CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OF THE SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY PROGRAM
CITYAND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
________________________________________________________________________
Special Meeting Minutes
for
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 4:00 PM
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
Present: Chairperson Richard Lee, Vice-chairperson James Reilly, Ms. Jamie Armstrong, Mr. Scott Clark, Supervisor Chris Daly, Ms. Jill Fox, Ms. Teresa Yanga (sitting in for Mr. Matthew O. Franklin), Sister Bernie Galvin, Ms. Ana B. Gutierrez and Mr. Leroy Moore, Jr.
Absent: Mr. Ben Rosenfield
Staff: Mr. Joel Lipski, Ms. Joan McNamara, Ms. Lynn Hua
________________________________________________________________________
1. Roll Call
Chairperson Lee called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM. Roll call was conducted and a quorum was recognized. Mr. Clark arrived at 4:10 pm and Supervisor Daly arrived at 5:00 PM.
2. Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting
A motion to approve the October 20, 2004 meeting minutes was made by Ms. Fox and seconded by Ms. Armstrong. The committee unanimously approved the motion.
3. Director’s Report
None
4. Consideration of Main Menu
(a) Public Noticing of Committee Deliberations Regarding Specific Sites
Ms. Amy Brown, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of noticing requirements related to the disposition of real property. Most of the surplus properties that were transferred to the Mayor’s Office of Housing jurisdiction are currently zoned P (Public). If the committee recommends the parcels for development, they would need to be rezoned by the Planning Department. The Planning Department is required to mail notices to residents that reside within 300 feet of the subject property at least 10 days prior to a hearing and to placed notices in publication at least 20 days in advance. If an Environmental Impact Report is involved, public noticing of at least 30 days and no longer than 60 days is also required. For a Conditional Use Permit or General Plan Amendment, the noticing requirement is similar to that of rezoning. In addition, public noticing is required at least 10 days before any action can be taken by the Board of Supervisors concerning disposition of City real property. Also, if the Mayor’s Office of Housing provides financing for development of the parcels, a 15 days public noticing is required under Proposition I. Ms. Brown commented that there would be many opportunities throughout the process for public noticing. The Board of Supervisors chose not to add any additional noticing requirement in the Surplus Property Ordinance and in order to do so would require an approval by the Board.
Mr. Moore inquired if public notices are published in any other publication beside the Independent. Ms. Brown responded that the Independent is the official noticing publication for the City and County of San Francisco.
Sister Galvin inquired if a Request for Proposal (RFP) has been issued for any of the parcels prior to them being transferred to MOH’s jurisdiction. Mr. Lipski responded that no RFP has been issued on the parcels.
Ms. Fox commented that she would like to have simple, 81/2 x 11 laminated signs post up at the fifteen parcels to inform neighboring residents of the process early on and to allow interested parties to be placed on the mailing list.
Sister Galvin inquired if a summary of the presentation by Ms. Brown would be made available to the committee. Ms. Brown responded that she would provide a summary of the public noticing requirement to the committee.
Public Comment
Mr. Richard Magary, of the Buena Vista Neighborhood Association (BVNA), spoke that his neighborhood association is primarily interested in the Henry Roosevelt and 341 Corbett sites. He commented that the city has a good notification process, but often it does not reach all interested parties. The BVNA has developed a database of residents and absentee homeowners in the neighborhood and would use the database to keep people inform of the process.
Mr. Curt Holzinger commented that it was important for public noticing to occur early if a site is to be rezoned.
Ms. Brown clarified that the Citizens Advisory Committee does not make recommendation or decision concerning rezoning. Rezoning issues must go through the Planning Department, which have their own public notification process. In addition, the Citizens Advisory Committee is an advisory body and makes recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which would make the final decision concerning the disposition of the surplus properties.
