HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-30 City Council EmailsFrom:Bonnie Packer
To:City Mgr; PWD; Public Works Public Services
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Street closure Ross Rd 9/30
Date:Monday, September 30, 2024 10:31:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
We live on Stone Lane which is a cul de sac off of Ross Rd. Today, Public Works closed a northwest portion ofRoss Rd. This will require us to make a long detour to get out to Middlefield or Louis. I understand this work isnecessary, but Public Works needs to give residents in the area prior notice of local street closures.
I suggest putting door hangers on each home in the affected area. You should have done that for us on Stone Lane.
In general, Public Works needs to be more responsive to residents, as they obviously were not regarding the airportissue. They seem to be out of touch.
A response would be appreciated.
From:Henry Etzkowitz
Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto Airport Baylands Environmental “protest”
Date:Sunday, September 29, 2024 6:23:35 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from henry.etzkowitz@triplehelix.net. Learn why
this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> For immediate release:
> On a guided tour by an AIrport leader, I was informed that “swails” or bumps in in the runway periodicallyappear, apparently due to the wetlands pushing back against this asphalt intruder. Although a transition isanticipated, Significant amounts of unleaded fuel will not be available for a while and may not be suitable for allplanes. An emergency medical helipad with refueling capability could be retained when the Aiport and its 300-350planes fly off to Moffett. Plenty of room for basketball and pickle board courts, perhaps a skate board runway, onrefitted runway stub.
SincerelyHenry EtzkowitzCandidate for Palo Alto City CouncilLearn more at:Http:://www.triplehelix.net/henry.html>
>> Sent from my iPhone
On Sunday, September 29, 2024, 10:16 AM, Henry
Etzkowitz <h.etzko@icloud.com> wrote:
Why Should We
Move Palo Alto
Airport to Moffett
Field?
.
The deleterious health effects of lead on
the children of East Palo Alto and Menlo
Park are estimated to be as much as
half of Flint Michigan levels.
Lets move general aviation to de-federalized Moffett Field in Mountain
View, where longer dual runways are
available, enhancing pilot training
safety. Before next Airport Day,accomplish the transition of general
aviation to a safer site, further from
population centers.
.Ducks and planes, each in their right
place! Lets celebrate Airport Day 2025
with a fly-off from Palo Alto and a
landing at Moffett Field, designated asSilicon Valley’s general aviation center.
Expand Byxbee Park and return 100acres to the Baylands.
Place our neighbors’ children’s health ata higher value than elite recreation!
Sincerely Henry Etzkowitz Candidate for Palo Alto City Council
Learn more at
http://www.triplehelix.net/henry.html
Ps
Shocking Fact
All members of the Palo Alto city council
voted to put measure 4 on the ballot to
take .33 acres of El Camino Park from
the park and pave it over. I will voteagainst it; I hope you do too
Sincerely,Michelle Higgins on behalf of the Vigil4Gaza community
From:Rowena Dodson
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for denying airport expansion
Date:Thursday, September 26, 2024 5:41:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Stone and City Council,
I was so gratified to hear that the expansion of the Palo Alto airport has been rejected. Thank you so much, you
clearly also feel the importance of protecting wildlife, the environment, our wetland habitats and peoples' health.
This is beautiful that we have stewards in public positions willing to stand up for voice-less creatures and our world.
Many many thanks, again.
Sincerely,
Rowena Dodson, LMFT
Thanks for your email. I agree that the airport needs to go. However,the City's control over the airport has become lessened as the
airport is under the thumb of the FAA who says it must keep sellinglead and must stay open. The only way to shut down the airport
without risking a huge lawsuit that would bankrupt Palo Alto wouldbe to not take any FAA grants for 20 years and then shut it down. I
will be meeting with Council members to persuade them on this.
Best,Avroh
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 9:49 AM Henry Etzkowitz
<h.etzko@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Avroh
I heard your presentation to council. May I suggest that you and
your colleagues take your considerable advocacy skills to the nextlevel and petition for the removal of the airport to Moffett Field?
