1 of 13
LEE & FRANCESCA SMITH
July 29, 2025
Mayor Ara Najarian and members of Glendale City Council Glendale City Hall
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Sent via e-mail
RE: City Council Meeting July 29, 2025, Item 10B
Public Hearing for Applications for Mills Act Contracts for Contributing Properties in Historic Districts: 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive
Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. We are the owners of 324 Lawson Place and were part of the team of neighbors who together established the Brockmont Park Historic District. You may know that Francesca was the Mills Act Manager for as staff to City of Los Angeles in the late 1990s. During that time, she worked closely with County Assessor staff, including one person who later was elected County Assessor, to understand how they processed the applications, including valuations. Part of that collaboration resulted in establishing of an equation for each property to determine the total amount of tax losses to the city. Later as a specialized historic preservation planner for the City of Pasadena, she was part of a team that established their Mills Act program requirements. Her penultimate Mills Act application as a consultant was for the owners of a very well-known National Register- listed residence designed by Greene & Greene.
This hearing, where City Council is being asked to make the final decision on a two- property case which has taken a number of years to come to fruition. The Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation to City Council which was made more than a year ago was unambiguous- it recommended that City Council approve both Mills Act applications under consideration in this meeting (March 21, 2024).
Point System
In the Report to The City Council for Public Hearing for Applications for Mills Act Contracts for Contributing Properties in Historic Districts: 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Niodrara Drive (Report), staff made protracted effort to devise a “Point System” that would clearly establish how properties submiĴed for historic district contributor Mills Act Contracts would be classified.
2 of 13
The resulting, complicated Point System, which in not used in any other 90-plus California communities that have the Mills Act was described by Glendale staff 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 That description of examples would be allied in conjunction with the Mills Act for District Contributors: Point System for Assessing Work Plans (revised 2024), a table containing main categories, including restoration,1 structural and systems in those categories, with various extremely specific items, units and numerical points.
For our property no such clear table employing the methodology was prepared, however points were assigned by staff using some unknown combination of the system.
The point system was probably not that clear for the chair or members of the Historic Preservation Commission either. Feel free to check with your appointed Historic Preservation Commissioners to see if they clearly understand the point system and whether or not they would be comfortable applying it on their own or explaining it clearly to you.
1 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 1995 and as updated, state: “Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.” Rehabilitation, the more appropriate treatment for historic district contributors “is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” It allows for more flexibility and does not depict a property at a certain period of time.
3 of 13
Our independent analysis, following flowing the system as closely and objectively as possible is in the table below:
Mills Act for District Contributors: Point System for Assessing Work Plans (revised 2024) 324 Lawson Place
Work Type Item Unit Points (add .5 when visible
from the street)
Restoration Replace inappropriate/highly deteriorated roof cladding (Work Plan at year 10)
Partial 1
Full 2
2.5 Replace inappropriate/highly deteriorated wall
cladding (Work Plan, stucco)
Partial 1
Full 2
1.5 Replace inappropriate sash 1-3, 4+ 0
Repair deteriorated sash (Work Plan) 1-3, 4+ 4.5
Replace deteriorated sash in-kind (Work Plan
garage window)
1-2, 3+ 3
Replace inappropriate door (already completed) 1-3, 4+ 0 Replace inappropriate garage door (Work Plan) 1-2, 3+ 3.5 Repair/replace severely deteriorated masonry
(Work Plan)
1 1.5
Restore/replace missing/deteriorated features
varies (see shuĴers in Work Plan and roof eave
work described herein)
1-2 2
Provide restorative landscape - 0
Structural Repair foundation, major - 1
Repair failing structural members - 0
Seismic retrofit - 1
Rebuild damaged/missing chimney - 0
Repair/replace wood with extensive termite/dry
rot (roof eaves 2024 and 2025 described herein)
- 1
Remove landscaping causing structural damage - 0
Rebuild damaged/missing chimney - 0
Systems Replace antiquated/dangerous electrical
(already completed)
- 0
Replace dangerous plumbing lines (already
completed)
- 0
Replace dangerous sewage lines - 0
Total 21.5
The analysis above was prepared using the table presented to the Historic Preservation Commission in the format and using the items in the table on the following page. Our point total would be 21.5, by including the roof replacement proposed in year 10, the replacement of highly deteriorated stucco (more than 100 SF), the repair of deteriorated wood double-hung sash in 14 windows (8 of which are visible to the street), the replacement of one deteriorated window in the garage, replacing the garage door, repairing more than 200 linear feet of severely deteriorated masonry, replacement of 4 of 13
two pairs of deteriorated decorative wood, two-paneled shuĴers and more than 25 LFT of roof eaves and repair/replacing wood with extensive termite/dry rot and significant repair of the residence foundation.
