate wall or roof cladding;
• installing new wood or steel windows to replace inappropriate sash; • repairing deteriorated character defining features or replacing them in kind; • foundation, chimney, and other structural repairs;
• seismic retrofits; and
• replacing dangerous electrical and deteriorated plumbing systems.
Points would be proportional to the amount of work. For example, a proposal to install appropriate new windows throughout a house that lost its originals would receive more points that one calling for just one or two replacements. To reward projects with greater public benefit, work visible from the street would get more points than the same work that is not visible.
Scoring System: Expense-to-Tax Reduction Ratio (multiplier) An applicant’s proposed expenditure should also factor into determining an application’s merits. Since owners can theoretically benefit from the Mill Act tax reduction for decades, those proposing the greatest expenditure in the first five or ten 306 of 324
Mills Act Contracts for District Contributors 8
years of the contract should be prioritized. For the purpose of establishing a level playing field for assessing the relative value of expenses to tax benefit, staff proposes establishing a baseline of a 50% tax reduction for all applications, as follows:
Valuation Property Tax
Estimate (1%)
Baseline Mills
Tax (50%)
Savings Over
10 Years
$1,000,000 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000
Dividing the total proposed expenditure by the 10-year tax saving establishes the expense-to-tax ratio, which will then be used as a multiplier for the work plan points as shown in the following examples using the same million-dollar house with a 15-point work plan:
Expenditure (E) Tax Savings
(S) Ratio (E/S) Work Plan
Points
Final Points
$25,000 $50,000 .5 15 7.5 $50,000 $50,000 1.0 15 15.0
$75,000 $50,000 1.5 15 22.5
Scoring System: Final Ranking
A property’s final score is determined by multiplying the work plan points by the expenditure multiplier. Two properties with the same number of points could have different rankings if one cost significantly more than the other. required greater This provides a fair and objective means for weighing the severity of existing conditions, the amount of work needed, the public benefit of the work, and the expense involved to restore and safeguard worthy contributors in the city’s historic districts.
Ultimately, HPC and City Council will decide which applications to select each year.
Assuming that a number of applications are submitted in 2021, the point system will help assure applicants and the general public that the decision to award contracts is as objective as possible.
Exhibit
1. Report to City Council - April 12, 2016
307 of 324
CITY OF GLENDALE, CA
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 21, 2024 (item continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) Hearing Date
Review of 2022 Applications for Mills Act Contracts for Contributing Properties in Historic Districts: 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive Subject
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Staff Member
______________________________________________________________________
Background
In 2022, the owners of 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive, two contributing properties in designated historic districts, submitted applications requesting Mills Act Property Tax Reduction Contracts (Exhibits 1 and 2). Staff brings these to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on October 20, 2022 for advisory review under the merit-based program developed by Planning staff to offer contracts to contributing properties in need of restoration, structural repair, and/or upgrades to potentially hazardous systems. The general outline and goals of the program were previously reviewed and approved by HPC (August 2020) and City Council (January 2021); the detailed report presented to HPC is attached as Exhibit 4.
At the October 2022 HPC hearing, several commissioners expressed disagreement or uncertainty about the methodology presented by staff to objectively assess the applications. This methodology had been discussed generally in the 2020 and 2021 meetings noted above, but staff’s final version was first presented to the commission at the 2022 hearing. While the commissioners did discuss some aspects of the two applications at that time, the discussion largely focused on the methodology, leading the commissioners to vote to continue the item to a date uncertain. The goal of this was for HPC to reconvene at a later date for a focused discussion about the methodology, along with possible revisions that could address the concerns of some members, while still fitting within the overall review structure that City Council had approved in 2021.
This discussion occurred at the HPC hearing of February 15, 2024. It touched on many points but largely focused on the scoring system proposed by staff. Acknowledging that objective means to compare applications in any given year are important, a consensus developed to eliminate a “final score” that would be used to rank applications for an 308 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 2 HPC recommendation to City Council. Instead, three of the elements originally proposed to determine a score would remain and a new category, “public benefit,” would be introduced. Each commissioner would consider each application under these four categories and weigh their relative importance, ultimately achieving a consensus for both ranking and recommending or not recommending an individual application to Council. The four categories are:
Work Plan Points
Staff will make a recommendation on a final number based on the points worksheet reviewed by HPC; the commissioners can adjust this number in their final vote on an application.