Best
Henry Sent from my iPhone
--
Avroh Shah
From:Rice, Danille
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; Clerk, City; City Mgr
Subject:City Council Bundle_September 26
Date:Thursday, September 26, 2024 2:49:10 PM
Attachments:RE Electric charging stations outside Palo Verde School..msgRE Regarding Buena Vista MHP Residents.msgRE Request to Speak during public comments this evenings.msgRE Flag of Palo Alto.msgFW Park Boulevard.msgimage001.pngimage002.png
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails
received in the City.Council inbox through September 26.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org
Thank you,
Trish TamraziConcerned Palo Alto Homeowner
take your considerable advocacy skills to the next level and petition for theremoval of the airport to Moffett Field?
Best
Henry Sent from my iPhone
--
Avroh Shah
From:Amy Christel
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:A very noisy half hour perpetrated by a PAO stunt plane in the training pattern
Date:Thursday, September 26, 2024 12:58:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links.
Dear Council Members and Mr. Shikada,
This stunt plane, tail number N383AC, is showering leaded fuel on neighbors and the Baylands thismorning—shown below is just the first set of circles by the 2001 plane registered to West Valley FlyingClub, based at PAO. It continues into the noon hour.
This is the kind of activity that is purely frivolous, loud and disruptive. And this is taking place duringthe school day within an half mile of East PA schools.
These lead burning aircraft should be grounded by the FBO’s until they switch to unleaded fuel—ordon’t renew their leases! You are the landlords of PAO and all those operations.
Sincerely,Amy Christel
Sent from my iPad
From:caroline@cbliss.com
To:Council, City
Subject:airport expansion
Date:Thursday, September 26, 2024 8:20:51 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from caroline@cbliss.com. Learn why this isimportant
I want to thank the city council for taking into account the well-being of the birds and
people surrounding the Baylands.
Caroline Bowker Bliss
From:George Block
To:Council, City
Subject:Red tape for solar approval
Date:Wednesday, September 25, 2024 8:16:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council,
The Palo Alto City has done a good job of promoting Solar Energy and I decided to install solar panels and a
storage battery. A contract was negotiated in the spring with start of project in early June of this year (2024).
The installation of the physical equipment was completed by end of July.
Then began the difficult journey for the contractor of getting city approval of the project. Between the fire
department, building inspector and project manager I still do not have final approval. The last inspection was on
Aug 14th by the Fire Department who asked for correction of schematics to match the installation. The contractor
did so within a week and still awaits approval.
Both the installation company and I have called the city. Yes, I understand there are staff shortages. I think you
should make the solar installation companies as well as the consumer that approval by the city of Palo Alto is time
consuming . I had planned to be ready for power outages this winter and am not sure that is realistic.
George Block
Sent from my iPad GTBMD
From:susanle@earthlink.net
To:Council, City
Subject:Addressing Housing Affordability and Availability in Palo Alto
Date:Wednesday, September 25, 2024 4:51:46 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from susanle@earthlink.net. Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to express my concerns about the current housing market in our city and to inquire about potential
solutions being considered.
Palo Alto is undoubtedly a desirable place to live, but the extreme housing prices are becoming increasingly
problematic for many residents and prospective homebuyers.
As someone actively looking to purchase a new home, I've observed several issues:
1. Bidding wars on desirable properties, often resulting in sales well above asking price.
2. Many purchased homes quickly being advertised for rent, suggesting investor activity.
3. Difficulty in identifying multiple property ownership due to the use of LLCs.
Given these challenges, I'm curious about the council's stance on the following potential measures:
1. Limiting the number of residential properties an individual or entity can own within Palo Alto.
2. Implementing taxes on unoccupied residences to encourage occupancy and increase housing supply.
3. Improving transparency in property ownership, particularly for LLCs and other business entities.
I understand that the state is considering legislation to limit ownership of 1000 or more properties. However, given
Palo Alto's unique housing market, are there any city-specific initiatives being explored to address these issues?
