CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OF THE SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY PROGRAM
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
___________________________________________________________
Meeting Minutes
for
Monday, October 16, 2006 at 4:00 PM
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
Present: Chair James Reilly, Mr. Bruce Engle, Ms. Jill Fox, Mr. douglas Shoemaker (sitting in for Mr. Matthew O. Franklin), Sister bernie galvin, Ms. Ana B. Gutierrez and Ms. Carmen Chu (Sitting in for Ms. Noelle Simmons)
Absent: vice-Chair Jay bradshaw, Supervisor Chris Daly, Mr. Richard Lee and Mr. Leroy Moore, Jr.
Staff: Mr. Joel Lipski, Mr. Scott Madden and Ms. Lynn Hua
1. Roll Call
Chair Reilly called the meeting to order at 4:10 PM. Roll call was conducted and a quorum was recognized, with four members absent.
2. Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting
Ms. Fox commented that the Recreation and Parks Department should be RPD and not DRP and suggested that it be changed in the meeting minutes. A motion was made by Mr. Shoemaker to approve the July 17, 2006 meeting minutes with the change suggested by Ms. Fox. The motion was seconded by Ms. Gutierrez and unanimously passed.
3. Director's Report
Mr. Lipski updated the Committee on the status of some of the surplus sites:
341 Corbett Street – the site is waiting to be heard by the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors.
Broadway and Sansome – The Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) has entered into an agreement with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) to manage the development of the site. MOH is close to issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a developer to build affordable housing on the site, including housing for families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
840 Clipper Street and 195 Portola - The City Attorney has reported to staff that the intent of the legislation is to exempt only properties that are designated as open space under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Parks Department. It does not exempt properties that are under the jurisdiction of other departments. Since both 840 Clipper and 195 Portola are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works (DPW), the properties are not exempted; therefore, staff intends to request that they be transferred to MOH's jurisdiction.
Ms. Fox requested that the Committee be informed when a surplus property go before the Board of Supervisors so that interested members may attend the hearing.
4. Consideration of Main Menu
(a) 1051 Palou Avenue Site
Mr. Madden presented for Committee review an analysis of the development potential and marketability of the site for light industrial uses. The parcel is located in the Bayview District, about 5 blocks SE of Third Street. A portion of the site is triangular and the other portion is relatively long and narrow. The entire site is paved over with concrete slab. It appears that the neighborhood community church is using the site for parking. In the immediate vicinity of the parcel, there are single and multi-family residential uses, light industrial uses and a religious use next door. The site lacks the minimum rear yard setback requirement of 15 feet for residential development.
At the previous meeting, staff has recommended that the parcel be transferred back to the Department of Public Works. The Committee has asked staff to investigate the commercial value of the site and look into the potential of developing the site for some light industrial uses. Staff has asked the Department of Real Estate (DRE) to evaluate the site for light industrial uses. DRE has concluded that the site is too constraint by its irregular shape and lacks the minimum depth require for any type of usable development to occur.
There was no public comment on item 4(a).
Chair Reilly made a motion to recommend that the 1051 Palou Avenue site be sold on the open market. The motion was seconded by Ms. Fox and unanimously passed.
(b) 114 Elmira Street Site
Mr. Madden presented the findings of the follow-up investigation of the housing development potential of the site requested by the Committee at its meeting on July 17, 2006. The site is located in the Silver Terrace neighborhood in the Bayview District. The site is a trapezoid in shape with a total size of approximately 2,420 sq. ft. The site completes the northwest cul-de-sac corner of Elmira Street. The site consists of paved concrete and appears to be less than 100 feet from an elevated freeway to the north. Residents are currently using the site for additional street parking. The adjacent properties are all single-family residential homes. The site is zoned P (public use), and would need to be rezoned to accommodate any other use. For housing uses, it is customary for a P zoned site to receive the zoning designation of the property nearest to its location. In the case of this particular site the nearest zoned property is RH-1, which allows one dwelling per lot, up to one unit per 3,000 sq. ft., with a minimum lot size of 2,500 sq. ft. The site does not meet this requirement.
At the previous meeting, the Committee has requested that staff investigate the possibility of developing a mini park at the site, as well as looking into ways to increasing the lot size of the parcel. The Recreation and Parks Department evaluated the site for the possibility of a mini park and did not feel that it is a desirable location for a park due to the parcel's small lot size, its location adjacent to a freeway and the limited accessibility into the site. Also, the site is located in a neighborhood that has not been identified by RPD as having a need for more open space. Mr. Madden informed the Committee that lots 051 and 052 have single-family residences, lot 058 is owned by the City but has not been declared surplus property and lot 057 is owned by the State. Staff recommended that the parcel be transferred back to the Department of Public Works (DPW) because it does not meet the minimum lot size requirement for housing development in the district.
There was no public comment on item 4(b).
Mr. Shoemaker made a motion to approve staff's recommendation of transferring the 114 Elmira Street site back to the Department of Public Works. The motion was seconded by Sister Galvin and unanimously passed.
(c) Discussion of Ways to Increase the Number of Surplus City Properties
Mr. Madden game a presentation on how city properties are deemed surplus per the Surplus City Property Ordinance. Mr. Madden explained that each year City departments are required to submit a list of properties that are under their jurisdictions to the City Administrator. The report must contain the property address, lot/block, description of land and structures, current or planned use, if the parcel is vacant and whether it is surplus or underutilized . Surplus is defined as not required by a department to fulfill its mission. Underutilized is defined as a property that is used intermittently. The City Administrator complies the initial list and removes properties that are under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Parks Department, part of public right-of-way, needed by another department or subject to deed restrictions that prevent disposition. The City Administrator then submits legislation to the Board of Supervisors to transfer the surplus properties to the Mayor's Office of Housing, except for properties that are under the jurisdictions of Enterprise Departments, such as Recreation and Parks, Port, Public Utilities Commission, Airport, MTA and Fine Arts Museums.
The Committee discussed ways to increase the number of surplus properties that are available for evaluation and disposition for purposes and uses consistent with the ordinance. Mr. Shoemaker commented that maybe there should be some kind of financial incentives for other city departments to declare properties that are under their jurisdiction as surplus. He also felt that city properties that are used solely for surface parking are underutilized and thought that maybe such sites should be included on the surplus properties list. Mr. Shoemaker expressed an interest in having the Committee take on a role of identifying city sites that are not on the surplus properties list, but that they feel might have some potential for development.
Sister Galvin inquired as to whether there is a clear definition of underutilized or is it subject to interpretation by the city departments. Mr. Madden responded that the term underutilized is not clearly defined in the ordinance and that it is a qualitative judgment that city departments are left to make on their own.
Ms. Fox commented that there should be a list of criteria that a property must meet in order for it to be transferred to the Surplus City Property Program. She suggested that there be a minimum lot size requirement on the list of criteria so that staff and the committee do not waste time reviewing tiny, unusable sites. She would also like to have some kind of physical accessibility requirement put into the ordinance so that properties that are land locked do not get transfer.
There was no public comment on item 4(c).
Chair Reilly agree with other committee members that there needs to be a better definition of underutilized in the ordinance and suggested that for the next meeting, staff prepare a list of criteria for the committee to review and possibly recommend to the City Administrator and Board of Supervisors.
5. Committee Members' Questions and Matters
None
6. Public Comment
None
Public Comment Closed.
7. The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 PM.