Staff Opinion
You may notice that staff has presented its own opinion and assigned its own judgment equal influence in the Report. That’s not how it works. City Council receives recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission. Even though both properties’ Mills Act Applications were approved by the Historic Preservation Commission with affirmative recommendations to City Council, the Report nevertheless states:
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; CragnoĴi opposed; Jurca recused).
Planning staff recommends that neither property be granted a contract (emphasis added, page 2).
It is neither the duty nor the purview of staff to override the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision. There is no justification for staff’s opposing recommendation to be included in the Report, but we feel sure that there will be no shortage of dissertation
5 of 13
on the matter tonight. Staff should be disabused of the notion that the insertion of their personal or professional opinions, particularly when those view diverge from those of the commission whose duty it is to make recommendations to City Council under the local codes and applicable ordinance.
Inserting staff opinion, particularly when it differs with the official recommendations of the appropriate commission establishes a dangerous model that circumvents Glendale’s Historic Preservation Ordinance as well as the thoughtful collective recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission that has taken years and more than three meetings to attain and come before City Council.
Responsibilities assigned to the Glendale Historic Preservation Commission are clearly established in the Glendale Municipal Code
The historic preservation commission shall have the power and it shall be its duty to perform the following acts:
A. To consider and recommend to the city council additions to and deletions from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources;
B. To keep current and publish a register of historic resources; C. To make recommendations to the planning commission, and the city council on amendments to the Historic Preservation Element of the city General Plan; D. To grant or deny applications for permits for demolition, or major alterations of historic resources;
E. To grant or deny appeals from decisions of the director of community development as specified in Section 15.20.040 of this code;
F. To encourage public understanding of and involvement in the unique historical, architectural and environmental heritage of the city through educational and interpretative programs; G. To explore means for the protection, retention and use of any historic resource, historic district, or potential historic resource or district;
H. To make recommendations to the city council on applications for properties to be included in the Mills Act property tax incentives program which may be subject to historic property contracts as set forth in Section 15.20.070 of this code;
I. To encourage private efforts to acquire property and raise funding on behalf of historic preservation; however, the commission is specifically denied the power to acquire any property or interest therein for or on behalf of itself or the city; J. To recommend and encourage the protection, enhancement, appreciation and use of structures of historical, cultural, architectural, community or aesthetic value which have not been designated as historic resources but are deserving of recognition; K. To encourage the cooperation between public and private historic preservation groups; L. To advise city council and city boards and commissions as necessary on historic preservation issues;
M. To make recommendations concerning, and render decisions on, design review applications affecting designated historic resources, resources pending designation as historic resources, potential historic resources, protected interiors, and protected landscape features as defined in Section 15.20.020 of this code, and affecting existing or proposed buildings, structures, or objects in designated and pending historic district overlay zones, as defined in Section 30.25.030(C) of this code and pursuant to Chapter 30.47of this code;
6 of 13
N. To perform any other functions that may be designated by resolution or motion of the city council;
O. To make environmental determinations under the California Environmental Quality Act on any discretionary project applications the historic preservation commission considers for approval (emphasis added, 2024-12-03, Code of Ordinances, Title 2 Administration, Chapter 2.76 Historic Preservation Commission, Section 2.76.100 Powers And Duties Generally).
The ordinance does not include a section for staff comments when they disagree with the Historic Preservation Commission’s decisions. Page 6 of the Report remarkably includes “Staff and Hearing Notes” in a table that was not prepared for the other property under consideration. Staff opinion is inexplicably presented seen as being of equal importance as the commission. That table includes surprising notes such as:
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 (emphasis added, Item 1).