I appreciate your time and consideration of these matters. Any information you can provide on current or future
plans to address housing affordability and availability in Palo Alto would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Susan Edelman, MD
From:AmyMChristel
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Larger plane at 738 ft over PA homes-/going to PAO
Date:Wednesday, September 25, 2024 3:23:33 PM
Attachments:IMG 3103.PNG
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members and City Manager,
Below is a flight track screenshot of the horrendously loud jet engine plane that flew over a swath ofPalo Alto on Wednesday afternoon—well below the minimum safe altitude over populated areas. Itshook my windows.
If you make the runway longer we’ll just have more of these large planes. Anything below 1000 ft isan unsafe altitude over houses (per FAA) but no one (not the FAA, not Airport staff, not the tower)does anything to intervene. This is what makes the airport NOT A SAFE operation. Pilots who do
whatever pleased them—no accountability! If you let them add 100 ft to the runway you’ll justencourage more of this bad behavior from ever larger aircraft.
Shutting it down is the best option. How can we start the process?
Sincerely,Amy Christel
Sent from my iPhone
From:Shannon Griscom
To:Council, City
Cc:shannonclosegriscom@gmail.com
Subject:Stop the Airport expansion
Date:Tuesday, September 24, 2024 1:29:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
As a long time resident of Palo Alto, I have used the bay lands for recreation since 1965. In the past two or threeyears, the traffic of planes landing and taking off has increased dramatically. I walk regularly, and wonder howpeople living near the airport can stand the noise. I urge Palo Alto NOT to expand the airport. Larger planes and jetsshould be encouraged to use airports in San Jose or San Mateo. Stop catering to the richest and most privileged ofcitizens; instead, consider the ecology and recreation of the bay lands for the majority of residents and their families.Sincerely,Shannon Griscom
Sincerely,
Kate Bellers
grubbproperties.com
INFO FOR THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL – DO NOT USE OUR NAMES!
RE: GAMBLE GARDEN HORT/COMPLEX EXPANSION
To: Board Members at the Elizabeth F. Gamble Garden
From: …….. Gamble Garden Member since founding Re: Concerns about the Future of Gamble Garden in Palo Alto I am a member of The Garden Club of Palo and was on the original Committee in 1982 to found
Gamble Garden - it was our idea to turn the property into a Horticultural site for the City.
Others (developers, bowling green, artisans) wanted the property for their various pursuits, which was willed to the City by Elizabeth Gamble. It was a very difficult issue as the surrounding neighbors were very much against the idea!
We held many neighborhood coffees to convince them that it would be a benefit to Palo Alto.
And the City finally gave our Garden Club the award to be a Horticultural site in the community. However, we had to prove that we could create it! ALL our garden club members took turns for two years, at our expense, working the garden beds and creating plans. We did it. We are still a major financial donor to Gamble Garden. Ultimately it was called the “Jewel of Palo Alto!”
First, we formed an excellent non-profit Board and began operating Gamble Garden with all volunteers. Today it is shocking to learn that we have 12 staff members with a budget of over $100,000. Our various programs almost never fill the current Carriage House room and Tea House. It is ludicrous to consider hiring more staff, salaried, to manage us. We do not need more space to operate for the public benefit with classes and events. I recently attended a current Board meeting and was horrified at the plans, kept secret, set in place for a huge expansion of buildings to cost over $6 million dollars! (rising) How foolish to go forth without funds in hand for this project, and on property owned by the City. Already
too much money ($160k+) has been spent on architect fees and drawings – with only Board
support! This current Board operates as a “clique” to railroad this plan in “secret”. At this meeting all objections, not taken seriously. There seems to be no solid data to even support this huge expansion. A 200% increase in space for a “community room” is definitely
overkill and not needed. Razing current buildings is unnecessary. (Some upgrades are needed).
The projected immense buildings remove precious historic garden space! We are a Historic Garden, not intended to be a Community Center! Lucie Stern is nearby for that use. Our library in the 1902 Georgian house is available for excellent information on
plants and landscaping. Our annual fundraisers support this present endeavor.