Expenses
The estimated cost of each work item proposed by the applicants will be reviewed by Building Division staff (for general, “ballpark” accuracy) and the total will be presented to the Commission.
Property Tax Savings
Staff will presume that each property will receive a 50% property tax reduction and calculate a rough estimate of a property owners’ savings over a ten-year period using the following method:
Valuation Property Tax
Estimate (1%)
Baseline Mills
Tax (50%)
Savings Over
10 Years
$1,000,000 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000
HPC will then be able to compare an applicant’s proposed expenses against what is likely to be a low estimate of their tax savings to help assess the relative merits of each application.
Public Benefit
This category is more subjective than the others. The commissioners will consider how an applicant’s work program will lead to enhancements of a property that will be experienced by community members. To provide a bit of rigor, staff recommends that HPC assess public benefit as either high, moderate, or low.
Several other topics also gained consensus during the HPC discussion:
• Building inspection reports - originally required at the time of application and on a regular 5-year cycle thereafter; HPC suggested that only the initial report be required.
• Termite reports - the same 5-year cycle was initially proposed; HPC suggested this be changed to an initial report as part of the application and then on a 10- year cycle.
309 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 3 • Point chart - HPC suggested a few new categories for the point chart: provide restorative landscape palette and landscape removal to protect structural integrity. The updated chart is included as Exhibit 5. • Site visits – HPC suggested that site visits be arranged prior to the hearing for future applications.
• Roofs – HPC suggested that roof replacements count toward proposed expenses in certain situations and that a differential be applied to account for the fact that all properties periodically require a new roof but historically accurate roofs may lead to higher material and labor costs. The HPC consensus allows for 50% of the estimated total roof replacement cost to count toward expenses. However, staff recommends further discussion by the Commission, prior to Council consideration of the current applications, regarding replacement of deteriorated roofs since the likely scenario of a new buyer asking to include a roof replacement may not be fair since that cost should be part of the purchase price negotiation. Replacing a non-deteriorated roof for the sake of a more historically accurate one raises a question about the public benefit associated with unnecessary disposal.
The commission’s recommend changes are discussed and incorporated in the analysis section below regarding the two current applications. City Council will consider HPC’s recommendations when it reviews the two applications, along with HPC’s procedural recommendations, at a hearing sometime in the coming months.
Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 8 "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment" exemption pursuant to Section 15208 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it provides for the enhancement and protection of contributing properties in historic district overlay zones.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that HPC recommend to City Council that the applications for 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive be denied because the amount and expense of the qualifying work for each property does not reach a level that appears to justify the long-term tax loss to the City and County and the work itself will provide a limited benefit to the public.
______________________________________________________________________
Analysis
The work plans for the two applications are first discussed separately and then the applications are assessed together in terms of the four review categories discussed above. Both properties are valued by the County Assessor below the $1.5 million eligibility threshold established by City Council. In addition, neither appears eligible for listing in the Glendale Register, another requirement of the program.
310 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 4 Not every item proposed in the applicants’ Work Program necessarily qualifies for points.
HPC and Council both supported the concept that projects addressing the unique needs of district contributors be prioritized, with a focus on bringing properties closer to their original appearance or addressing serious structural and systemic issues that could lead to extensive damage if not replaced or repaired. Examples include:
• replacing inappropriate wall or roof cladding;
• installing new windows to replace inappropriate sash; • repairing deteriorated character-defining features or replacing them in kind; • foundation, chimney, and other structural repairs;
• seismic retrofits; and
• replacing dangerous electrical and deteriorated plumbing systems.
Work that is a commonly required by all properties, whether or not they are historic, generally does not count toward the point tally. This includes items such as painting and routine repair and maintenance.
