10b
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing for Applications for Mills Act Contracts for Contributing Properties in Historic Districts: 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive
1. Resolution to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner(s) of 324 Lawson Place.
2. Motion to deny the request by the owner(s) of 324 Lawson Place for a Mills Act Historical Property Contract.
3. Resolution to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner(s) of 1833 Niodrara Drive.
4.Motion to deny the request by the owner(s) of 1833 Niodrara Drive for a Mills Act Historical Property Contract.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for July 29, 2025 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owners of 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive, two contributing properties in designated historic districts, have submitted applications requesting Mills Act property tax reduction contracts for their respective properties (Exhibits 1 and 2). In 2016, City Council established a policy that contracts potentially be made available to owners of contributing properties in historic districts. Planning staff prepared an initial outline for how applications would be assessed under the program and Council subsequently approved that direction. Staff expanded that outline into a recommended review procedure and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) conducted three hearings to consider the two applications and the overall process. Based on HPC’s direction, staff further refined the process to establish a focus on four items: which properties are in most need of restoration, structural repair, and/or upgrades to potentially hazardous systems; how much it would cost to address these items; the estimated property tax reduction received by the property owner, and; the overall public benefit the work would produce. At the last of the three HPC meetings (March 21, 2024), the commission reviewed the two applications using the modified process and found both properties worthy of receiving Mills Act contracts.
210b
6 1
9 2
RECOMMENDATON
At its March 21, 2024 hearing, HPC voted 3-1 to recommend that City Council authorize Mills Act property tax reduction contracts for the owners of 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive (Doom, Head, Paul in favor; Cragnotti opposed; Jurca recused).
Planning staff recommends that neither property be granted a contract.
ANALYSIS
Introduction
In 2016, City Council established a policy to extend the availability of Mills Act property tax reduction contracts to the owners of contributing properties in the city’s designated historic districts. The Glendale Historical Society brought the concept to Council’s attention. At Council’s direction, Planning staff developed a concept for an objective process to compare and evaluate Mills Act for Contributors applications. A key goal of the proposal was to avoid a “first-come, first-served” approach to granting contracts in favor of a more fair and rigorous process. This process would be different from that used for Glendale Register-listed properties because those have already been vetted for their singular importance to the city’s overall historic character and development.
Historic district contributors are instead important for their collective contribution to the look and feel of a specific neighborhood.1
Planning staff subsequently developed a points-based evaluation system that established a final “score” for each property to help bring a level of objectivity to an otherwise subjective review process by ranking the applications in each review period’s pool. This methodology requires applicants to submit a proposed workplan containing items that would restore and repair missing or deteriorated historic features, provide vital structural repairs, and/or upgrade potentially hazardous systems. Each workplan item is assigned a number of points based on the level of work and whether it is visible to the public. The point total would then be assessed in the context of the total estimated cost of these items and an estimate of tax savings over ten years. A general outline of this concept was reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in August 2020 (see Staff Report, Exhibit 4) and City Council, as 1 Though the Glendale Municipal Code provides for incentives for Glendale Register properties (such as Mills Act eligibility and/or other bonuses such as parking or height), these incentives are notwithstanding other federal or state incentives. (Glendale Municipal Code Section 15.20.070(A)). The Mills Act (CA Gov’t Code Section 50280, et seq.) allows a city to enter into a property tax reduction contract with the owner of a “qualified historical property”, which means “privately owned property which is not exempt from property taxation and which [is listed in the National Register or in a state/county or local register] or located in a registered historic district . . .” (see CA Gov’t Code Section 50280.1). Thus, though not specifically codified in the Glendale Municipal Code that contributors in historic districts are eligible for a Mills Act contract grant, the authority to grant such contract to a contributor is specifically set forth in the Mills Act itself.
310b
6 1
9 2
part of a larger discussion about historic districts, in January 2021. Staff subsequently developed a more detailed methodology for use in reviewing actual applications.
In 2022, applications for Mills contracts were submitted by the owners of two properties:
324 Lawson Place in the Brockmont Park Historic District (Francesca and Lee Smith) and 1833 Niodrara Drive (Edward and Kerry Silver) in the Niodrara Drive Historic District (see Exhibits 1 and 2). Though Council and staff had initially been concerned there would be a high volume of applications and established yearly limits for their consideration, this did not occur. The current applicants remain the only property owners who have pursued a contract since the program began.