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 (Item 4). 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 (Item 5).
Staff’s disagreement with the responsible commission’s recommendation is inappropriate and drifts far afield of their actual responsibilities, which are to prepare and deliver presentations to the public at community meetings, and to various Boards, Commissions and City Council at public hearings and to answer questions. The inclusion of staff opinion in the Report is not suitable and should be ignored by Council, who have received succinct recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission.
The Mills Act, while directly benefiting property owners with tax relief, also provides significant public benefits through the preservation of historic properties. The City of Glendale staff, however, devised an additional, not very tangible “public benefit” 7 of 13
threshold. The Mills Act itself provides financial incentives to achieve broader public goals of historic preservation, community enhancement, and economic development.
The remarkable described divergence between the Historic Preservation Commission’s official recommendation for each property with staff’s is further enumerated in the Report on page 9. That table includes the four review categories along with findings for each property made by the commission. Surprisingly it presents the added opinions of staff, which are markedly lower than that of the responsible commission for our property.
The Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendations are the opinions that should matter to City Council. Staff opinion is merely their view and does not belong in this discussion. It is not an intention of the local code or of the Historic Preservation Ordinance that staff as an advisor to any commission would hold equal weight as that of the commission which is, in this case, the Historic Preservation Commission.
Although the Historic Preservation Commission recommended that both properties receive Mills Act Contracts, staff has created supplementary unnecessary debate to plant seeds of doubt regarding whether or not the two properties should be approved:
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 (emphasis added).
8 of 13
It is the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, not staff, that is described in Chapter 2.76 Historic Preservation Commission, Section 2.76.100 Powers and Duties Generally under H and L (see page 5 of this letter). Staff had ample opportunity in publicly noticed meetings held on October 20, 2022, February 15, 2024 and March 21, 2024 with various staff reports, presentations and lengthy debates to change the minds of commission members and the various chairs, but ultimately did not achieve their goal. The Historic Preservation Commission ultimately recommended approval of both Mills Act applications.
Historic District Mills Act Application Form
Since 2016, in the almost ten that have passed since the incentive was extended to historic district contributors, no Mills Act contracts have been conferred in Glendale to historic district contributors.
There are a number of contributing factors that have influenced the situation. Until 2022, staff insisted that a separate Mills Act application from Glendale Register-listed properties be used, despite the fact that a different application did not exist. To add to that deliberate protracted process, you all should know that no known cities in Los Angeles or Orange County used separate application forms for designated landmarks and district contributors the last time a review of those policies was undertaken.2 In our case, we submiĴed two applications for the Mills Act for our historic district contributor property during that time, on first on April 26, 2020 and again July 26, 2021.
Responses from the city were received several months after the applications were submiĴed as follows
Jay PlaĴ, Principal Planner for City of Glendale sent an e-mail message to Francesca Smith stating:
Just to keep you up to date, we’re bringing a staff report to HPC on 8/20 going over a proposed process for owners of district contributors to be considered for Mills contracts. Council has unrelatedly asked for an overview report on current and pending districts, so I’ll include the proposal and any HPC comments in that report, which is currently scheduled for 10/13. Assuming everything goes (relatively) smoothly, we’ll be ready to ramp up for 2021 (August 7, 2020, 103 days after the application was submiĴed).
2 As of 2020, those cities were Beverly Hills, Claremont, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Monrovia, Pomona, Pasadena, Santa Monica, South Pasadena and West Hollywood. In Orange County, the cities of Anaheim and Orange used the same form for both types of properties as well., 9 of 13
Jay PlaĴ, Principal Planner for City of Glendale sent an e-mail message to Francesca Smith stating:
I made some good progress on the application and submiĴal requirements since you last heard from me, but it’s not quite done. I’ll be out for the next two weeks, but am shooting for a January [2022] completion date.
Since the schedule calls for us to accept applications through the end of May, there shouldn’t be any problem geĴing your new application completed on time. As I mentioned, we will count your two inspections [property inspection and termite] as current in terms of the submiĴal window…” (December 17, 2021, 144 days after the application was submiĴed).