The neighborhood needs to know about this imaginative plan! The added use will create a big parking demand that we cannot support. I and others are not in favor of this proposed project!
Good evening Council. Thank you for setting aside this time each meeting
to hear public comment.
My name is Tom Harris. I’m the Pastor at First Presbyterian Church Palo
Alto where I have been serving for about seven months. I’m on the Steering
Committee of Multi Faith Voices for Peace and Justice. In my short time
here I have been profoundly impressed with the work of this group to
support multi-faith dialogue and action even in these times of extraordinary
tension. In the group we enjoy the faithful dedication of Samina Sundas
who is Muslim and Rabbi Amy Eilberg who is Jewsh.
On September 11th, Multi Faith Voices sponsored a Multi-Faith Peace
Picnic though Samina and the muslim community really made it happen.
Rabbi Amy also worked hard and successfully encouraged Jewish
participation. The city council agreed to support the event as well with a
generous promise of financial support and plans to be represented among
the speakers. As you probably know, the organizers got word at the last
minute that a long-time co-sponsor of the event would be able to
co-sponsor again this year and they were added to the list. However this
organization’s participation raised the passionate objections of some in the
religious community. Given those objections the city council withdrew its
support of the event and was not represented among the speakers, though
we are grateful for that Julie Lythcott-Haims attended.
What I’d like to say to you all today is that I get it. I get that in these times,
with passions running so high and the arising of a last minute controversy
you would withdraw your support of this multi faith event. But I would also
urge you in the future to know what you are getting into when you support a
multi faith event. Multi-faith work is hard, vulnerable, courageous work,
especially right now. Multi Faith Voices for Peace and Justice is all about
inviting diverse people to a common table and there can be hard
conversations around the table. We can’t afford to decide who is allowed at
the table and who is not, because none of us are completely innocent. If we
say one group can’t sit down to talk peace because they are not perfect,
then we would all be excluded. So in the future, as representatives for all
the people of this community, if you would like to sit down at the table
you're invited, but be aware that you are going to sit with a bunch of
imperfect people; people trying to find peace, and justice and reconciliation
amidst a world of fear and violence. It is a good place to be, but it is not an
easy place to be.
From:Ah Yun, MahealaniTo:Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, LydiaCc:ORG - Clerk"s Office; Shikada, Ed; Stump, MollySubject:FW: HRB Mills Act LetterDate:Thursday, September 12, 2024 7:41:09 AMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.pngHRB"s Mills Act Letter.pdfimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage008.png
Good morning City Council –
Please see email below and attached letter regarding a Tailored Mills Act Pilot Program.
Thank you,
Mahea
Mahealani Ah YunCity Clerk Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2379 | E: Mahealani.AhYun@CityofPaloAlto.org
From: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 8:16 AM
To: Ah Yun, Mahealani <Mahealani.AhYun@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tran, Vickie <Vickie.Tran@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy
<Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: HRB Mills Act Letter
Hi Mahealani-
At the last Historic Resources Board (HRB) meeting in August, the HRB voted 5-0 to forward the attached letter to Council. As liaison, I wanted to forward that letter
to the Office of the City Clerk.
Sending said letter to Council would satisfy the HRB’s FY 23-24 Workplan Goal #5.
In short, this letter requests for Council to consider implementing a Tailored Mills Act Pilot Program in Palo Alto with no more than three (3) properties.
The results of the proposed Tailored Mills Act Pilot Program would help inform a future potential build out of a Mills Act Program in Palo Alto.
Steven Switzer
Historic Preservation Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Esteemed City Council Members,
Through the process of updating the local inventory during the 2024 workplan year, the HRB heard repeatedly that Palo Alto homeowners would be much more inclined to support historical designations for their properties if improved benefits for such listing were provided by the city and state. The HRB will continue to work with community members to create local incentives and public awareness of the benefits of listing on the local inventory in the 2025 workplan. That said, the HRB would be remiss not to revisit the most significant historic preservation incentive
the state of California provides: The Mills Act.
