street across the street from the antennas. first, i have petitioned -- a petition signed by about 30 people. i faxed it yesterday. i think that at&t ignored the opinion of these people. the meeting was held about a year ago. all the people were against the antennas because of these reasons. over 100 physicians and scientists from harvard and boston university school of public health have called

cellular towers radiation hazards pierpont -- radiation hazards. cancer rates have more than tripled among people living within 300 ft. of cellphone towers or antennas. those within 100 m were exposed to radiation 100 times the normal levels. a new study showed the risk of cancer doubled among people with -- people living within 350 m, 1,148 ft. of the cellphone antennas. both studies focused on people who had leased at the same address for many years.

levels of radiation emitted from the towers can damage cells, tissues, and dna, causing suppressive immune function and other health problems. we have two schools in this area. and children are at the greatest risk due to their thin scrolls. -- skulls and rapid rate of growth. also at risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women. when i want to say -- [bell rings] >> thank you, sir.

the time for public comment is out. >> oh, ok. correct any other speakers on this item? -- >> any other speakers on this item? >> my name is [unintelligible] >> can you speaking to the microphone? >> my husband and i live across the street from this facility. what i can tell you is on the roof of this address, they have installed two antennas already. what does at&t have to concentrate all the antennas in one area? second, i do not have pictures, but i just explain to you, these antenna, they look very ugly.

how you can do this, i do not know. and all our neighborhood tis against this installation. thank you. >> any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner sugaya: just for the benefit of the speakers, maybe you could explain the radiation part of this whole thing. i think people are more concerned about their health

response -- of their health risks and it is something that the commission itself does not have jurisdiction over. maybe you could just give us a few sentences on that. >> the lead agency with regard to reviewing the mission does the department of public health. before this project can even go before the planning commission, they ought to review their report and find that it meets current fcc standards. in this case about the project does meet fcc guidelines. the commission does not have the ability to deny project -- the project if it complies with fcc guidelines. for those who showed up today, i can put them in contact with the department of public health, who has reviewed our reports bridey's -- by the project

sponsor. i received the petition yesterday after the packets went out for the reports. but i can definitely put them in touch with dph afterwards. >> yes, please do. thank you. >> -- commissioner moore: would you also please explain to those people who spoke, what is available for them if they have concerns about their location? so that once the antennas are installed, there is a way of giving them the personal benefit of other reviewers. >> after the installation of the antennas? commissioner moore: yes. >> there are conditional approvals tied to the project peripatetic -- the project. one of the conditions is that they have to have a liaison.

they can contact the community liaison directly if they have concerns. >> perhaps let the at&t representative speak directly to what i'm referring to. >> @ eric mar wrenn by law, we have a 20 ft. by 20 ft. rule where we are required to come out and test residents within that distance. at&t has extended that to residents in the area that you can't -- that do have concerns. our representative will come out and test the premises. we're happy to take their information from the meeting. we're happy to do that. >> would you just make sure that for communication all purposes that they understand they can be in touch with you to get information once the installations are made? >> absolutely.

the information is in the packet, but i will give them my car as well. >> thank you. commissioner antonini: to answer a few points that were raised during public comment, it appears from the drawings and by the testimony that the antennas will be sneaked behind the paroquet -- p-- parapet. they will not be visible. the other question of why we're having more antennas where there are already some, we cannot disapprove an antenna application -- we cannot give preference to one carrier over another. if, for example, rice and had antennas in the area, but the at&t coverage was inadequate, we have to allow them to have the same amount of coverage.

this is preference two, which means it is high on the list of choices, or the highest available choice. those are things we have to consider when we look at these things. and as was pointed out, it is quite possible to come out and check in this vicinity, and this check can also be a cumulative one that takes into account any emissions from any existing antennas, too. i would move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> the motion on the floor is for approval with conditions as proposed. on that motion, -- a line commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. >> thank you commissioners. it passed unanimously.

for two reasons, we will take some of the following items out of order. we will hear items 12 and 11 next. to accommodate the supervisor. and we will hear items 9 and 10 falling does to accommodate president fong. with that, commissioners will call item no. 12, case number 20 12.0737 u. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the supervisor -- scott wiener would like to make some introductory remarks. i believe he is on his way up here, but i guess in the interest of time, i can just start my presentation if you like. >> can we get a hold of the hpc comments?