Jay PlaĴ, Principal Planner for City of Glendale sent an e-mail message to Francesca Smith with an aĴachment:
The application form for the Mills Act for district contributors is ready. I’d hoped to have an introductory information document ready as well, but it’s not and I didn’t want to further delay geĴing you the application form… I’ve adjusted the submiĴal timeline to make sure there’s time for you to complete the application, staff to review it, and still have your case heard by HPC and Council this year: please submit the form and submit all required aĴachments by August 31, 2022 (June 9, 2022).
Preparation of that separate application form for historic district contributors took nearly two years (671 calendar days) to be completed, despite the fact that the two applications before you have been pending since 2019. On August 31, 2022, an Updated Mills Act Application for our property was submiĴed on the new Historic District Contributor Application.
Other factors have included unnecessary restriction on what was considered by staff to be appropriate workplan items for a Mills Act. In the Report it states in the Executive Summary “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 (page 1).
That description narrows the scope of historic district contributor property candidates for the Mills Act by means of a practice that has never been directed by City Council. In this case there are only two properties being considered, in community where two Mills Acts for such properties are recommended be granted per year. In this case, the point 10 of 13
system and all of its aĴendant findings are superfluous. When City Council extended Mills Act benefits to historic district contributors back in 2016, the intention of the motion was clear and unambiguous in its title: “Motion with Respect to the Extension of Mills Act Contracts to Properties located in Designated Historic Districts but which Properties are not Individually Listed on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, such Contracts shall be Subject to a Cap of Six Mills Act Contracts Processed Per Year of which a Minimum of Two will be for Non-Glendale Register Eligible but Contributing Properties in Historic Districts, provided that Additional Mills Act Applications will be Processed if Staff Resources Permit.” That motion passed with councilpersons Friedman, Gharpetian, Najarian, Sinanyan and Mayor Devine voting in its favor (April 12, 2016).
Staff has narrowly interpreted the scope of Mills Act benefits to historic district contributor to exclude any of what is considers maintenance work on those properties.
While replacing roofs, repairing masonry, and wall ensuring continual operation of wood-sashed windows are considered appropriate work for individually-designated Mills Act properties (as well as in other communities), those work items somehow are not considered by staff to be worthy of inclusion for historic district contributors (despite their inclusion in the Point System). That angled stance and opinion was not shared by the Historic Preservation Commission when it considered the subject.
On February 15, 2024, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended several other changes:
• no further building inspection reports would be required after the initial application and termite reports to be submiĴed on a ten-year cycle; • added several categories to the Workplan Points Chart…; • 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, emphasis added).
In spite of the Historic Preservation Commission’s changes, staff’s opinion and direction has persisted. Since that meeting in February 2024, no site visits for our property were requested or scheduled by staff for Historic Preservation Commission members. Roof replacement, in our case was not supported as proposed in the next decade with a material that would more closely approximate the appearance of the original wood shingle roof “because [according to staff] the existing roofing is still functional and any future replacement would be assisted by any property tax reduction if a contract is awarded” (page 6). Our licensed roof contractor has estimated that the roof would require replacement in approximately a decade, however staff insists that they know more than the licensed professional roofer who has performed repairs and maintenance 11 of 13
in the years we have owned the property. The proposed new roof material would enhance the appearance of the historic district and that material costs more to build.
Incidentally, the painted, tongue-and-groove roof eave wood cladding material with roof shingles and sheathing has been replaced in two places containing more than 25 lineal feet by 2 feet because of wood rot since mid-2024 at a total cost of $2,700 thus far (see AĴachments 1 and 2, Paid Roofing Invoices).
Glendale Staff’s distorted understanding that maintenance work should not be included in a Mills Act was notably not shared by State Senator James Mills, who introduced Senate Bill 357, which was signed by Governor Reagan on December 29, 1972. In February of 1977, Senator Mills clarified his reasons for the Mills Act in a speech The purpose of my bill is to provide an incentive to restoring and maintaining points of historical interest in California. This state abounds with priceless treasures of our dynamic history. All too often we have seen invaluable links with our past fall to the bulldozer’s blade as developers greedily devoured our heritage in the name of progress. My legislation will provide an incentive to preserve historically significant landmarks so that future generations will be able to appreciate California’s cultural diversity [emphasis added}.