THE MILLS ACT: The Mills Act is an economic incentive program for owners of historic buildings that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or a state, county, or local register. These registers include the California Register of Historical Resources and the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. The
Mills Act leverages tax abatement to form the most important economic incentive program for private property owners in California. Though Palo Alto does not have an official Mills Act process, the city currently holds one contract. The Squire House, at 900 University Avenue, entered into the Mills Act contract with the city in 1996. The contract has been continuously renewed.
BACKGROUND ON PALO ALTO’S MILLS ACT DISCUSSION: The attached Tailored Mills Act program was originally drafted by the HRB in 2018 with the assistance of former historic preservation planners. An ad hoc committee refined and revised the program during the 2021-2022 workplan year. The document attached includes revisions made during this time. After updating the local inventory during the 2023-2024 workplan year, the HRB now turns to resuming work on the Mills Act program.
In 1997, City Council withheld a Mills Act contract for another property, citing concerns over the deferment of tax dollars away from PAUSD. Today, Palo Alto’s schools benefit from a voter-approved parcel tax that provides over $15 million per year in locally controlled funding that cannot be seized by the state. As of October 2023, PAUSD Chief Business Officer Carolyn Chow indicated that the school district was operating with a balanced budget.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: With this in mind, the HRB again approaches Council to consider a “pilot” program for a Palo Alto Mills Act program. Program highlights and safeguards for this pilot include:
•Prioritization of properties that are threatened by development, have immediaterehabilitation needs, provide an element of public use, contribute to affordable or denserhousing, or are considered the most significant to Palo Alto’s identity.
•Stipulations that the program will promote heritage tourism, encourage seismic safety,foster civic pride, and safeguard a sense of place.
•Proposed Mills Act contracts will be vetted and approved by Council, including allmonetary projections of tax diversions.
•Contracts will only be granted to properties whose significance has been verified byexpert authority.
•Each contract will include an enforceable plan for public benefit and educationalpurposes.
•Each contract will include the state contract requirements for such agreements.
• Palo Alto can further establish property value limitations and a cap for program impacts on City revenues.
The pilot program would identify properties that meet the qualifications above and would include no more than three properties. Owners would be approached to gauge interest in participating in the pilot program. The HRB expects that participation in the pilot program, as well as any future Mills Act Contracts, will be both a lengthy and involved process for property owners. The requirements and involvement in this process ensure that properties with the greatest needs,
and few other resources for preservation, will receive the most benefit. We are asking for Council’s approval to move forward with a Mills Act Pilot Program, which will follow the tailored program summary as attached. Sincerely,
Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz
Vice Chair Samantha Rohman
Board Member Christian Pease
Board Member Caroline Willis
Board Member Margaret Wimmer
Enclosures:
Tailored Mills Act Program
Draft Minutes from August 8, 2024, HRB Meeting
CC: Steven Switzer, HRB Liaison
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
Tailored Program Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2
Role of the Applicant ................................................................................................................................. 3
Role of Planning Department .................................................................................................................... 3
Role of Historic Resources Board .............................................................................................................. 3
Role of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office............................................................................................ 3
Role of California Office of Historic Preservation ..................................................................................... 3
Mills Act State Policy .................................................................................................................................... 4
State Criteria for Eligibility ........................................................................................................................ 4
State Contract Requirements .................................................................................................................... 4
Proposed Local Mills Act Policy ................................................................................................................... 5
Local Mills Act Criteria for Eligibility ......................................................................................................... 5
Local Mills Act Program Regulations ......................................................................................................... 5
Term Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 5
Tax Redirection Limitations ................................................................................................................. 5
Property Value Limitations .................................................................................................................. 5
Ranking System ................................................................................................................................... 6
Cancellation Penalty ............................................................................................................................ 6