Please note that, given the time lag between the initial 2022 hearing and today, the applicants were given the opportunity to update their proposed work programs with new or revised items and more recent expenses/cost estimates:
• The owners of 324 Lawson Place provided a revised work program, which is included in the following section. Their 2022 application, with the original work program, and the revised 2024 work plan are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. • The owners of 1833 Niodrara Drive provided an accurate cost for the sewer line repairs that were included in the initial application and have already been performed; this change is included below. The 2022 application is attached as Exhibit 3. The Commission should note that staff initially recommended that item qualify for its expense and be given a point if the Public Works Department could identify that this sewer problem was uniquely caused by the Niodrara streambed, which would make it a cost specific to the property’s location in the Niodrara Drive Historic District. PW staff could not definitively establish this, and staff now recommends that no points be given for this item. The owners also chose to maintain the original window replacement proposal rather than expanding it to include replacing windows at areas that are not visible from the street.
311 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 5 Application 1
Address: 324 Lawson Place
Owners: Lee and Francesca Smith
District: Brockmont Park Historic District
Integrity at Designation: High
The property is a Ranch-style single-family house that was built in 1955. The owners propose 10 work items, of which staff believes 5 or 6 qualify for consideration as discussed in the following chart, which reflects the revised work program submitted to the City on March 14, 2024 (see Exhibit 3):
Work Item Staff Notes Cost Points
1. Replace
HVAC / relocate
condenser from
roof to ground
(2019)
This is common to all properties with HVAC systems.
Removing the unit from the roof has negligible impact on historic character.
$16,890 0
2. Foundation
bolting (2021)
While important for all properties, it will reduce the potential for significant seismic damage. $6054 1
3. Replace and
reroute irrigation
system
Staff disputes some of the expert testimony provided by the applicant because similar deterioration is not typically seen at other ground-adjacent brick work at Glendale
properties. At least part, and probably most, of the blame must be placed on the sprinklers that for many years
directed their flow straight against the masonry. That said, a drip system would eliminate the likely source of the
problem. However, the full replacement of the front yard’s irrigation system should not be included in the cost. Staff recommends included $1000 to cover these items (or that an estimate for just this work be provided before the City Council hearing).
$4250
(staff:
$1000)
1 4. Brick repair,
repointing, and
replacment
The chimney and other brickwork appear to be in very
good condition; any required spot pointing would be
considered routine maintenance and repair.
The brick wainscot at the right side of the front façade is severely deteriorated at its base. As noted above, this is more likely the result of years of bombardment by the
sprinklers than the “rising damp” argument made by the
applicant. No points should be awarded for work
necessitated by an owner’s improper care.
$6588 0
5. Wood sash
window repair
The windows appear to be in excellent physical condition.
Problems with operability are a maintenance, rather than historical, issue. Interior screens are beyond the city’s purview for all designated properties and that work is not justified for inclusion here.
$6620 -
$8420
($7520
avg.)
0 312 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 6 6. Replace
garage window
One fixed wood window at the garage is deteriorated and proposed for repair, qualifying for 1 point. Unfortunately, this window is only visible from within the garage as it is inches away from a CMU perimeter wall.
$3000 1
7. Repair and
replace exterior
stucco, as
needed
Only limited areas of stucco at the base of several walls show signs of loss or deterioration, probably due to
drainage not being directed away from the walls. Based on the photographs, this appears to be routine repair and maintenance. Despite the contractor’s recommendation to replace the entire east wall, there is no claim of water infiltration and patching damaged areas appears to be a more appropriate path.
$7075 0
8. Replace and
install
decorative
shutters
The shutters at the side facades appear deteriorated
despite repairs over the years and their replacement is appropriate. They are not highly visible from the street, so staff recommends possible excluding the half point.
$3756 1 or 1.5
9. Replace
garage door
Replacing the aluminum garage door with a wood door
appropriate to the design of the house will enhance the property’s historic character. Extra ½ point because work is visible from the street.
The Commission should consider whether a wood, one-
piece door would be more appropriate to the style and
period of the house than the proposed sectional door.
$5000-
$7000
($6000
avg.)
