(1)Existing law authorizes an owner of any qualified historical property, as defined, to contract with the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county, to restrict the use of the property in exchange for lowered assessment values. Existing law requires contracts under these provisions to include, among other things, where applicable, a provision for the periodic examination of the interior and exterior of the premises by the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of Equalization whenever necessary, and a provision that requires the owner to notify the Office of Historic Preservation of the contract.

This bill would instead require these contracts, where applicable, to include an inspection of the interior and exterior of the premises by the city, county, or city and county prior to a new agreement, and every 5 years thereafter. This bill would delete from the list of required contract provisions the requirement that the owner notify the Office of Historic Preservation, and would instead require that the contract include a provision that requires the owner to record the contract with the county in which the property is located.

(2)Existing law authorizes the legislative body to, upon entering into a contract, require that the property owner, as a condition to entering into the contract, pay a fee not to exceed the reasonable cost of administering this program.

This bill would, instead, require that the fee shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service pursuant to this article for which the fee is charged.

(3)Existing law specifies that the initial contract term is 10 years and provides that on the anniversary date of the contract, a year is automatically added to the initial term of the contract unless notice of nonrenewal is given, as specified.

This bill would also require each contract to provide that after 5 years, and every 5 years thereafter, the legislative body of the local agency shall require an inspection to be conducted, by a party appointed by the legislative body, to determine the owner’s continued compliance with the contract.

(4)Existing law authorizes the legislative body to cancel a contract if the legislative body 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, and authorizes the legislative body or any landowner to, as an alternative to canceling the contract, bring any action in court necessary to enforce a contract, including, but not limited to, an action to enforce the contract by specific performance or injunction.

This bill would require the legislative body to either cancel the contract or bring an action in court to enforce the contract, if the legislative body 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. This bill would also provide that, as an alternative to canceling the contract, a landowner that is a party to the contract may bring any action in court necessary to enforce the contract.