Fees ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Submittal Date .................................................................................................................................... 6
Local Mills Act Contract Requirements ..................................................................................................... 7
HRB Review ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................. 7
Eligible Work .................................................................................................................................. 7
Ineligible Work ............................................................................................................................... 8
Tax Redirection.................................................................................................................................... 8
Property Inspection ............................................................................................................................. 8
Application Checklist .................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 1. Mills Act Contract Timeline ............................................................................................................ 6
2
INTRODUCTION
Enacted by the State of California in 1972, the Mills Act grants participating local governments
the 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 (CGC 12.50280-50290, CRTC 1.9.439-439.4). It is the “single most important
economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified
historic buildings by private property owners.”1
An important feature of the Mills Act program is its flexibility. Although the State has certain
requirements that must be included in all individual Mills Act policies, the program allows
jurisdictions to develop additional requirements to insure that unique local goals and needs are
met. By implementing a tailored Mills Act program in Palo Alto, with finely tuned eligibility criteria
and contract requirements, the City can both incentive the thoughtful preservation of our shared
heritage and wisely address the community’s priorities and needs. Tailored programs have been
successfully adopted in other California cities that have similar complications like high property
values and schools supported by Basic Aid.2
Tailored Program Summary
The Tailored Mills Act Program for Palo Alto will be program, where all tax relief received by a
property owner will be reinvested in the rehabilitation, preservation or restoration of the historic
property. Work will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and will
comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards). Mills Act contracts will be open
to all property types but will be limited in length, the maximum being 15 years. For educational
purposes, property owners will be required to fund, with tax redirection, and display an
interpretive panel along the public right of way that is visible to the public. The Mills Act program
is voluntary and requires owner consent.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS ADDRESSED BY THE TAILORED MILLS ACT PROGRAM
1. contributes to Affordable Housing
3. safeguards a Sense of Place
5. fosters Civic Pride
7. protects Palo Alto’s History
9. provides Preservation Incentive
2. encourages Seismic Safety
4. promotes Heritage Tourism
6. preserves Neighborhood Character
8. supports Environmentally Conscious
Development
1 California Office of Historic Preservation, “Mills Act Program,” http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=21412.
2 Other nearby communities with successful Mills Act programs includes Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Saratoga, Los Altos,
San Jose and Campbell. Cities that have both basic aid school districts and Mills Act program include Beverley Hills, Campbell,
Los Altos and Saratoga.
3
Role of the Applicant
The Applicant is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property during the duration
of the Mills Act contract and must follow the approved Rehabilitation and Maintenance plan. The
Applicant is responsible for obtaining appropriate documents, signatures and recordation
attachments as well as associated fees prior to work and successful contract recordation.
Role of the Planning Department
The Planning Department oversees all Mills Act applications and monitors existing Mills Act
properties. The Historic Preservation Planner will work with property owners to complete their
applications and develop rehabilitation and maintenance plans that are specific to each property.
The Planning Department will keep the applicant(s) informed throughout the year, as the
application moves forward through HRB review, City Council and the County Assessor’s Office.
Once a Mills Act contract is entered into, all subsequent work on the property during the duration
of the contract will require staff approval which includes compliance with the Standards.
Role of the Historic Resources Board
The HRB will first hold a hearing to consider a recommendation to City Council whether to
approve, modify or deny the initial Mills Act application. Once a Mills Act contract is entered
into, all subsequent work on the property during the duration of the contract will require staff
approval. If staff determines proposed work does not comply with the Standards, staff will refer
the application to the HRB.
Role of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office
The role of the Assessor’s Office is to locate and accurately assess all taxable property Palo Alto
and also serve as the county’s official record-keeper of documents such as deeds, liens, maps and
property contracts. In a Mills Act Historical Property contract, the Assessor’s Office assesses
qualified properties based on a state prescribed approach and records the fully executed
contract. All Mills Act properties will receive an initial valuation during the application process
and will be assessed annually by the January 1st lien date and in subsequent years, as required
by state law. The State Board of Equalization has strict guidelines the assessor must follow in
order to value Mills Act properties (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 439.2).