Vice-chairperson Reilly made a motion to closed agenda item 4(a) and moved to the next agenda item. The motion was second by Sister Galvin and passed by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 - Chairperson Lee, Vice-chairperson Reilly, Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Clark, Sister Galvin, Ms. Gutierrez
Noes: 3 - Ms. Fox, Ms. Yanga, Mr. Moore
Absent: 2 - Supervisor Daly, Mr. Rosenfield
(b) Review of 2003 Sites to be Considered by Committee for Program priority uses
Mr. Lipski presented summary descriptions of the fifteen 2003 parcels that were transferred to the Mayor’s Office of Housing jurisdiction for consideration of their suitability for use as sites for homeless housing or services or for affordable rental housing.
Public Comment
Ms. Barbara Blong, from the Senior Action Network, Senior Housing Action Committee and Homeless Senior Task Force, inquired if the 150 Otis site is designated as a city landmark. Mr. Lipski responded that the building currently enjoys the status of an historical property even though it is not designated as a landmark. As a result, alteration to its exterior must conform to certain standards, but the interior is not affected by the landmark status.
Mr. Russel Morine, a volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, made a suggestion that the committee consider building permanent affordable single family residences on parcels that are deemed unsuitable for multi-family housing.
Sister Galvin inquired as to which city departments have jurisdiction over the properties and if a property could be swap with another city property if it is deemed not suitable for housing development. Mr. Lipski responded that all the properties were transferred to the Mayor’s Office of Housing in June 2004 and is under MOH’s jurisdiction. Supervisor Daly commented that he wanted to move the properties quickly under the Surplus Properties Ordinance and to MOH’s jurisdiction in order to prevent the properties from being sold as a budget-balancing act. The idea of parcels transfer may make sense in order to acquire some properties that the Board of Supervisors has no jurisdiction over, such as properties under the Public Utilities Commission.
Public Comment
Mr. Emeric Kalman made an inquiry regarding state surplus properties. Chairperson Lee responded that state surplus properties fall under the state’s jurisdiction and not under the Citizens Advisory Committee.
(c) Prioritization of Sites for Committee Consideration
The committee discussed the order in which it wishes to consider the suitability and possible disposition of the fifteen parcels that were transferred to MOH’s jurisdiction.
Sister Galvin suggested that the last three properties be first on the next agenda since they are the most developable. Ms. Fox suggested that the smaller, probably not developable parcels be reviewed first since they are less complex. Ms. Fox felt that by reviewing the easier parcels first, committee members would be able to acquire more expertise to deal with the more complex parcels. Vice-chairperson Reilly suggested that the 201 Broadway site be review first since it is the cleanness and simplest one to deal with.
Public Comment
John Melone, from Senior Action Network, commented that the Department of Human Services obtained $500,000 from the state to be used for transitional housing at the 150 Otis site. If the money is not used quickly, it will be return to the state. Mr. Melone suggested that the 150 Otis site be first on the priority list.
Paul Noble commented that the 201 Broadway site be reviewed first since there are many possible uses for the 150 Otis site, which would take a lot longer. Mr. Noble encouraged the committee to look at alternative uses for the parcels if they are deemed not appropriate for housing.
Committee members discuss rather to have the 150 Otis site or 201 Broadway site be reviewed first at the next meeting. Sister Galvin commented that in light of the concern expressed by Senior Action Network, she would propose that the 150 Otis site be reviewed first. After much discussion, Vice-chairperson Reilly made a motion for 201 Broadway to be reviewed first at the next meeting, followed by 150 Otis St. and then 155/165 Grove St. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and passed unanimously, with Supervisor Daly abstaining.
Due to the limited time, a motion was made by Ms. Yanga, seconded by Mr. Moore, and unanimously approved, to move item 4(d) and 4 (e) to the next meeting.
5. Committee Members’ Questions and Matter
None
6. Public Comment
Mr. Emeric Kalman commented that some departments such as the Public Utilities Commission has sold surplus properties for private development and inquired if is required that the proceeds from those sales go to the PUC general fund or to homeless services.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 PM.