Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs Mills Act administrative changes aimed at streamlining access for historic property owners
Summary
The commission recommended amendments to Mills Act administration: synchronized application schedules, standardized contracts and reduced fees to expand participation. Commissioners debated codifying value limits; the commission voted unanimously to parallel Historic Preservation Commission recommendations with an amendment changing preference language.
The Planning Commission heard an extensive presentation on proposed amendments to the city’s administration of the Mills Act and voted to forward recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Scott Wiener and Planning Department staff described a package intended to simplify and expand access for owners of historic properties, particularly smaller owners, by setting an annual synchronized application schedule, developing standardized contract templates with the City Attorney, and significantly lowering application fees.
Supervisor Scott Wiener said the Mills Act is intended to help property owners maintain historic properties and that San Francisco’s program has been difficult for smaller owners to access. “We make it very, very hard for people, particularly, smaller property owners to access the Mills Act,” Wiener said, noting the intent to make the program more predictable and easier to use.
Planning staff (Tim Frey) provided data showing San Francisco had only five active Mills Act contracts and that annual tax savings across those contracts were roughly $450,000; the average per contract was approximately $19,000 after accounting for one unusual large condominium aggregation at 690 Market Street. Staff proposed reducing single‑family application fees from about $9,000 to $2,500 and commercial fees from about $18,000 to $5,000, and instituting clear filing deadlines and a monitoring report to the Board of Supervisors every three years.
Commissioner discussion focused on whether to codify property‑value eligibility limits (staff proposed codifying lower limits such as $1.5 million for single‑family and $3 million for others, while the Historic Preservation Commission recommended retaining $3M/$5M as policy rather than code). Several commissioners said they favored keeping high‑level flexibility and preferred the HPC’s approach. Public commenters with Mills Act experience urged realistic expectations about uptake and cautioned this is not a cure‑all for preservation challenges.
The commission ultimately moved to parallel the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendations, with an amendment to change “shall” language to “preference” regarding priority processing for properties under certain value thresholds. The motion passed unanimously. Staff said the department will continue outreach and update application materials and will work with the Board of Supervisors and other stakeholders on final code language and implementation details.
