Glendale council denies two Mills Act applications after heated public debate

Glendale City Council on July 29 voted to deny two Mills Act contract applications for contributing properties in local historic districts after a multi‑hour public hearing and extended staff briefing.

The Mills Act is a state enabling law implemented locally to provide property tax relief in exchange for an agreed program of preservation and maintenance. The two properties before the council — 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Neodrara Drive — were recommended for approval by the Glendale Historic Preservation Commission but raised concerns from staff about whether the proposed work plans and public benefit justified the tax relief.

Jay Platt, city planning staff, told council the Mills Act contributor program in Glendale was created in 2016 and has not produced many applicants. Platt said staff spent substantial time developing an application and evaluation process and that the two applications presented “have a lot of similarities” but that staff had “concerns about whether these applications are appropriate for the program.” He explained the staff and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) diverged on specific work items and on how to quantify public benefit.

Property owners and supporters addressed council during the public hearing. Francesca Smith, one of the applicants, said she and her husband purchased their house before the district was designated, described years of volunteer preservation work, and urged council to approve the Mills Act contracts. Edward Silver, the owner of 1833 Neodrara Drive, said his family bought the home in 2006 and planned work to restore the house to its 1955 appearance.

Supporters including Damian Sullivan argued the tax benefit would help owners maintain historically contributing properties and praised the applicants’ volunteer preservation work. Staff and at least one council member raised equity and fiscal concerns: staff noted the program has required “an incredible amount of staff time,” and Councilmember Asatourian (transcript spelling variants present) urged that any program of tax relief include demonstrated financial need or stronger public‑benefit metrics.

Council considered four specific motions tied to the two applications: resolutions to authorize the city manager to execute Mills Act contracts for each property (items 10b-1 and 10b-3) and motions to deny each application (items 10b-2 and 10b-4). A motion to deny both applications carried; the denial motions were passed and the contracts were not authorized. The transcript does not record a full, unambiguous named roll‑call of each council member in the public record excerpts provided.

Councilmembers and staff repeatedly urged a broader review of the contributor Mills Act program. Staff said outreach had produced very few applicants since the program was established and suggested the city consider refocusing the program toward non‑contributing properties where rehabilitation could yield clearer public benefit.

The council discussion also flagged procedural concerns: several council members said the matter had been years in development and that it would be appropriate to revisit the program’s design, eligibility and the city’s administrative burden. One member requested the topic be placed on a future agenda for further consideration with a full council present.

The decision ends the immediate Mills Act pursuit for the two properties, while leaving open a possible program redesign and future applications if council directs staff to return with alternatives.

Ending: Council did not adopt the Mills Act contracts for 324 Lawson Place and 1833 Neodrara Drive; members said they expect additional staff work and a possible council discussion to revisit the contributor program’s rules and outreach.