An Alternative Future for the North East Mission Industrial Zone

AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE 

Prepared by the Mission 

Coalition for Economic Justice 

&Jobs on behalf of the workers, 

residents, artists, property owners 

and businesses in the North East 

Mission Industrial Zone. 

March 3, 2003 

N E 

M IZ 

orth 

ast 

ission 

ndustrial 

one

AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE 

Prepared by the Mission 

Coalition for Economic Justice 

&Jobs on behalf of the workers, 

residents, artists, property owners 

and businesses in the North East 

Mission Industrial Zone. 

March 3, 2003 

Prepared for MCEJJ by: 

Community Design + Architecture, Inc. 

Brion & Associates 

N E 

M IZ 

orth 

ast 

ission 

ndustrial 

one

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I.1 

Issues and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I.3 

NEMIZ Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I.5 

Planning and Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I.6 

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I.8 

EXISTING CONDITIONS 

Land Uses 

Building Stock 

Streets and Transportation Access 

Market 

Community Structure and Social Issues 

LITERATURE REVIEW & CASE STUDIES 

Current Industrial Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.3 

Current Industrial Market in San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.3 

Current Industrial Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.5 

Summary of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.6 

Flexibility: Allowing Businesses to Use Space to Stay Competitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.6 

Property Values: Restrictive Zoning Can Negatively Impact Property Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.7 

Industrial Protective Zoning: Mostly Temporary Rather Than Permanent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.8 

Job Preservation: Often the Goal but not Always the Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.9 

Land Use Compatibility: Residential Development is the Biggest Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.10 

Community Planning and Input: Vital to Successful Industrial Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.11 

Reuse: Industrial Districts as New Economic Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.12 

IPZ Case Studies and Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.14 

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.14 

West Berkeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.16 

Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.20 

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.21 

Boston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.24 

New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.25 

Exit Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.28 

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.29 

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III.29

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 

Input from Workshop Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV.2 

Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV.2 

Vision and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV.2 

Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV.2 

Final Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV.4 

Concerns Regarding Potential of Creating Existing Non-conforming Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV.5 

PLANNING & PUBLIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

APPENDIX 

Citywide Industrial Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V.1 

NEMIZ Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V.5 

Small Group Reports from the NEMIZ Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.1

The history of this neighborhood is almost as rich 

as its future. Originally built along transportation 

routes adjacent to Mission Creek, the community 

grew up hosting a variety of light and heavy industrial 

uses in the early part of the 20th century and 

as was the case with many industrial areas of this 

period, housing and retail uses were mixed in. The 

area managed to simultaneously fold in large and 

small industrial facilities while developing the 

attributes of a mixed-use urban community. The 

district held an important symbiotic role with its 

immediate place in the Mission and with the City 

of San Francisco and the Region. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Within the Mission District lies 

an equally distinct mixed-use 

neighborhood known presently 

as the North East Mission 

Industrial Zone. The industrial 

designation belies the neighborhood’s 

true character as a community 

of residents, businesses, 

workers, and artists. 

A typical “mixed-use” building in the NEMIZ

An Alternative Future for the NEMIZ 

Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs 

Byer clothing is one of many important business in the 

NEMIZ involved in production, distribution and repair. 

Beginning in the 1960s, some of these industrial 

uses began to leave the area following an economic 

evolution of jobs, housing, and transportation 

inputs. The neighborhood, due in large part to 

the fact that it accommodated a mix of uses as it 

grew, remained stable through the change. Many 

businesses involved in production, distribution 

and repair remained, while in place of those that 

left the area, new types of businesses and residences 

have found their place in the NEMIZ, continuing 

the tradition of use diversity in the neighborhood. 

Today, the City and the NEMIZ are faced with the 

challenge of retaining appropriate production, distribution 

and repair (PDR) jobs in San Francisco 

while preserving this neighborhood’s capacity for 

diversity in use. While these goals are not mutually 

exclusive, MCEJJ is concerned about the ability 

of current zoning proposals to effectively “protect” 

the needs of today’s PDR businesses and worries 

that such protective zoning will simultaneously 

undermine the mix of uses that make the 

NEMIZ valuable. In addition, there is while preserving 

the opportunity for investment in the 

NEMIZ. The Mission Coalition for Economic 

Justice and Jobs (MCEJJ) is using its intimate 

knowledge of the neighborhood and its stakeholders 

to develop a future for the NEMIZ that is compatible 

with these goals. Toward this end, MCEJJ 

has hired a team of professionals to assist them in 

I.2 Executive Summary 

understanding the legal, planning, and market 

implications which will factor into this vision. The 

team has come up with a uniquely qualified alternative 

that is focused on the NEMIZ, while inclusive 

of broader City goals. MCEJJ’s work provides 

for a more detailed analysis of NEMIZ-specific 

issues than the planning department could feasibly 

accomplish with its own resources. 