Similarly, the California Office of Historic Preservation in its “Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program Technical Assistance Bulletin #12” explains its reasons for “Mills Act legislation [because it] grants participating local governments (cities and counties) authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving property tax relief (emphasis added “Purpose of the Mills Act Program,” 2004)3. That guidance states further under the “Benefits to Owners” section, “Owners of historic buildings may qualify for property tax relief if they pledge to rehabilitate and maintain the historical and architectural character of their properties for at least a ten-year period.” That document is on the City of Glendale’s own website at hĴps://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/ community- development/planning/historic-preservation/glendale-register-of-historic-resources under the heading Mills Act Property Tax with a subheading “Mills Act - general information from the [California] Office of Historic Preservation.” The Mills Act Coordinator at the California Office of Historic Preservation describes the Mills Act in an education series “In exchange for tax relief, owners agree to restore or
3 See hĴps://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/12%20mills%20act.pdf 12 of 13
maintain historic property in accordance with federal, state and local standards” (emphasis added).4
Locally the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, in its Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation printed materials, under “What is the Mills Act?” states “Mills Act legislation grants participating cities… the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, and maintenance of their historic properties” (no date, circa 2023, page 1).
So while Glendale staff somehow does not “believe” that Mills Act Contracts should to be used to maintain a historical resource like our property, the person who actually wrote the state law that enabled it, as well as the state agency responsible for overseeing historic preservation in California and the Los Angeles County Assessor Office that implements the program are each in agreement that the Mills Act should include and encourage appropriate maintenance for historic resources.
Ironically, according to the Glendale Municipal Code, in Section 15.20.020 under “definitions”
"Routine maintenance and repair" means alteration to any exterior portion of a designated historic resource, a resource that is pending designation as a historic resource, a potential historic resource, or to a protected interior, that does not conflict with its ongoing eligibility for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and that involves:
1. Repair and/or replacement of a cumulative total of 100 square feet or less of any exterior wall or roof cladding material with new material that matches the existing in terms of material, dimension, color, texture, reflectivity, and overall appearance;
2. Repair and/or replacement of a cumulative total of 100 square feet or less of any interior wall cladding material of a protected interior with new material that matches the existing in terms of material, dimension, color, texture, reflectivity, and overall appearance;
3. Repointing of masonry joints with a cumulative total of 25 linear feet or less with new mortar that matches the existing in terms of material, color, texture, profile, and overall appearance;
4. Replacement of window or door glazing except for glazing identified as significant in the department of community development staff report presented to city council at the time of the property's designation or by the director of community development pursuant to Section
15.20.030 of this chapter;
5. The removal, maintenance, and/or installation of landscape materials except for protected landscape features, and indigenous trees pursuant to Chapter 12.44 of this code;
5. The removal, maintenance, and/or installation of landscape materials except for protected landscape features, and indigenous trees pursuant to Chapter 12.44 of this code;
6. The application of vapor-permeable paint or stain finishes to wall cladding materials and trim provided that the finish does not change the existing texture of the underlying material and that the department of community development staff report reviewed by city council at the time of
4 “Mills Act 101 Preservation Through Tax Incentives” Shannon Lauchner-Pries, Powerpoint presentation 2021
13 of 13
the property's designation, or the director of community development pursuant to Section
15.20.030 of this chapter, does not identify any finish color(s) and/or finish locations specific to the resource that should be maintained; or
7. Any other work determined by the director of community development to constitute "routine maintenance and repair" (emphasis added).
In addition to the other maĴers described in this leĴer, other leĴers to the Historic Preservation Commission and you, staff seems to incorrectly understand the concept of routine maintenance, which is clearly defined in the local code as enumerated. The proposed work described in our Mills Act Application does not meet the definition specified in the local code as “routine” maintenance.
Please note that leĴers recommending that our property be afforded the Mills Act were not provided by staff in the packet. AĴachments 3 and 4 are leĴers from neighbors and other historic preservation professionals recommending the Mills Act be extended to our property.