The two applications were reviewed over the course of three HPC hearings:
October 20, 2022
Commissioners Cragnotti, Doom, Morgan, and Vartanian participated, and Commissioner Jurca was recused due to her property’s proximity to an applicant’s.
Staff presented the cases in the context of a fully developed methodology based on the previously approved outline (see Staff Report, Exhibit 4). After a staff presentation providing an overview of the review process and hearing the testimony of the applicants, the Commission’s deliberation focused primarily on the methodology. Some commissioners expressed disagreement or uncertainty about the proposed review process and the decision was made to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow for a subsequent hearing focused on the review process rather than the two applications.
February 15, 2024
Commissioners Cragnotti, Doom, Head, Jurca, and Paul participated.
The full commission considered the details of the review process and directed staff to change or modify certain aspects. The discussion 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 recommendation to City Council. Instead, three of the elements originally proposed to determine a score would remain (workplan points, expenses, property tax savings) and a new category, “public benefit,” would be introduced. The commissioners 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. For the public benefit consideration, an applicant’s work program would be considered in terms of how its enhancements to a property will be experienced by community members. HPC agreed with staff’s recommendation that this benefit be labelled as high, moderate, or low to 410b
6 1
9 2
provide a bit more comparative objectivity. HPC also recommended several other changes:
no further building inspection reports would be required after the initial application and termite reports to be submitted on a ten-year cycle; added several categories to the Workplan Points Chart (see Exhibit 6); site visits by HPC be required for each property; and
roof replacements be allowed as an expense but valued at 50% of their cost (staff had recommended that roofs, like painting, not be allowed since their costs that apply to all properties whether in districts or not).
March 21, 2024
Commissioners Cragnotti, Doom, Head, and Paul participated, and Commissioner Jurca was recused due to her property’s proximity to an applicant’s.
The Commission met for a final hearing regarding the two applications, taking testimony from the applicants and then entering into a detailed discussion about the workplans items and associated points (see Staff Report, Exhibit 5, and Workplan Points Chart, Exhibit 6). Ultimately, the Commission recommended that Council authorize Mills Act contracts for both 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive by a 3-1 vote (Doom, Head, and Paul in favor, Cragnotti opposed, Jurca recused). The following section provides information about the Commission’s analysis of the individual applications.
Analysis of Mills Act Applications
324 Lawson Place
The property is a Ranch-style single-family house that was built in 1955. This Brockmont Park Historic District contributor was identified in the historic district survey as having high historic integrity. The owners propose 10 work items. The chart below summarizes the recommendations made by HPC at its March 21, 2024 hearing and the staff recommendations made in advance of that hearing (see Exhibit 5, pp. 5-7 for more details). The work items reflect the revised work program submitted by the applicants on March 14, 2024 (see Exhibit 2). The expenses and points are broken down by those recommended by HPC and those by staff:
510b
6 1
9 2
Work Item Applicant
Expense
HPC
Expense
HPC
Points
Staff
Expense
Staff
Points
1. Replace
HVAC / relocate
condenser from
roof to ground
(2019)
$16,890 $16,890 1 $0 0
2. Foundation
bolting (2021) $6054 $0 0 $6054 1
3. Replace and
reroute irrigation
system
$4250 $0
(2-2 vote) 0 $1000 1
4. Brick repair,
repointing, and
replacement
$6588 $6588 1.5 $0 0
5. Wood sash
window repair
$6620 - $8420
($7520 avg.)
$7520
(3-1 vote) 1.5 $0 0
6. Replace
garage window $3000 $3000 1 $3000 1
7. Repair and
replace exterior
stucco, as
needed
$7075 $0 0 $0 0
8. Replace and
install
decorative
shutters
$3756 $3756 1.5 $3756 1.5
9. Replace
garage door
$5000-$7000
($6000 avg.) $6000 1.5 $6000 1.5
10. Replace roof
$24,100
($48,200 x .5 /
per HPC roof
discussion)
$0 0 $0 0
TOTALS $43,754 8 $19,810 6
610b
6 1
9 2
Work Item Staff and Hearing Notes
1. Replace
HVAC / relocate
condenser from
roof to ground
(2019)
HPC: approved, finding the relocation improved the appearance of the property.