This Executive Summary outlines MCEJJ’s policy 

and planning recommendations and the work that 

underlies these conclusions. More detailed information 

is provided in the full report which is available 

by contacting MCEJJ at (415) 487-4552. 

The City’s Planning for the Mission and the 

NEMIZ has taken place in the context of a much 

larger planning project to rezone San Francisco’s 

Five Eastern neighborhoods, including SoMa, 

Bayview, Visitacion Valley, and Showplace 

Square/Potrero Hill and the Mission. Each neighborhood 

has been examined individually, however 

they are connected by a citywide strategy to retain 

a set of uses within the city that would fall under a 

new zoning category “Production, Distribution 

and Repair” (PDR). PDR uses include a broad 

range of businesses including: 

Food and beverage wholesale and distribution; 

Fashion/garment design and manufacture; 

Delivery services (messengers, airport 

shuttle vans, taxis, limousines); 

Event production and catering; 

Construction contractors and building 

material suppliers; 

Wholesale and retail of furniture, equipment, 

appliances, and furniture manufacture; 

and, 

Printers, designers, photographers; film 

producers, graphic designers, and soundrecording 

firms.

The City is addressing areas which are currently 

zoned as M-1 & M-2 Industrial which typically 

contain PDR uses. The industrial designation 

places few restrictions on allowable uses, historically 

allowing housing and office to develop in these 

previously light industrial areas and in some cases 

increasing rents in these areas. As a result, some 

industries described as PDR have seemingly been 

“priced out.” In response, the city is proposing the 

creation of multiple PDR protection zones. 

But, the analysis must go to a much higher level of 

detail in order to accurately assess the neighborhood-specific 

demand and supply for PDR. For 

example, certain types of PDR may be better-suited 

for one neighborhood than another. The types 

of businesses that may fall under the PDR designation 

vary greatly, while others, for a broader variety 

of reasons, are choosing to leave San Francisco. 

Some types of PDR businesses may provide jobs 

for a broader skilled workforce in the City, while 

others may be much more specialized. Some 

require large single-level buildings, whereas others 

can be located on upper floors. Most importantly, 

some PDR uses may require zoning intervention 

to ensure their continued existence in the City, 

whereas other businesses may require other types 

of economic incentives to encourage them to 

locate in San Francisco. Still other PDR businesses 

compete effectively in the San Francisco real estate 

market and thus may require no intervention at all. 

Efforts to preserve PDR must be balanced with a 

desire to accommodate growth industries such as 

high tech, bio-tech and Research and 

Development, which are growth industries. In 

addition numerous questions about enforcement, 

compatibility and the role of zoning in “preserving” 

PDR jobs exist. 

Issues and Concerns 

The NEMIZ is a vibrant mixed-use district. 

Residents, business owners, and property owners 

want zoning that reflects this and allows the neighborhood 

to grow and flourish. The Department’s 

proposals do not reflect the existing complexity of 

land uses and activities in the NEMIZ. As much 


Conflicting access requirements, narrow streets, and outdated 

loading provisions the NEMIZ less than ideal for 

the location needs of today’s large industrial users and 

distributors. 

Nearly one-half of the “Core” PDR users in the NEMIZ 

are public institutions or utilities such as MUNI and 

PG&E which are unlikely to be displaced by market 

forces. 

Executive Summary 

I.3 

An Alternative Future for the NEMIZ



as 30% of the existing uses would be non-conforming 

if the current planning department proposal 

is adopted. There is at least 1.1 million 

square feet of larger businesses in the NEMIZ, of 

which the average size is about 43,000 square feet. 

About 14 of these businesses are larger PDR users 

and combined occupy about 465,000 square feet 

of space. Under Planning Staff's proposed land use 

definitions, many of these larger users would not 

be an allowable use, including Dolby and Williams 

Sonoma. The definitions of PDR need to be 

broad enough in the NEMIZ to accommodate 

existing users and to allow such important users to 

expand. 

MCEJJ hired Brion & Associates and Community 

Design + Architecture to look more closely at real 

estate trends in the San Francisco Bay Area and 

similar city-regions over the past twenty years. The 

team found that manufacturing and distribution 

jobs have been leaving San Francisco (and other 

cities) as result of regional shifts in transportation 

modes and infrastructure, real estate values, building 

technology, product types, and worker migration. 

