Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Redwood City Council pauses intake of new Mills Act contracts, sets Dec. 2027 review target
Summary
The council voted 6-1 to pause new Mills Act historic-preservation contract applications while staff and advisory bodies update the city's historic preservation ordinance; existing contracts (41) will be honored and staff will return with recommendations and six-month progress reports through a December 2027 target date.
The Redwood City Council on March 9 voted to pause acceptance of new Mills Act contract applications while staff studies updates to the city's historic preservation ordinance and related program rules.
Senior planner Ryan Kuching told the council staff's recommendation is "to pause the intake of new Mills Act contract applications" while the Historic Resources Advisory Committee and a consultant complete an ordinance update. Kuching emphasized that "staff is not recommending any changes to the status of the city's 41 contracts. All existing agreements would be honored."
The pause will be time-limited: councilmembers adopted a friendly amendment that sets a target to return with recommendations by December 2027 and requires six-month progress reports during the study period. The measure passed 6-1; Vice Mayor Aiken recorded the lone vote in opposition.
Why it mattered: councilmembers framed the pause as an opportunity to answer policy questions about program goals and equity. Staff and members discussed possible changes including establishing 10-year contract terms with renewal, more frequent inspections (every three years instead of five), limiting the total number of contracts, creating lists of qualifying maintenance projects, and considering means-testing or other measures to target benefits to properties where restoration would not otherwise occur.
Public comment and fiscal context: Glenn Babbitt, a member of the Historic Resources Advisory Committee who spoke in a personal capacity, urged the council not to halt the program during study, arguing Mills Act benefits help families of modest means afford required restoration work. He said the program provides affordability for some homeowners and recommended continuing intake while the ordinance is refined.
Councilmembers also focused on the program's fiscal impacts. Staff materials cited a current application fee of $780 and an estimated staff-processing cost of about $6,500 per application (roughly 32 staff hours), meaning the fee recovers only about 12% of staff cost. One councilmember cited estimated annual property-tax revenue loss figures tied to the program (roughly $122,656 to the city and $312,773 to the local school district as presented in council discussion), arguments used by colleagues to press for clearer cost and equity guardrails.
What the council decided and next steps: the council approved staff's recommendation to pause new applications while directing staff to analyze potential updates to the Mills Act program and historic preservation ordinance, complete community engagement and study, and return with recommendations. Existing Mills Act contracts will remain in force. Staff indicated an initial consultant timeline of roughly 18 months and committed to progress reports and efforts to expedite joint meetings with advisory bodies where feasible.
The council took the action as part of its regular meeting; the clerk recorded the final vote as six in favor and one opposed. Staff will return to the council with proposed ordinance and program changes and a timeline per the adopted amendment.
