Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mills Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cultural Heritage Commission reviews Mills Act applications, debates prioritization and program limits
Summary
On June 25 the commission reviewed Mills Act applications for 1010 Mission Street and 227 Oak Lawn Avenue, confirmed financial analyses showing proposed rehabilitation costs exceed estimated tax benefits, and discussed ordinance limits and future staff reporting on contract progress.
The South Pasadena Cultural Heritage Commission on June 25 reviewed two Mills Act applications and discussed how to prioritize limited annual contract slots under local rules. Staff presented financial analyses showing both proposed rehabilitation projects exceed estimated tax savings over the first 10 years; commissioners asked for clarity on prioritization and reporting.
Dean Flores, acting planning manager in the Community Development Department, presented the Mills Act file for 1010 Mission Street (project 2539‑MIL). He said the Edwards & Fall Block Building, built in 1912 and carrying a historic status code of 1D (listed in the National Register), had a proposed 10‑year work program with an estimated total cost of $353,000 against estimated tax savings of $314,000 over the first 10 years; staff reported an estimated annual homeowner cost of $50,316 for the first decade. Flores told the commission the application had been in the pipeline since a letter of intent in November 2022 and that staff and a subcommittee had refined the work plan to meet Mills Act criteria. Staff recommended the commission review the application; if the commission is comfortable, staff will bring a formal recommendation to the City Council after July.
Michael Donovan, associate planner, presented the Mills Act application for 227 Oak Lawn Avenue (MIL25‑0002). Donovan said the Mediterranean‑style house, built in 1908 and listed as a contributor to the Oak Lawn Historic District with status code 2D, proposes ten work items including seismic retrofit, chimney repair, plumbing and furnace replacement, window repairs and repainting. Donovan reported a proposed work cost of about $356,600, estimated tax savings of $342,299 over 10 years, and an estimated cost to the city of $88,998 over that period. Staff concluded the project meets the Mills Act financial and public‑benefit criteria and recommended commission review and comment prior to a formal recommendation to council.
Commissioners raised questions about program capacity and local ordinance limits. Staff said the city ordinance limits the number of Mills Act contracts processed per year (staff noted a maximum of four active submittals per year under current administration) and that the commission had three active applications in various stages this year. Commissioners asked whether the commission should prioritize applications (for example, favoring primary residences) because of the fiscal impact; staff confirmed the financial analyses are reviewed before bringing projects to the commission but also said primary residence status is not itself a statutory Mills Act criterion. Staff added that a Mills Act contract reduces the homeowner’s tax bill rather than representing a direct city cash outlay.
Staff also said it is preparing a Mills Act contract progress report for City Council (scheduled for the council meeting on July 16) and will begin regular annual reporting to the commission and council on contract compliance and progress. The commission offered no formal recommendation at the June 25 meeting; staff will return with formal recommendation items to council after any additional refinements and once the commission signals readiness.