Only rarely have land use policies clearly 

swayed the location decisions of large and medium 

size industrial (PDR) firms. Interviews with San 

Francisco real estate brokers and PDR-related 

firms indicates that these businesses have left San 

A mix of uses commonly co-exist in adjacent relationships 

in the NEMIZ 


Francisco not only because of rents, but because of 

high city business taxes; lack of skilled workforce 

and high wages; poor access and transportation; 

and, bureaucratic red tape. In fact, industrial rents 

are below where they were five years ago and there 

is a 40% citywide vacancy rate for large, multistory 

industrial buildings. This information suggests 

that it is unrealistic to expect that zoning will 

reverse these regional trends. Instead restrictive 

zoning could discourage investment in these 

neighborhoods. 

According to the City’s own data, approximately 

34% of the City’s PDR jobs are located outside the 

five Eastern Neighborhoods. It is not clear why 

these jobs would not need “protection.” The 

MCEJJ land use survey also found that nearly half 

of the PDR in the NEMIZ is associated with utilities 

and public facilities such as PG&E and 

MUNI that are unlikely to be displaced by market 

forces and thus do not require “special protection.” 

There is currently 5.0 million square feet of vacant 

industrial space in San Francisco, most of which is 

located in the Bayview/Bayshore area. These are 

areas where the building supply and vehicle access 

best fits the needs of ‘Core’ PDR businesses. An 

IPZ protecting ‘Core’ PDR businesses would be 

most effective here. 

The MCEJJ examined other cities’ attempts to retain 

industrial jobs

For non-Core PDR users, such as furniture repair 

or smaller catering operations, districts such as the 

NEMIZ can provide the mix of uses upon which 

smaller users depend. Most “PDR” users still interested 

in remaining in San Francisco are small users. 

Their needs average about 5,000 square feet and 

they employ 5-6 people. These types of PDR uses 

already co-exist with other uses in the NEMIZ. 

Down-zoning the majority of the NEMIZ as an 

IPZ will disrupt this neighborhood which hosts 

over 500 live/work units and a thriving arts and 

entertainment cluster. 

NEMIZ Workshop 

On November 16, 2002 the 

MCEJJ sponsored a NEMIZspecific 

community workshop 

aimed at establishing goals for 

the future of the NEMIZ and 

to brainstorm zoning alternatives 

to present to the city. The workshop 

drew a wide range of participants, 

including residents, workers, business 

owners, property owners, plus 

community and civic leaders from 

the NEMIZ, the Mission, and San 

Francisco at-large. The overwhelming 

message received from 

participants was that the existing 

unique mix of uses is the area’s primary 

asset. Most participants were concerned 

that restrictive zoning could undermine this existing 

and future asset. In particular, participants 

were concerned about the potential for 

rezoning to make some of the 

neighborhood’s landmarks nonconforming 

uses. Participants 

worked in small groups to develop 

alternative zoning concepts for the 

NEMIZ. Most groups developed plans that 

included both policies and programs (including, 

but not limited to zoning) that promote a finegrained 

mix of compatible uses and most also created 

a small IPZ in the Northeastern corner of 

the NEMIZ. A summary of the workshop is available 

in Chapter IV of the Final Report. 


Small groups mapped 

their ideas for zoning in 

the NEMIZ and presented 

them to the larger 

workshop. 


I.5 




Planning and Policy 

Recommendations 

Based on the input received at the workshop, the 

research and analysis prepared by the team of consultants 

hired by MCEJJ, and the direction of the 

diverse interests of the MCEJJ executive committee, 

the team has developed a community-based 

land use and policy alternative that supports the 

goals of maintaining the mixed-use character of 

the neighborhood, maintaining PDR jobs in the 

City, accommodating future industry growth, and 

improving the connection of the NEMIZ with 

surrounding neighborhoods. This plan reflects 

current conditions and economic trends, and 

allows the NEMIZ to build upon its diverse 

appeal, while ensuring that development is not 

haphazard nor dominated by one use. 

While the MCEJJ’s efforts have focused on the 

NEMIZ there are some recommendations that 

apply not just to the NEMIZ but to industrial 

policies for the entire City. The following is a 

summary of the Team’s recommendations. A more 

detailed description of our recommendations may 

be found in Chapter V of the Final Report. 

Under the MCEJJ’s proposed zoning, Mission Linen would 

continue to operate alongside a mix of uses (including 

smaller PDR businesses) as it does today. 


Citywide Industrial Policy 


Further define and refine the definition of 

PDR. The definitions of PDR need to be 

further refined to be more related to the 

potential impacts of PDR activities. When 

the PDR definitions are linked to land use 

type consideration needs to be given to the 

access, building-type, and space requirements 

of various PDR types. 