>> i have those for you right now and i'm happy to pass them out. >> thank you. with that, i will let supervisor wiener start the presentation and i will be back to discuss the details of the legislation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i-- this is an amendment to the administrative code that would help improve access to the mills act by owners of historic property in san francisco, specifically individual landmarks, properties on the international -- the national or state register. as i know you know, the mills act is an important tool in terms of helping property owners maintain their historic properties. in san francisco, we place a lot

of obligations on owners of historic properties to make sure that they are maintaining the historic integrity of their homes. and it is important that we help them do so as well. that is what the mills act does. unfortunately in san francisco, we make it very hard for people, particularly smaller property owners to act as the mills act. there are other cities and counties, including l.a. and other places, that have much, much broader acts that the mills act here. hear, for small property owners, it is almost nonexistent. part of the reason is the link become a cumbersome, unpredictable, things get delayed. this legislation tries to fix that. the synchronized application and

decisions control is on an annual basis, so that everything gets processed together. it will lead us in the direction of having a more standardized contract to make it go easier. in addition, it provides very fixed time lines and deadlines, but for the planning department and the assessor's office to process these applications. if it is going to be accepted or not, property owners know in a timely manner. and with the current law, each contract is subject to approval or disapproval by the board of supervisors. it also will reduce fees. attached to the mills act application. it is currently $9,000. it is to the tune of $20,000 for

residential property. i was at the historic preservation commission yesterday. there is a potential -- a proposed historic district that is moving forward in my district north of the boros part. -- dubose palk -- park. one of the things that they say is bad -- is that if you subject ourselves to additional scrutiny, we will get additional taxes. but we know that is illusory because there is very little mills act accessibility in san francisco. we are trying to make it real. so that when people decide whether they want to support creation of an historic district

or landmark a building, they will actually know that they can have a access to the mills act if appropriate. i will leave the details to mr. fry, but i would be honored to have support for europe -- your support for the legislation. i worked very closely with staff. they have proposed some amendments in a letter. we're evaluating those. they seem like they're probably find. but we will need time for the board to carefully consider them and hopefully introduce some good amendments. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim fry, department staff. i would like to quickly walk you through the background of the mills act program, where we are today with the program, and talk to you about the proposed amendments in supervisor wiener's ordinance and how it will change how the program is

administered by various city departments. the mills act program was enacted by the city of callum -- the state of california in 1976 and in 1996, the san francisco administrative code was amended to include participation within the mills act program. since that time, there have been five mills act contracts entered within san francisco. a mills act contract is an essential agreement with a minimum of 10 years. it is a 10-year contract that rolls over every year. it always maintains a 10-year land, and it is between the city and the property owner that they will maintain and rehabilitate their property to a certain degree based on a rehabilitation plan in exchange for a property tax break. within my report, i outlined the five properties that currently

have five -- that currently have mills act contracts. one is a bit of an anomaly, 690 market street. it is the old chronicle building. there are 40 two condominiums within that building that are part of the mills act contract for that site. as of 2011, the total annual savings for this -- these properties was $450,000 approximately. the 40 two condominiums within the chronicle building make up about $375,000 of that savings. it if we account for that unique situation of that property, the annual savings is about $19,000 per property. there are several sections of the administrative code i would like to discuss, one is the eligibility requirement under the mills act contract limitations of eligibility, loss of tax revenue, deadlines for

the program, the assessor /reporters office report to the board of supervisors, and the contracts and fees associated with the program. in terms of eligibility, right now as supervisor wiener mentioned, article 10 properties, whether it a contributor to an article 10 district or in an eligibility plan, would be eligible for these contracts. categories 1 through 4 are the significant contributing buildings. they are listed as part of the downtown plan. all of those buildings would remain eligible for the mills act program. the only stipulation would be the amendments require any designation be made prior to december 31st of the year. this is as trying to establish predictability within the deadlines of the program. all buildings must be designated

by the year prior before they embark on a mills act application. in terms of limitations on eligibility, right now there is a department policy for single- family residences limited to $1.5 million in value, and multi unit residential and commercial buildings are limited to $3 million to be eligible for the millage act program. that does not mean the eligibility will be waived. there are certain criteria to be mad to do so and that has to be met. those criteria are taken into consideration by both the puc and the board of supervisors. what the proposed amendments to its lower their requirements. excuse me, to go back, the current policy is $3 million and

$5 million, and the amendments with lower those to $1.5 million and $3 million respectively. but they would codify those limitations. that was one of those amendments that the historic preservation commission and the sf heritage requested be modified in some fashion the hpc yesterday in their resolution recommended the recommendations currently in place be a matter of policy and that no property values be codified within the code because of fluctuating property values and perceived limitations in accessibility by putting those in the administrative code. in terms of deadlines right now, a property owner may apply at any time. that was one of the reasons there was a lot of confusion between the coordination and

planning department and the assessor/reporters offers because it was hard to allocate resources to process these applications. in working with the assessor/reporters office, we have agreed that all applications will be in to the planning department by may 1st. this gives us what we anticipated a 60-day review by -- and by july 1st all applications that are deemed complete will be forwarded to the assessor's office. the assessor will have 60 days to review the applications and report on the actual taxes they calculate for the properties. right now, in the administrative code it states that the ancestors -- reporters office has 60 days to -- the assessor /reporters office has 60 days to review this application, but we do not have any action of what will happen at that time.