1.5 10. Replace roof
Per the note in the section above about the Commission’s discussion about roof replacements, staff recommends
obtaining more information about the current roof condition before finalizing this item. The proposed Cedarlite and Brava materials look more like wood shake than the
existing asphalt shingles. But these existing roofing is similar to that approved for many district and GR properties over the years. It seems unfair to subsidize them here when we don’t require them elsewhere. In addition, the
proposed tiles generally have chunky hip and ridge tiles that are often what make these roofs look inferior to the original wood they emulate.
$24,100
($48,200x
.5)
0 or 1.5
Total Qualified Cost and Work Plan Points
$19,810
or
$43,910
(with roof)
5.5 to
7.5 313 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 7 The owners’ revised 2024 work plan indicates that the qualified items would be completed by 2033, a range of about nine years if work begins in 2025. It appears the applicant may be assuming that because we are looking at tax savings over ten years that we apply that timeframe to work completion. That is not the case, although the Commission has the authority to recommend approval of an extended work period.
Staff believes the timeline should be between three and four years depending on which work items HPC supports including as part of a possible contract. This range is in keeping with those used for Glendale Register- based contracts with conditions for substantial work. Extrapolating forward from the date of initial application, the work items, if approved, should be completed sometime in 2027 or 2028.
For background information, the owners have performed work at the property on two occasions without obtaining the appropriate City approval. In 2016, a wood topper fence was placed toward the rear of the masonry perimeter wall at the west side of the lot.
After being cited by Neighborhood Services, the owners applied for and received design approval and a permit. At an unknown but apparently recent date, the owners installed fabric awnings with a dark red color over windows at the west (side) façade. The owners have not yet sought approval for the awnings as required by GMC 30.25.054.
Application 2
Address: 1833 Niodrara Drive
Owners: Edward and Kerry Silver
District: Niodrara Drive Historic District
Integrity at Designation: High
The property is a Ranch-style single-family house that was built in 1955. The owners propose eight work items, of which staff believes three qualify for consideration as discussed in the following chart, which reflects the revised sewer line cost and input from Public Works:
Work Item Notes Cost Points
1. Replace front
door
The non-original front door is inappropriate to the style of the house. The proposed door follows the design of an
existing door at the rear of the house and is appropriate to the Ranch style. Extra ½ point because work is visible from the street.
$3000 1.5
2. Repair brick
wainscot
Very limited pointing loss was observed by staff and this falls under routine repair and maintenance. 0
3. Replace window
at southeast front
corner
The hung window at this location is not original and the proposal to replace it with a multi-light steel casement sash, matching other steel windows at the front façade is appropriate. Extra ½ point because work is visible from the street.
$3000 1.5
314 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 8 4. Replace garage
door
Replacing the aluminum garage door with a wood door
appropriate to the design of the house will enhance the property’s historic character. Extra ½ point because work is visible from the street.
$9000
(staff:
$6000)
1.5 5. Replace sewer
line to main sewer
(2022)
Sewer line replacement is ultimately required by all
properties and generally wouldn’t qualify for points. The owner indicates that Glendale Public Works informed him that his drainage problems are tied to issues caused by subsurface aspects of the Niodrara stream, though he is financially responsible for the repair. PW staff could not determine that the problem uniquely stemmed from the
historic stream.
$23,000 0
6. Add thermal
glazing at front
At the staff inspection in 2020, the owner indicated that this item calls for the replacement of the existing steel sash at the front façade with new steel sash with thermal glazing.
Staff feels this does not qualify for Mills Act consideration but could be something the owner applies for at a later date.
0 7. Termite report
repair
The termite report indicates limited areas of damage. Staff believes points should be awarded when there is serious damage that threatens structural integrity.
0 8. Home inspection
report repair
No specific work is proposed. Staff’s review of the
inspection report indicates that no issues requiring more than routine repair and maintenance were found.
0 Total Qualified Cost and Work Plan Points $12,000 4.5
The owners’ 2002 work plan indicated that the qualified work items would be completed in approximately three years, which a timeframe commonly offered by the Commission for Glendale Register-based Mills contracts. Extrapolating forward from the date of initial application, the work items, if approved, should be completed sometime in 2027.