Consider Setting Environmental and 

Other Performance Standards. The City 

should investigate developing a set of environmental 

and performance standards that 

can be applied to PDR businesses (which 

have the potential for noise, truck traffic, 

and other special impacts) and all types of 

development in IPZs. 

Evaluate Each Industrial Neighborhood 

and Customize the Approach to Local 

Conditions within the Broader City and 

Regional Context. The City needs to carefully 

evaluate each of the Eastern 

Neighborhoods to determine what if any 

areas have the necessary conditions to support 

an IPZ and what type of IPZ, or 

whether that neighborhood has transitioned 

to a mixed-use or other type of district 

that can still accomodate a subset of 

PDR uses. 

Develop a Comprehensive Industrial 

Preservation Policy. The City needs to 

develop a comprehensive industrial (‘Core’ 

PDR) preservation policy with a series of 

economic development programs and 

financial assistance programs to help 

ensure that industrial jobs are protected 

and encouraged. Zoning alone is not sufficient 

to retain industrial jobs and businesses 

in San Francisco.

Any IPZ Program Needs to Be Flexible 

and Include Monitoring. If the City establishes 

permanent IPZs, the program needs 

to allow for flexibility and monitoring and 

evaluation with the option that an IPZ can 

be removed if it proves to be unsuccessful 

and/or unnecessary. 

NEMIZ Recommendations 

Eliminate the Potential for “Pre-existing 

Non-conforming” Uses. The City’s most 

recent preferred zoning option would 

result in a large number of “pre-existing 

non-conforming” uses, about 180 parcels 

or 1/3 of the NEMIZ total land area. New 

zoning should consider existing land use 

patterns to reduce this potential, and a 

new approach to non-conforming uses 

should be defined that eliminates the negative 

impacts of this designation. 

MCEJJ’s recommendations for new zoning 

designations address this issue directly 

by minimizing the number of parcels and 

buildings that do not fit within the land 

use designations for the various zones. 

There will likely be a small number of uses 

in the PDR/IPZ Zone and other zones 

that will need to be classified as pre-exist- 

A “Cultural” zoning overlay would retain and encourage 

artists and arts organizations such Theater Artaud to 

locate in the NEMIZ. 


ing non-conforming uses. These uses 

should be “grandfathered” to allow them 

to continue as viable uses. We recommend 

that NEMIZ-specific non-conforming use 

requirements be defined that give businesses, 

residents, and property owners certainty 

that their pre-existing uses will be 

allowed to function into the future. 

Designate NEMIZ-Specific PDR 

Definitions. MCEJJ has prepared a 

NEMIZ-specific set of definitions for 

PDR uses that reflect the existing uses and 

available building types, parcel sizes, and 

access opportunities and constraints within 

the NEMIZ. These definitions represent 

the inventory of fine-grained land 

uses revealed in MCEJJ’s survey of land 

uses in the NEMIZ (e.g. “R&D PDR”, 

“Clothing PDR,” “Tech/Media 

PDR,”etc.). Building on the work of the 

Housing Action Committee on PDR zoning 

categories, MCEJJ has categorized 

these fine-grained uses into “Core”, 

“Medium” and “Light” PDR 

categories.These categories provide a more 

precise understanding of the compatibility 

of PDR with other land uses. 

The Majority of the NEMIZ Should Have 

Mixed-Use Designations. The majority of 

the non-IPZ areas of the NEMIZ are currently 

mixed-use in nature and new zoning 

should reflect and support these patterns 

of use that are valued by the community. 

The MCEJJ Consensus Zoning District 

Map (below) proposes mixed-use designations 

to reflect and encourage the existing 

land use patterns. The majority of the 

NEMIZ to the south of 16th Street would 

be zoned as a “NEMIZ Mixed-Use Zone” 

to allow ground floor ‘medium’ and ‘light’ 

with PDR with residential or small and 

medium office uses above. Small office 

and retail uses would be permitted on the 

ground floor. 


I.7 




Create a Small IPZ Focused on Key ‘Core’ 

PDR Uses. A portion of the NEMIZ 

should be considered for an IPZ, generally 

in the northeast corner of the district to 

protect Core PDR users with superior 

transportation access and larger floorplates. 

Redefine the Boundaries of the NEMIZ. 

Some areas on the edges of the NEMIZ 

are primarily residential or have a stronger 

relationship to adjacent planning areas. 

These areas, including the ‘tail’ of the 

NEMIZ to the south of 20th Street should 

be designated Residential/Mixed-Use in 

order to encourage integration into the 

larger Mission Neighborhood District. 