it the planning department does not receive a report within 60 days, we may still be able to schedule the hpc hearing and the board of supervisors hearing, so the process may continue to the final board of supervisors without that report. in terms of the contracts right now, for each of the five contracts we have, we reinvent the wheel every time. many jurisdictions have a standardized contract. in looking at other jurisdictions, we will work with -- we have a few very good examples. it will work with the city attorney's office to tenderize a contract that revise -- that requires little overview from the city attorney's office. we believe that will expedite the process. in regard to loss of tax revenue, there is a policy right now that the city will not exceed a $1 million annual loss

regarding mills act applications. the proposed amendments remove that policy and will now require that the planning department and the assessor/reporters office will every year provide a report to the board of supervisors on the status of the program. at that time, they may make modifications either on the policy level or through amendments to the code to augment the requirements of the program. we feel that will give the program more flexibility that it needs to be used more frequently by historic property owners. lastly, the fees are going to be significantly reduced. in looking at the fees with our finance team, we think that they have been inflated that is -- and that is largely due to the unique conditions and the amount of time it took to process the

690 market project. if we're proposing a reduction in fees. right now it is close to $9,000 for a single-family residence, down to $2,500. the commercial fee will be reduced from $18,000 down to $5,000. we hope that will help us recoup the costs in processing the applications, while also allowing greater accessibility to the program. to provide comparison in what we investigated in other cities in california, we're far below the number of executed mills act contracts from many cities in california. san diego currently has 1100 active contracts. los angeles, i spoke with the historic preservation program officer last week, and they just approved their 601st mills act contract. oakland began their project in

2008, and they already have 20 four contracts in place, and they said they have a whole stack in the pipeline awaiting approval from their city council. to clarify a few other sort of background items is in our analysis, the average savings for a property would be a around $17,000. it is hard to calculate how many buildings really would be eligible for the mills act program. we know the number of listed historic resources we have, but because the assessor's office uses a separate value calculations to determine the eligibility under the mills act program, we cannot simply look at the property tax value as an indicator of whether or not a property would be eligible. so it is hard to give a number, however, we know the universe of buildings that could potentially seek access to the mills act

program. i did mention in the the monitoring report. finally, in terms of what the planning department resources are related to the application process, we take about 40 hours to process these applications. we think that number will be significantly reduced by having a standard based contract in these established deadlines that will hopefully provide more predictability for homeowners on when they need to get all the materials in place. we do acknowledge that a lot of the information in our current application needs to be augmented to make this more clear to property owners so they know exactly what they're getting into and exactly what the timelines our milestones will be in relation to the program. we have already met with the assessor's office a couple times and we are working on collaborating in providing better application and outreach

materials once this legislation moves forward. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. i did not plan to talk about this, but i had personal experience with this since i drafted the first version of the mills act ordinance with the late supervisor sue wiermbierma. although it is called the mills act, and senate terminals supported it, and our senator made it operable, and what we do is based on what he did. of course, the intention was to provide property owners who owned dilapidated historic buildings with the incentive to repair and upgrade those

buildings. in san francisco, that particular relationship, which is the basis of the contract, may not necessarily be as relevant as it was several years ago, because there are not as many dilapidated historic buildings around. so the sensible connection between the contract and the tax basis is an agreement by the property owner to properly maintain their building, which is a lot different than redoing the facade or so forth. still, i think it is a worthy goal. when supervisor bierman did the ordinance, it was designed to accommodate a large commercial project, which after the ordinance was passed, they decided it was more trouble than it was worth. you have to understand that this is not just a simple 25% tax bill.

it is a rather convoluted a question involving the imputed rent and a capitalization factor. indeed, some people may find in san francisco that is more trouble than it is worth. we have not experienced much, if any, interest in resident or property owners, which is unlike many other communities. i think part of it certainly comes from the cumbersome way we dealt with them here and the fact that the board of supervisors had to approved the contract. other cities have different city charters or may operate under municipal code. many of these contracts can be done expeditiously by a city staff. but we, being san francisco, are going to have to send these to the board. [bell rings] this will be the third version of the mills act and i think it is worth trying again. is worth trying again. but based on my experience, this