San Clemente design review panel recommends Mills Act agreements for two historic homes, adjusts one project timeline

The Design Review Subcommittee, acting as the city’s cultural heritage advisory body, reviewed two draft historic property preservation agreements (Mills Act agreements) during its Sept. 24 meeting and recommended that the City Council consider approving both with clarifications and a limited timing change on one item.

Planning staff presented a refresher on the Mills Act program, noting it is a state program (adopted 1976) that allows cities and historic property owners to enter into agreements that reduce property taxes in exchange for an agreed program of preservation and restoration work spread over a minimum ten‑year term. Staff noted agreements automatically renew annually unless a notice of nonrenewal is filed, and that state law requires five‑year compliance inspections. Staff said the two properties under review were 121 West Escalones (a single‑story Spanish Colonial Revival built in 1927) and 239 West Mariposa (a two‑story Spanish Colonial Revival built in 1928). The draft lists showed 30 improvements for 121 West Escalones and 27 improvements for 239 West Mariposa.

Staff estimated combined annual property tax savings of $17,295 for the two properties and said per‑property estimates are included in the staff packet; staff added the higher estimated savings for 121 West Escalones reflected a recent ownership change that increased the assessed value used in the estimate.

Owners and public commenters spoke during the item. The owner of 121 West Escalones (identifying herself in the record as Sunny) said some work called for in the draft list — including a termite report and certain roof repairs — had already been completed and submitted documentation could be provided. Other commenters, including Larry Culbertson and Amanda Gitenia, urged clear timelines, recommended that the city provide accessible guidance on a historic color palette, and encouraged the subcommittee to ensure the work list reflects realistic costs and scheduling.

Subcommittee members and the applicants discussed specific items and phrasing. Key clarifications and recommended changes included:

- Roofing and roof inspection language: Committee members and owners agreed to reword roof items to require a qualified roofing professional inspection and to implement repairs as recommended by that report, rather than an unconditional reroof. That phrasing gives flexibility depending on whether repairs or full sheathing replacement are necessary.

- Timeline adjustment for 121 West Escalones: The property owner asked to defer two secondary items (listed as items 4 and 5 in the draft) from phase 1 to phase 2 because foundation work quoted to the owner carries a high cost; the subcommittee recommended moving those two items to 2027 (phase 2) while preserving priority for structural work if inspections show it is necessary sooner.

- Window and door opening on 239 West Mariposa: The historic consultant had proposed restoring a ground‑level opening on the east elevation to its historic fenestration; the owner raised safety and security concerns for a bedroom opening at that street edge. Staff proposed revised language requiring restoration of the opening “based on documentary and physical evidence” and allowing design solutions that preserve the original opening while addressing security — for example, a fixed lower sash with an operable upper sash or similar configurations that permit airflow without creating an unsecured exterior door.

- Nonstructural items: The subcommittee suggested specific wording changes on items such as painting a visible utility vent pipe (strike the term "obsolete") and replacing termite‑damaged fencing with a compatible option rather than requiring a period‑exact fence where none survives.

After discussion the subcommittee moved to recommend City Council approval of the historic property preservation agreements, with the modification to defer items 4 and 5 for 121 West Escalones into phase 2 (2027) and with the wording changes described above. The subcommittee’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council as two separate action items; staff said the agreements must be executed and recorded prior to Dec. 31 if approved.

Staff reiterated that the Mills Act agreement is not itself a permit: owners must obtain the separate administrative development permits necessary to carry out the work, and staff will use five‑year inspections to track compliance.

Next steps: staff will update the draft agreements to reflect the subcommittee’s suggested wording and timeline changes, add applicant documentation of completed work where provided, and forward separate items to City Council for action.