EARL 

TON 

NAN 

TH 

TH 

SER 

AMP 

ND 

DUBOCE 

DEARBORN 

LGIN 

BIRD 

LINDA 

LAPIDGE 

CALEDONIA 

SPARROW 

CUNNINGHAM 

JULIAN 

CLARION 

SYCAMORE 

Commercial 

IPZ/’Core’ PDR 

NEMIZ Mixed Use 

PDR/Commercial 

Pub Cultural/Open Space 

Residential 

Residential/Mixed Use 

RONDEL 

WOODWARD 

LEXI 

WIESE 

HOFF 

SAN C 

IS 

MINNA 

CAPP 

NATOMA 

ADAIR 

Conclusion 

MCEJJ proposed zoning alternative (described in greater detail in Chapter V) 

ISIS 

The MCEJJ has invested in this effort with a sincere 

regard for the economic and social health of 

the City and for the variety of interests in the 

NEMIZ. The team’s constituents have worked 

tirelessly with each other and the San Francisco 

community to identify a balanced approach to 

achieving the goals of the interests. Chapters II 

though V of the final report document the team’s 

findings and provide further explanation of the 

recommendations. 

TRAINOR 

ENTERPRISE 

BERNICE 

TREAT 

2TH 

MISTRAL 

15TH 

Commercial Overlay 

New NEMIZ Boundary 

1 

Cultural/Commercial 

Transit Corridor 

Transit Corridor & Cultural/Commercial 

LK HAMPSHIRE 

13TH 

ALABAMA 

11TH 

15TH 

MARIPOSA 

BRYAN 

10TH 

18TH 

DORE 

HWY 101 TO I 80 

BRANNAN 

POTRER

EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT 

This chapter to be completed at a later date.

LITERATURE REVIEW & CASE STUDIES 

ON INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONING 

This literature review has been conducted to 

answer the following questions. 

1) What policies and programs are other cities considering 

in reaction to changing business practices 

and other conditions that are resulting in the 

decline or haphazard transformation of their 

industrial areas? 

2) Of the few cities that have undertaken industrial 

protective zoning (IPZ), how have they implemented 

such policies and zoning, and have they 

been successful? 

3) What are the general trends in the development 

community concerning industrial properties and 

development? 

This chapter draws from planning 

literature and from case studies of 

policies and programs being undertaken 

by cities around the United 

States, and from data specifically 

related to industrial conditions in 

San Francisco and the NEMIZ. This 

chapter will summarize the information 

gathered related to the major 

trends in industrial planning, policy, 

and development, and particularly 

how these trends should be considered 

in the City’s public policy revisions 

for the Mission District and the 

NEMIZ. 

4) What are the current market conditions for 

industrial development in San Francisco and in the 

NEMIZ? 

5) Why have many PDR businesses left San 

Francisco? What factors contributed to decisions 

to leave the City or to shut down a PDR business? 

To accomplish the above we conducted an extensive 

literature review, performed five case studies of 

other cities with IPZs, and conducted a series of 

exit interviews with PDR businesses that have 

recently left or are considering leaving San 

Francisco. We also interviewed a prominent San 

Francisco industrial real estate brokerage firm 

(HC&M Commercial) that works predominantly 

in the five Eastern Neighborhoods listed above and



acquired current vacant industrial space data from 

this firm, which are analyzed and discussed herein. 

The literature addresses many aspects of industrial 

development and zoning. It is true that over the 

last ten or more years a handful of cities have discussed 

and adopted IPZs. However, while all types 

of cities _ large and small and rural and urban _ 

wrestle with the issue of what to do with industrial 

districts and how to encourage and protect 

industrial jobs, the solutions these cities have 

adopted are very different. Successful solutions 

need to consider local economic conditions, which 

generally vary greatly from city to city or region to 

region. What works in Chicago or Baltimore is not 

necessarily appropriate for San Francisco or the 

Bay Area. Informed and rational industrial policy 

needs to consider both the macro issues facing 

industrial users generally and the micro specifics of 

the local real estate market and economy. 

Most of the ten of so cities that have IPZs now 

recognize that this restriction needs to be reconsidered 

and updated to foster continued economic 

prosperity. Cities must have flexibility and allow 

for the needs of growing and/or new (unknown) 

industries, which use a combination of office and 

other types of space called “flex-space.” The term 

“flex-space” was coined by the real estate industry 

to describe the type of space that has been developed 

throughout the Bay Area and Silicon Valley. 

The term means space that can be easily used and 

adapted to reflect the individual needs of particular 

tenants and that can be changed quickly as tenants’ 

needs change, both functionally and in relation 

to space needs, or as tenants turn over. 

Restricting office space development will inherently 

end up restricting R&D (or PDR) development, 

as office space is an integral part of R&D activity 

and of many PDR activities. 