We do not feel that we are not asking for any special favors, recommending that you all follow the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation that that City Council authorize the Mills Act property tax reduction contracts for the owners of 324 Lawson Place as well as 1833 Niodrara Drive. We plan to aĴend the meeting tonight as do our best to be the best stewards of our property that we can.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important maĴer.
Sincerely,
Lee Smith
Francesca Smith
Lee & Francesca Smith
AĴachments
AĴachments 1 and 2: Paid Roof Invoices 1 and 2
AĴachment 3: LeĴer of support from Don Snyder and ScoĴ Smissen AĴachment 4: LeĴer of support from Diane Kanner
cc: Suzi Abajian, PhD, City Clerk
former Historic Preservation Commission members Doom, CragnoĴi, Jurca, Morgan and Vartanian
present Historic Preservation Commission members
The Glendale Historical Society
Bill To:
Franciasca Smith
324 Lawson st
Glendale, ca
INVOICE
Item Description Amount
REPAIRS 1) REMOVE 24 BY 16 INCH OF ROOF SHINGLES ON BACK OF HOUSE
WHERE DRY ROT IS PRESENT
2) REMOVE 24FEET BY 16 INCH OF DAMAGED HALF INCH PLYWOOD
AND SHIPLAP
3) INSTALL NEW 1 BY 8 PRIMED SHIPLAP WHERE NEEDED
4) INSTALL NEW HALF INCH PLYWOOD WHERE NEEDED
5) INSTALL NEW 2 BY 4 EDGE METAL WHERE NEEDED
6) INSTALL NEW ROOF SHINGLE UNDERLAYMENT AND ASPHALT
SHINGES TO MATCH EXISTING AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE
7) CLEAN UP ALL ROOFING DEBRIS AND HUAL AWAY
LABOR AND
MATERIALS
THIS INCLUDES DELIVERED OF MATERIALS AND LABOR 1,750.00 $1,750.00
Date
09/20/24Felix Guevara
(818) 652-9587
felixroofi[email protected]
Lic.# C39-893967
Invoice No.
1627
TotalPLEASE MAIL CHECK TO 11480 SATICOY STREET, NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91605 $1,750.00
Bill To:
Franciasca Smith
324 Lawson st
Glendale, ca
INVOICE
Item Description Amount
REPAIRS 1) REMOVE ROOF SHINGLES OVER AREA WHERE DRY ROT WOD IS
PRESENT
2) REMOVE DAMAGED PLYWOOD AND 1X8 SHIPLAP WITH NEW
WHERE NEEDED
3) INSTALL NEW PLYWOOD AND 1X8 PRIMED SHIPLAP WITH NEW
WHERE NEEDED
4) INSTALL NEW ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES TO MATCH STYLE AND
COLOR AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE
LABOR AND
MATERIALS
THIS INCLUDES DELIVERED OF MATERIALS AND LABOR 950.00
$950.00
Date
06/11/25Felix Guevara
(818) 652-9587
felixroofi[email protected]
Lic.# C39-893967
Invoice No.
1700
Total
$950.00
324 Lawson Place
From:[email protected] ([email protected])
To: [email protected]
Date:Tuesday, March 19, 2024 at 06:12 PM PDT
From the Desk of Don Snyder and Scott Smissen.docx
15.1 kB
Dear Commissioners,
We have attached a letter considering 324 Lawson Place. We know you will be discussing this property this coming Thursday at your meeting and hope you will take our letter into consideration.
Sincerely,
Don Snyder and Scott Smissen
From the Desk of Don Snyder and Scott Smissen
1446 Royal Blvd, Glendale, CA 91207
To: The Historical Preservation Commission
Re: 324 Lawson Place
We are proud owners of the Daves-Cannon House, 1446 Royal Boulevard, number 86 on the Glendale Historic Registry of homes. We have enjoyed a Mills Act Contract approximately since its approval by the City Council in November of 2010. Since that time, we have put on a new roof, repaired rotted wood and performed countless other maintenance items well in excess of the amount of savings we have been given. All of this out of a sense of responsibility and a love for the history of our residence.