Role of the California Office of Historic Preservation
OHP provides Mills Act information to local governments and uses information provided by local
governments to maintain a list of communities participating in the Mills Act program as well as
copies of Mills Act ordinances, resolutions, and contracts that have been adopted. OHP does not
participate in the contract negotiations, is not a signatory to the contract and has no authority
over the administration of the Mills Act program.
4
MILLS ACT STATE POLICY
Effective March 7, 1973, Chapter 1442 of the Statutes of 1972 (also known as the Mills Act) added
sections 50280 through 50289 to the Government Code to allow an owner of qualified historical
property to enter into a preservation contract with local government. When property is placed
under such a contract, the owner agrees to restore the property if necessary, maintain its historic
character, and use it in a manner compatible with its historic characteristics.
State Criteria for Eligibility
As set forth in California’s Government Code 50280.1, a property is eligible for the Mills Act as
follows: “Qualified historical property” for purposes of this article, means privately owned
property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Listed in any state, city, county or city and county official register of historical or
architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks.
State Contract Requirements
As set forth by California Government code 50281, the following requirements must be included
in the language of any Mills Act contract:
(a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years.
(b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following:
(1) For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary,
to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and
regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks
and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code.
(2) For the periodic examinations of the interior and exterior of the premises by
the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of
Equalization as may be necessary to determine the owner’s compliance with
the contract.
(3) For it to be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of all successors in interest
of the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and obligations
under the contract as the original owner who entered into the contract.
5
PROPOSED LOCAL MILLS ACT POLICY
The proposed Tailored Mills Act Program must include all the State contract requirements above.
In addition, staff is proposing to include the following more restrictive criteria to balance historic
preservation with the significant competing goals of the community, which is allowed under the
State’s Mills Act program.
Local Mills Act Criteria for Eligibility
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local modifications of the term “qualified
historical property” which will be defined as any property that meets any of the following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2 (b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
(b) Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources;
(c) Listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as Category 1 through 4, as defined in Section
16.49.020 of PAMC (b); or
(d) Contributing to a Local Historic District, as defined in Section 16.49.020 of PAMC (c).
Local Mills Act Program Regulations
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local regulations, which do not invalidate
State requirements:
(a) Term Limitations: Mills Act Contracts will have a minimum term of ten years and a
maximum term of 15 years. This is accomplished by the City issuing a notice of
nonrenewal in the 5th year of the agreement, after which the remaining 10-year term
of the contract occurs before the agreement formally terminates. During the 10 year
phase-out period, the property tax benefits enjoyed by the Mills Act property
gradually decrease until they reach the full regularly assessed value of the property at
the end of the final year (Figure 1).
(b) Tax Redirection Limitations: A limit will be set on the total tax redirection that can be
associated with Mills Act properties. Program impact on City revenues will be limited
to $150,000/year, to be adjusted annually in amount equivalent to the percent change
of the overall assessed valuation of the City for the previous year, excluding those
properties that have been issued a notice of nonrenewal.
(c) Property Value Limitations: A limit will be set on total property value that would be
eligible for Mills Act contract. Pre-contract assessed valuation limits will be $5,000,000
or less for residential and $10,000,000 or less for commercial.3
3 To be adjusted for inflation
6
Figure 1. Mills Act Contract Timeline
(c) Ranking System: A ranking system will be employed by the HRB when reviewing Mills
Act applications that is based on community priorities and needs and utilizes the
criteria listed below. Staff considers that the scope of the required rehabilitation plan
will ensure that all applications for a Mills Act will bestow a major public benefit on
the community by extensively rehabilitating and maintaining historic properties.
Public access to private homes is not a requirement. A higher ranking will be given to
those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act contract:
Will result in more affordable housing units;
Will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition,
deterioration, abandonment and/or general neglect;
Will result in the greatest number of improvements to the historic property,
resulting in the greatest benefit to the public.