Most of the literature on industrial districts is related 

to the protection of existing industrial jobs or 

the redevelopment and intensification of existing 

older industrial areas (when it is recognized that 

industry will not return). The goal of intensifying 

development is to bring new vitality, well-paying 

jobs, and tax revenues to areas that are declining or 

are vacant and underutilized. In these efforts, cities 

III.2 IPZ Literature Review & Case Studies 

are trying to develop vibrant mixed-use districts 

similar to the South of Market or NEMIZ districts. 

The case studies presented here describe a range of 

methodologies and approaches undertaken in 

other cities. San Francisco can learn from their 

successes and failures. However, as pointed out earlier, 

what works in one location may not work in 

another. The case studies include programs in: (1) 

Chicago, (2) West Berkeley, (3) Seattle, (4) 

Portland, and (5) Boston. The information available 

from these five cities varied greatly, and published 

materials were supplemented by telephone 

interviews with staff whenever possible. A specific 

series of questions was developed on the issue so 

that the way each city handled a particular issue or 

question can be easily compared (see attached 

matrix). Short summaries of each city’s program 

are also presented. 

We also reviewed an exhaustive study on this issue 

prepared for the New York City region by The 

Pratt Institute, which included case studies and a 

detailed list of recommendations. While New 

York City does not have any IPZs, this study provides 

useful information and recommendations 

that should prove helpful for San Francisco. 

The exit interviews are important because they 

attempt to answer the questions, “Why are industrial 

firms leaving San Francisco?” and “Will protective 

zoning keep them from leaving in the 

future?” A series of recommendations for San 

Francisco and particularly for the NEMIZ are presented 

at the end of the paper. A full bibliography 

is also provided.

Current Industrial 

Conditions 

Current Industrial Market in San 

Francisco 

As with the office market in San Francisco, the 

current industrial real estate market has a significant 

amount of vacant space. According to data 

from HC&M Commercial Properties, a San 

Francisco real estate brokerage firm specializing in 

industrial buildings, there are about 4.7 million 

square feet of vacant industrial space in the City, of 

which about 800,000 square feet or 17% are in the 

Mission District. BT Commercial, another local 

real estate brokerage firm, reports about 21 million 

square feet of industrial space in San Francisco. 

According to BT Commercial, industrial rents are 

down, averaging about $0.73 per square feet and 

ranging from about $0.46 to $1.00 per square feet, 

depending on building condition and location. At 

the height of the dot.com boom, industrial rents 

were about $1.35 per square feet for space in the 

areas south of Caesar Chavez Street. 

According to local brokers, the dot.com era, while 

having many negative impacts, also had a positive 

impact on the industrial market. The industrial 

market in the Bayview, Bayshore, and Central 

Waterfront prior to the dot.com was oversupplied 

and unhealthy. During the dot.com era, many 

industrial users were forced to move further south 

in the City as their leases were not renewed in the 

SOMA and NEMIZ areas. Overall, these tenants 

are now happier in their new locations, as this area 

better meets their business needs. 

There has been only a modest amount of industrial 

development in the City, according to HC&M. 

BT Commercial data show no construction of 

industrial space in the last five years. Net absorption 

has been negative in the last two years, and 

over the last five years has averaged about 145,000 

square feet per year. 

HC&M has brokered about 79 industrial leases in 

the last year, totaling about 700,000 square feet of 

space throughout San Francisco, and of these 72 


New PDR construction in the NEMIZ (Beyer Clothing) 

were for spaces less than 20,000 square feet. 

According to local brokerage data and reports, this 

activity was not net new absorption but rather the 

result of existing businesses taking advantage of 

lower rents as their leases expired. 

The average size lease for those less than 20,000 

square feet was about 6,200 square feet. The average 

size lease overall was 8,500 square feet. 

Compared to industrial activity elsewhere in the 

region, the average size of lease is very small. Most 

industrial brokerage firms do not track industrial 

buildings under 50,000 square feet. 

About half (49%) of the industrial lease activity in 

the Eastern Neighborhoods was for spaces 5,000 

square feet or less, and the average of these was 

about 3,200 square feet per lease. 

IPZ Literature Review & Case Studies 

III.3 





Industrial activity in Bayshore 

Of this total lease activity only nine leases were in the Mission 

District, representing 11% of the total lease activity for industrial 

space reported by HC&M. The Mission and NEMIZ are not a significant 

part of the industrial market in San Francisco, although 

they still contain some industrial uses. 

There are a number of larger PDR businesses currently in the 

NEMIZ, with a total of about 465,000 square feet of space. Some 

of these businesses are classified as PDR by the City, while a few are 

classified as office or business services. Although on average PDR 

users tend to be smaller businesses, there are some larger PDR businesses/users 

that need consideration. 