Staff: believes that removing the unit from the roof has a negligible impact on historic character. Using taxpayer money to subsidize a new system is seen by staff as a stretch.
2. Foundation
bolting (2021)
HPC: Commissioner Cragnotti shared his sense that it is rare for houses not to be bolted for sales in recent decades and HPC voted to recommend removal of this item from the work point chart.
Staff: accepts applicants’ claim that the house was not previously retrofitted and supports this item because of its potential for reducing significant seismic damage.
3. Replace and
reroute irrigation
system
HPC: cast a 2-2 vote, leaving any final decision to City Council.
Staff: disagrees with the applicant that the brick deterioration (see Item 4) is caused by rising damp and instead believes it to be a direct result of the sprinklers that for many years directed their flow straight against the masonry. Since a new drip system would eliminate the likely source of the problem, staff recommends this expense item be reduced to $1000.
4. Brick repair,
repointing, and
replacement
HPC: supported this item at both the front wainscot and other areas proposed by the applicant.
Staff: observed that the chimney and other brickwork appear to be in very good condition and that the deteriorated brick wainscot should not be included because it appears to result from the owners’ improper care.
5. Wood sash
window repair
HPC: supported this item, finding that restoring window operation is important because a future owner might want to replace the windows rather than fix the problem.
Staff: 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 this work is not justified for inclusion here.
6. Replace
garage window HPC and staff: support this item because the window is extremely deteriorated.
7. Repair and
replace exterior
stucco, as
needed
HPC and staff: deny this item because only limited areas of stucco at the base of several walls show signs of loss or deterioration.
8. Replace and
install
decorative
shutters
HPC and staff: support this item but staff suggest consideration of 1, rather than 1.5, points because the shutters are not highly visible from the street.
9. Replace
garage door
HPC and staff: support this item because it will enhance the property’s historic character.
10. Replace roof
HPC and staff: do not support this item because the existing roofing is still functional and any future replacement would be assisted by any property tax reduction if a contract is awarded.
710b
6 1
9 2
1833 Niodrara Drive
The property is a Ranch-style single-family house that was built in 1955. This Niodrara Drive Historic District contributor was identified in the historic district survey as having high historic integrity. The owners propose 8 work items. The chart below summarizes the recommendations made by HPC at its March 21, 2024 hearing and the staff recommendations made in advance of that hearing (see Exhibit 5, pp. 7-8 for more details. The expenses and points are broken down by those recommended by HPC and those by staff:
Work Item Staff and Hearing Notes
1. Replace front
door
HPC and staff: support this item because the new door’s design is appropriate to the style and period of the house.
2. Repair brick
wainscot
HPC and staff: do not support this item because only a very limited amount of pointing loss was observed.
3. Replace window
at southeast front
corner
HPC and staff: support this item because it would bring the front façade closer to its original appearance. HPC noted that many windows at non-visible facades had been replaced and asked the owner to expand this item to include them. Now, a Work Item Applicant
Expense
HPC
Expense
HPC
Points
Staff
Expense
Staff
Points
1. Replace front
door $3000 $3000 1.5 $3000 1.5
2. Repair brick
wainscot - $0 0 $0 0
3. Replace
window at
southeast front
corner
$3000
(one window)
$33,000
(low est. for 11
windows per
HPC request)
$33,000 2.5 $33,000 2.5
4. Replace
garage door $9000 $6000 1.5 $6000 1.5
5. Replace
sewer line to
main sewer
(2022)
$23,000 $0 0 $0 0
6. Add thermal
glazing at front - $0 0 $0 0
7. Termite report
repair - $0 0 $0 0
8. Home
inspection report
repair
- $0 0 $0 0
TOTALS $42,000 5.5 $42,000 5.5
810b
6 1
9 2
total of 11 non-original windows are proposed to be replaced with new steel sash.
At the hearing, staff provided a very rough estimated expense of $3000 per window, which was too low. Despite multiple requests that the owner provide a more accurate estimate, none has been received.
4. Replace garage
door
HPC and staff: support this item because it will enhance the property’s historic character.
