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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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
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, 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:
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