In the last year, HC&M has sold 13 industrial buildings with a total 

of about 140,500 square feet, or an average of about 10,800 square 

feet each. None of these buildings were in the NEMIZ. 

In summary, the current demand for industrial space is for small, 

single-story industrial spaces. However, many of the buildings and 

floor plates in the NEMIZ are much large than this. Given the average 

sized lease of 8,500 square feet overall, the current inventory 

(4.7 million square feet of space) represents about 7 years of capacity, 

assuming current lease rates and no additional vacancies. It is 

safe to conclude that there is no shortage of available industrial 

space relative to demand. Many PDR uses, as defined by the City 

Planning Department, tend to need smaller spaces than traditional 

industrial uses.

Current Industrial Demand 

The majority of demand for industrial space is for single-story, high ceiling 

space with loading docks and truck access. According to local brokers, the 

NEMIZ offers very limited supply that meets the needs of current industrial 

tenants. The area also lacks the necessary street widths that allow for 

easy truck access and proper loading and unloading required by Core PDR. 

In addition, current rents do not support the cost of converting large floor 

plate, multi-story buildings into multi-tenant PDR buildings, assuming 

demand for this type of space existed. Code compliance and ADA/Title 24 

upgrades also can be costly, particularly given the age of the building stock 

in the NEMIZ. 

Currently, the majority of the PDR uses, 22% of total PDR land area, in 

the NEMIZ are public facilities and/or utilities or mixed use PDR that 

either own their facilities or can afford to pay higher rents and be located 

next to other uses. Zoning alone is not going to keep PDR businesses in the 

NEMIZ as other conditions, including macroeconomic trends, will determine 

whether they stay or leave the area. While the NEMIZ was a vibrant 

industrial area for many years, it has evolved significantly from its past into 

a vibrant mixed-use district with a complex set of land uses and business 

activity. 

The area does not possess an adequate supply of the type of industrial 

buildings that are in demand, and the area has significant access constraints. 

In addition, there are no parcels that do not have residential development 

either within their block or an adjacent block; residential uses are spread 

throughout the NEMIZ. Other areas of the City such as the Central 

Waterfront, the South Bayshore, and Hunter’s Point have a significant 

amount of industrial land and building space that can accommodate future 

demand for PDR uses. 

Industrial land in Bayshore is not fully utilized for PDR 

activity. 



III.5 




Old industrial buildings in the Central Waterfront can support 

a broad range of PDR uses. 


Summary of Literature 

The following section provides more detailed discussion 

of the literature, organized by the key findings. 

Flexibility: Allowing Businesses to 

Use Space to Stay Competitive 

The current literature on industrial development 

points to the need for flexibility in terms of the 

future use of building space (rather than prescriptive 

zoning formulas) so that companies can 

remain competitive by addressing shifting market 

conditions and best business practices as their specific 

needs change. It also shows that when industrial 

protection is undertaken, many other economic 

development programs and incentives are 

required to make such zoning effective; zoning 

alone is not an effective planning tool. 

In cities across the country, redevelopment of 

industrial buildings brings commerce back to dormant 

districts and revitalizes communities. Thus, 

in many places, government has come to serve as a 

catalyst for these projects by identifying and packaging 

sites to compete for development capital. 

Moreover, many cities offer grants, tax-relief, and 

other incentives to attract businesses. The literature 

strongly indicates that in the uncertain enterprise 

of forecasting the next several years for industrial 

development, success will come to those cities 

and developers that give high priority to meeting 

business needs while balancing other public needs 

and social concerns. In terms of the form and 

function of space, “flexibility is critical to making 

sure buildings don’t become obsolete. For existing 

tenants, built-in flexibility allows for smooth 

expansion or restructuring of future operations.” 

A recent article in the Puget Sound Business 

Journal explains that flexibility is of the utmost 

importance for newer manufacturers and hightech 

service providers. With its superior location 

next to downtown and regional transportation 

hubs, the Sodo neighborhood offers an ideal place 

to establish Seattle’s industrial incubator. Why 

then isn’t Seattle’s Sodo neighborhood an engine of 

regional economic growth? The simple answer:

“Modern, knowledge-intensive industries require a 

flexible mixed-use environment” in order to flourish, 

and “Sodo zoning prohibits the construction 

of attractive mixed-use facilities.” 

This case is instructive for San Francisco’s current 

debate over industrial areas and how to protect 

them and help them flourish. In the increasingly 

competitive and technologically advanced world, 

flexibility is more important than protective zoning 

to keep industrial districts competitive — to 

attract the best job-producing and tax-generating 

businesses. Traditional manufacturing is becoming 

obsolete in more mature urban areas, and zoning 

cannot turn back the clock to revive it. 