For background information, the property owners performed some hardscape work at the front yard not long before the 2020 hearing and without first getting design review approval, as required by GMC 30.25.054. This included removing a low brick retaining wall alongside the driveway to address drainage issues, removing a narrow strip of brick paving at the curb, and removing the original concrete walkway and adding a new concrete walkway with a less steep slope. After being cited by Neighborhood Services, the owner worked with Planning staff to modify portions of the work, which was then approved.
Application Assessment and Ranking
The best-case scenario for the Mills Act for Contributors program would find applications for properties with noticeably reduced historic integrity or in poor condition that nonetheless were found to be contributors by the survey consultants. For these, 315 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 9 the expenditure offset by the tax reduction would lead to the visible transformation and enhancement of their historic character, producing a communitywide benefit.
Both of the properties under consideration are in good condition and were identified in their respective district surveys as having high historic integrity. As seen from the street, the integrity of 1833 Niodrara is more compromised than 324 Lawson due to the loss of its original front door, steel sash window, and garage door, all of which are prominent on the street façade. However, some of the proposed work at each will increase its historic integrity and/or on ongoing safety and viability.
To begin assessing the properties under the four categories recommended by HPC, a benchmark for each property’s relative tax savings over a ten-year period based on its current valuation is calculated, as shown in this chart:
Property Valuation Property Tax
Estimate (1%)
Baseline Mills
Tax (50%)
Savings Over
10 Years
324 Lawson $1,074,999 $10,745 $5,375 $53,750 1833 Niodrara $1,121,894 $11,122 $5,561 $55,610
The expense required to complete the qualified work can then be compared to the Mills Act tax savings to assess each owners’ financial commitment in relation to the tax savings they will realize. While the tax benefits theoretically last in perpetuity, for the purposes of the assessment are viewed as those obtained during the first ten years of the Mills contract. Please note that a 50% tax reduction is at the low end of most contracts for single-family residences, which often have savings in the 60-70% range or even higher. For the expenses, the applicants provide cost estimates for each item, based on either professional or rough estimates. These are reviewed by Planning and Building and Safety staff, with some adjusted upward or downward based on their professional expertise. Per HPC direction provided at the hearing of February 15, 2024, the expenditure-to-savings ratio and final score have been removed from the following chart.
As noted above, HPC will base its recommendation regarding contract approval on proposed expenditures, estimated tax savings over ten years, the points assigned to the work plan (as potentially modified by the Commission), and the commissioners’ perception of the public benefit that would be generated by an approved contract.
Staff’s assessment of these items is shown in the chart below:
316 of 324
HPC Review of Mills Act Applications for District Contributors March 21, 2024 (continued from hearing of October 20, 2022) 10 Staff’s assessment of the two applications shows that the Lawson property ranks higher in terms of expenses (with or without the roof replacement). The 10-year tax savings are similar, but Lawson will utilize a higher percentage of those savings. In terms of points, the proposals are similar if the Lawson roof is excluded, but Niodrara has a higher public benefit due to the three work items being so visible from the street.
Staff finds it hard to justify offering decades of significant tax savings to current and future owners based on work plans that call for qualified expenditures of less than $20,000. At the 50% baseline tax reduction, the owners of each property would recoup their expenses in about three to four years. In reality, most properties receive a higher percentage reduction and would cover their costs even faster. For this reason, staff recommends that neither property be offered a Mills contract.