As members of The Glendale Historical Society, we pay attention to historic preservation-related issues in Glendale and are always pleased to see new Historic Districts as well as new homes added to the protection of the City Government. Recently we have been surprised to see the additional and more stringent requirements for historic district contributors.
We also have been guests at 324 Lawson Place more time than we can count, and can assure you that the current owners, Francesca and Lee Smith, take the utmost care in maintaining and preserving their property.
There is no doubt that their property deserves the Mills Act. Francesca and Lee have shared with us the proposed work items and the Staff Report and we believe this property fits the criteria well.
We could rebut several of the items we saw on the list, but I am confident the homeowners have submitted itemized and well thought out answers to your concerns. I would only add that we have experienced periodic issues with our wood windows and other original items of wood used on our home. We have diligently repaired all of this at great expense and have never considered replacing windows which I believe is a part of your request. The Smiths are very diligent in making certain the originality of the structure is maintained.
We went through the arduous and expensive task of replacing our roof which was the original shake. We were told we could not use shake and thus we consulted with Jay Platt and worked with him and our roofer to find a material that would mimic as far as possible the original look. I have no doubt that when the roof of Lawson Place is replaced, the same care and considerations will happen knowing the Smiths with work hand in hand with the historical guidelines of the city to make certain the results not only maintain the integrity but enhance it.
We don’t believe there are better owners than the Smiths to be entrusted with historic preservation. We urge you to consider this property for the Mills Act and don’t understand why the process has become increasingly difficult and drawn out.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Don Snyder
Scott Smissen
letter in support, Mills Act Application, 324 Lawson Place, Glendale,CA From:Jordan Dias ([email protected])
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Date:Friday, September 27, 2024 at 04:10 PM PDT
Diane Letter.docx
15.3 kB
Thank you for your review of this matter.
Diane Kanner, Los Angeles
Diane Kanner
2355 Hillhurst Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90027
Friday, September 27, 2024
Mayor Elen Asatryan and City Council Members
Glendale City Hall
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
RE: Proposed Mills Act Contract-324 Lawson Place
Dear Mayor Asatryan and Members of the City Council:
I am a long-time member of the Cultural Heritage Commission of the City of Los Angeles. It recently came to my attention that the Mills Act application for 324 Lawson Place in Glendale has taken more than four years to be considered by the City Council.
The Mills Act program in Los Angeles was established in 1996 and has existing contracts with roughly 1,000 properties, which encompass single- and multi-family, commercial & industrial historic property types. The annual property tax savings for those properties is approximately $20 million dollars. That figure represents a significant investment in historic preservation by the city, Los Angeles County and California. The savings are reinvested in the economy through the work of tradespersons, contractors and preservation professionals as well as materials used to rehabilitate, restore and maintain properties in the program. The property tax savings realized by owners represents a very small percentage of the City’s portion of general ley property taxes collected by the County. I understand that a Mills Act for the above-referenced property is expected to “cost” the City of Glendale fewer than $800 per year. It is my understanding that Glendale adopted the Mills Act for historic district contributors in 2016. Since that time, no Mills Act contracts have been heard, much less approved for historic district contributors in Glendale. The historic district contributor-specific application was only made accessible to the public in 2022.
Based upon the extremely low assessed value threshold, with the amount of time it took to prepare the separate application and the independent decision by staƯ, rather that the Council, to strictly limit work to exclude maintenance, the cases being heard have, thus far, taken an inordinate amount of time to be considered.
I urge you to approve the Mills Act Contract for 324 Lawson Place, including its full proposed scope of work rather than merely 2-3 items. The Mills Act is intended to be an economic incentive that enables preservation of residential and other neighborhoods. The Mills Act is the most important California program that facilitates rehabilitation, restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private property owners. There should be no question that 324 Lawson Place is a qualified historic property with owners who actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic resource. By that measure, the property plainly merits property tax relief by the Mills Act.
I appreciate your time and attention to this important matter. Please ensure that this letter is entered into the Administrative File for this item.
Sincerely,
Diane Kanner
Cc: Jay Platt ([email protected])
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk ([email protected])