5. Replace sewer
line to main sewer
(2022)
HPC and staff: do not support this item. The sewer line issue was reviewed by GWP and the problem could not be definitively identified as unique to properties on Niodrara Drive because of the underground stream conditions.
6. Add thermal
glazing at front
HPC and staff: do not support this item. When staff inspected the property, the owner indicated that he may want to add thermal glazing at the existing steel window at the front façade. No cost estimate was provided for this work. HPC and staff see this as something that would be assisted by any property tax reduction if a contract is awarded.
7. Termite report
repair
HPC and staff: do not support this item. No cost estimate was provided and the termite report indicates limited areas of damage.
8. Home inspection
report repair
HPC and staff: do not support this item. No cost estimate was provided and the issues identified in the report consist of routine repair and maintenance.
Analysis of the Applications
The best-case scenario for the Mills Act for Contributors program would find applications for properties with noticeably reduced historic integrity that nonetheless were found to be contributors in the historic district survey. For these, the expenditure offset by the tax reduction would lead to the visible transformation and enhancement of their historic character, producing a communitywide benefit.
Both 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 somewhat 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 property will increase its historic integrity and/or ongoing safety and viability and for this reason, HPC voted to recommend approval of both applications.
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 is calculated (LA County Assessor, 2025 Current Roll), as shown in this chart:
910b
6 1
9 2
Property Valuation Property Tax
Estimate (1%)
Baseline Mills
Tax (50%)
Savings Over
10 Years
324 Lawson $1,118,427 $11,184 $5,592 $55,920 1833 Niodrara $1,121,894 $11,219 $5,610 $56,100 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 this assessment they 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 provided cost estimates for each item, based on either professional or rough estimates. These were 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 originally proposed by staff have been removed from the following chart.
The following chart includes the four review categories recommended by HPC along with the respective determinations for each property by the commission and staff:
* includes additional window replacements
When viewed together, it is clear that the properties are fairly evenly matched in terms of workplan expenses, tax savings, and public benefit. HPC’s total point count is lower for 1833 Niodrara Drive, but this appears to result from only three work items being recommended for inclusion for that property whereas six are recommended for 324 Lawson Place. HPC’s favorable assessment of each of the four categories led to its recommendation that City Council authorize Mills Act contracts for both properties.
Planning staff continues to believe that neither property is a good candidate for a Mills contract. This is because they are each currently in very good condition and, while acknowledging the appearance and historic integrity of each would be enhanced by the work to be performed, staff questions whether properties such as these should be seen as worthy enough beneficiaries to justify decades of substantial property tax savings.
Property Expenditure Tax Savings Points Public Benefit
324 Lawson HPC: $43,754
Staff: $19,810
$55,920 HPC: 8
Staff: 6
HPC: moderate
Staff: low
1833 Niodrara* HPC: $42,000
Staff: $42,000 $56,100 HPC: 5.5
Staff: 5.5
HPC: moderate
Staff: moderate
1010b
6 1
9 2
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
There are no stakeholders other than the property owners.
FISCAL IMPACT
Providing Mills Act contracts to properties in historic districts will have a limited, minimal impact on the City’s property tax revenues.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 8 “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment” exemption and a Class 31 “Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation” exemption pursuant to Sections 15308 and 15331 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves the protection/preservation of a historic resource.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 4, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Deny a Mills Act Historical Property Contract for 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive.
Alternative 2: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the owner(s) of 324 Lawson Place, but deny a Mills Act Historical Property Contract for 1833 Niodrara Drive.
Alternative 3: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the owner(s) of 1833 Niodrara Drive, but deny a Mills Act Historical Property Contract for 324 Lawson Place.
Alternative 4: Authorize the City Manager to enter into separate Mills Act Historical Property Contracts with the owner(s) of 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Reviewed by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
1110b
6 1
9 2
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: 324 Lawson Place: Mills Act for Contributors Application (2022) Exhibit 2: 324 Lawson Place: Revised Workplan (2024)
Exhibit 3: 1833 Niodrara Drive: Mills Act for Contributors Application (2022) Exhibit 4: HPC Staff Report (August 20, 2020)
Exhibit 5: HPC Staff Report (March 21, 2024)
Exhibit 6: Workplan Points Chart (revised 2024)
Exhibit 7: Campaign Finance Disclosure Forms