Exhibits
1. 324 Lawson Place: Mills Act for Contributors Application 2022
2. 324 Lawson Place: Revised Workplan 2024
3. 1833 Niodrara Drive: Mills Act for Contributors Application 2022
4. Staff Report to HPC (August 20, 2020)
5. Work Plan Points Chart (revised 2024)
6. DPR Form: 324 Lawson Place
7. DPR Form: 1833 Niodrara Drive
Property Expenditure Tax Savings Points Public Benefit
324 Lawson
$19,810
or
$43,910 (with roof)
$53,750 5.5 to 7.5
low
(possibly moderate
with roof)
1833 Niodrara $12,000 $55,610 4.5 moderate
317 of 324
Mills Act for District Contributors: Point System for Assessing Work Plans (rev’d 2024)
Work Type Item Unit
Points
(add .5 when
visible from
street)
Restoration
Replace inappropriate/highly deteriorated roof
cladding
Partial
Full
1 2
Replace inappropriate/highly deteriorated wall
cladding
Partial
Full
1 2
Replace inappropriate sash 1-3
4+
1 2
Repair deteriorated sash 1-3
4+
1 2
Replace severely deteriorated sash in kind 1-3
4+
1 2
Replace inappropriate door 1-3
4+
1 2
Replace inappropriate garage door 1-2
3+
1 2
Repair/replace severely deteriorated masonry - 1
Restore/replace missing/deteriorated features varies 1-2 Provide restorative landscape - 1
Structural
Repair foundation - major - 1
Repair failing structural members - 1
Seismic retrofit - 1
Rebuild damaged/missing chimney - 1
Repair/replace wood with extensive termite/dry rot
damage
- 1
Remove landscaping causing structural damage - 1
Systems
Replace antiquated/dangerous electrical - 1
Replace dangerous plumbing lines - 1
Replace dangerous sewage lines - 1
318 of 324
CamScanner
319 of 324
CamScanner
320 of 324
CamScanner
321 of 324
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11)
(To be Completed Prior to Preparation of Staff Reports for Consideration of Entitlement Matter by Council, Agency, or Authority, or at Time of Appeal to the City Council if the Applicant is also the Appellant)
In August 2011, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, which becomes effective on September 9, 2011 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits campaign contributions from “applicants seeking entitlement,” their contractors and subcontractors (including their architects, engineers, and design professionals) while the application is “pending” and for 12 months thereafter. The Ordinance also prohibits Council Members from voting on any matter pertaining to an entitlement if the Council member has received a campaign contribution from the applicant seeking the entitlement, or certain contractors or subcontractors of the applicant, within the 12-month period preceding the vote.
The Applicant and the Owner/Lessor hereby discloses as follows.
(If printing, please print legibly. Use additional sheets as necessary.)
I. Name of Applicant and Name of Owner/Lessor on whose behalf application is filed:
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
City of Glendale
Disclosure - Campaign Finance Ordinance
Applicants Seeking Entitlement
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101.
For more information, call 818-548-3200.
Edward Silver
Owner
1833 Niodrara Dr.
Glendale
CA
91208
322 of 324
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) II. Officers or owners/investors of Applicant Entity. Please also disclose the following persons or entities related to the applicant entity: CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, a nd any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign + Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
III. Contractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement*
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
* “Contractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a contract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract with an applicant seeking entitlement. “Contractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the contracting party but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the contracting party.
Please list the names and addresses of all of these parties.
IV. Subcontractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement**
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
** “Subcontractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a subcontract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or perform other work with a ‘contractor an applicant seeking entitlement.” Edward Silver
Kerry Silver
Owner
1833 Niodrara Dr.
Glendale
CA
91208
Owner
1833 Niodrara Dr.
Glendale
CA
91208
N/A
N/A
323 of 324
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) “Subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the subcontracting party, but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the subcontracting party. Please list the name and addresses of all of these parties.
V. Disclosure. The Applicant Seeking Entitlement has made campaign or officeholder contributions in the preceding 12 months to City of Glendale elected officials as follows:
Elected Official Name of Individual or Entity Date of Contribution
I hereby certify, on behalf of the above-named applicant(s) and owner(s)/lessor(s), that the applicant seeking entitlement has made the campaign contributions as set forth above. I also certify that the names of all contractors of applicant and all subcontractors of applicant, as of today’s date, are fully set forth above. I further acknowledge that the applicant has a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if the applicant selects additional or substitute architects, design professionals, contractors or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change. I hereby certify that I have been legally authorized by the applicant/owner/lessor to submit this disclosure form and certify to the content hereof.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on ___________________ at _____________________________, California
Applicant’s Signature_____________________________, Print Applicant’s Full Name ___________________________________
Applicant’s Address _____________________________________________________________________
Applicant’s Contact Phone Number ________________________________________________________
Applicant’s Email Address _______________________________________________________________ NONE
September 19, 2024
Glendale
Edward Silver
818-681-9621
1833 Niodrara Dr., Glendale, CA 91208
[email protected]
324 of 324