(e) Cancellation Penalty: Noncompliance with the provisions of a Mills Act contract will
result in either legal action against the owner or contract cancellation. A contract may
be cancelled if the City determines that the owner has breached any of the conditions
of the contract or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer
meets the standards for a qualified historical property. The contract may also be
canceled it is determined that the owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the
property in the manner specified in the contract. No contract shall be canceled until
property owner has been properly noticed and a public hearing is held. If the contract
is cancelled, the owner must pay a penalty of 12.5% of the market value of the
property at the time of cancellation, per state law.4 The Cancellation fee will be
determined by the county assessor as though the property were free of the
contractual restriction.
(e) Fees: Initial permit and planning fees will be waived for Mills Act participants. There
will be no application fee for submitting a Mills Act contract application but a one-
4 California Government Code, Article 12, Section 50286
7
time activation fee of $250 will be required if the contract is selected and initiated.
(f) Submittal Date: Applications will only be accepted and approved during the month of
June in any given year in order to allow sufficient time for the City and the County
Assessor’s Office to determine the cumulative financial impact, to record contracts
prior to January 1st in any given year and to reduce the cost of processing applications.
Local Mills Act Contract Requirements
As allowed by the State, staff proposes the following local additions to the State’s contract
requirements:
(a) HRB Review: All Mills Act applications, including rehabilitation and maintenance plans
and subsequent work, will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board.
(b) Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plans: A rehabilitation and maintenance plan will be
required to be submitted for attachment to the Mills Act contract. All work performed
must conform to the rules and regulations of the California Office of Historic
Preservation, including compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and
the State Historic Building Code. The rehabilitation plan must include restoration of
the identified character defining features of the property and the removal or
compatible replacement of incompatible alterations. The rehabilitation plan can
include exterior and interior work that has been pre-approved. Qualified
rehabilitation and restoration work that commenced up to two years before the
establishment of the contract may be indicated on the ten-year rehabilitation plan.
An annual report detailing the rehabilitation and restoration work performed during
the past year along with the overall cost of the work performed will also be required.
In general, work that is directly related to the repair or improvement of structural and
architectural features of the historic building will qualify. Examples of eligible and
ineligible work include but are not limited to:
Eligible Work
Seismic upgrading
Foundation repair
Re-roofing and downspout restoration
Exterior siding and trim repair and restoration
Historic windows repair and restoration
Paint exterior
Removal of inappropriate additions and construction
Plumbing system upgrades
8
Electrical system upgrades
Original door, hardware and other features restoration
Front iron fencing restoration
Chimney stabilization
Consulting/Professional fees
Repair and restoration of original interior features (like original built-ins
and woodwork) must get HRB approval to be considered eligible
HVAC systems (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)
Solar panels must be essential to the operation or maintenance of the
rehabilitated historic building and must get HRB approval to be considered
eligible5
Ineligible Work
New construction and additions
Landscaping
Homeowner labor
Acquisition/furnishing costs
Parking lot
(c) Tax Redirection: All tax savings must be redirected into rehabilitation work for the
property and the anticipated construction must be equal to or greater than tax
savings.
(d) Property Inspection: The property will be inspected annually/ every two years/
dependent on work proposed by the Historic Preservation Planner (accompanied by
the Building Official if necessary) to determine compliance with the Mills Act contract
and approved Rehabilitation and Maintenance plan.
(e) Educational Component: For educational purposes, property owners will be required
to fund, with tax redirection, and display an interpretive panel along the public right
of way that is visible to the community. The panel will include information on the
history and architectural merit of the home for the public to enjoy. The property will
also be used for exterior home tours at the discretion of the City and other
promotional material with proper notification.
5 See National Park Service, Historic Tax Credit Qualified Expenses explanation on solar panels. Generally, HVAC
features are included as eligible cost so the function and purpose of a renewable energy system will determine if it is an eligible expense. Systems that produce electricity to back feed the power grid may not qualify
(https://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/before-apply/qualified-expenses.htm).
9
APPLICATION CHECKLIST