“Today’s restrictive zoning prevents [Seattle’s] Sodo 

from taking advantage of its natural advantages. To 

reverse the increasing inventory of underutilized 

buildings, we need the flexibility of a mixed-use 

zoning regime embracing the area’s superior transportation 

infrastructure and public sports facilities 

while retaining its industrial character. Zoning 

should allow mixed-use projects … and ensure a 

fair transition from traditional to modern uses.” 

The real danger with down zoning is that cities like 

Seattle and its Sodo district shoulder the opportunity 

cost of excluding certain industries and land 

uses in the short-run, and institute restrictive zoning 

to preserve traditional manufacturing uses that 

inevitably leave the area for “unavoidable macroeconomic 

reasons.” These include cheaper labor 

available in other countries and locations in the 

U.S., outsourcing of many aspects of production 

and other functions, and the consolidation of 

many industries, to name a few. 


Property Values: Restrictive Zoning 

Can Negatively Impact Property 

Values 

Zoning also needs to remain flexible so that industrial 

land maintains its value in the real estate market. 

A report entitled, “Zoning and Industrial 

Land Values: The Case of Philadelphia,” explains 

how lots zoned for industrial use were associated 

with reduced land values: “As the demand for 

industrial land in Philadelphia declined (resulting 

in vacancies), prices fell, but zoning was slow to 

adjust, therefore land conversion did not occur to 

re-equilibrate.” This drop in land value occurs in 

many cities because zoning “may not only increase 

efficiency by separating incompatible land uses 

and reducing the flow of negative externalities, but 

it may also create inefficiency by distorting the 

supply of land to the various uses,” as would otherwise 

occur naturally under normal market conditions. 

When protective zoning measures are used 

to preserve industrial areas, the study found that 

the zoning causes “a surplus of industrial land and 

a decrease in its price” of as much as 58 percent. 

The clear suggestion is that Philadelphia is overzoned 

for industry, that current zoning impedes 

land use conversion, and that established government 

policies do not reflect the current economic 

structure of the marketplace. This hurts industry 

and the economy of the city as a whole. While 

these results were found in Philadelphia, they “may 

apply to other cities with similar industrial zoning 

experience.” 

Potrero Center, expanded under current industrial zoning 


III.7 





As new zoning is implemented, the larger supply and demand for industrial/PDR 

buildings in San Francisco as a whole as well as within each of the 

five Eastern Neighborhoods must be considered. If not, the City’s tax base 

could suffer at a time when local revenues are significantly constrained. 

Industrial Protective Zoning: Mostly Temporary 

Rather Than Permanent 

Twenty years ago, industrial protection zoning was designed to protect jobs 

in industrial sectors as commercial and residential uses began to compete for 

industrial land in some communities. To retain the employment base generated 

by industrial uses, “cities like Chicago began to adopt new zoning that 

strictly limited non-industrial uses in protected corridors.” A key question 

is: “What is wrong with older, heavier industry moving to where the land 

and labor is cheaper in the region?” In San Francisco, city planners have 

pointed to a need to protect the core remaining industrial land because there 

are some “symbiotic relations between these industries and others in the land 

use system” that work together to make San Francisco a more competitive 

market and healthier economy. Many city planners still agree that “there are 

some basic industries, particularly those related to construction, such as 

cement processing, whose survival may be essential because of their place in 

the larger web of industrial and commercial relationships in the area.” More 

recently, however, the same cities are reevaluating these policies in light of 

the future needs and impacts of high-tech manufacturers and other industrial 

users. These cities recognize that the range of industries they feel 

should continue to be protected is quite narrow. For instance, “at least some 

industrial protection zones should be transitional rather than permanent. In 

other words…it may be necessary to let the sun set on some industries in 

order to let it rise on other, more promising, ventures.” 

Two vacant buildings in the Bayshore that were built for hi-tech but can now 

be converted to serve PDR uses

Portland is a city that established the goal of preserving “industrial sanctuaries” in its 

1990 comprehensive plan. It uses its industrial zoning designation for property that 

it wants to protect and prohibits all residential development. Despite the clear aim of 

such regulations, many of the sanctuary zones are not seen as permanent. “It is understood 

that some areas would transition out of industrial uses,” remarks Michael 

Harrison, chief planner for the Portland Bureau of Planning. Thus, the city views 

the designations as temporary rather than permanent zoning so that local land use 

policy can stay in step with changes in industry. 

Planning as a rule should move in step with the market, as “it is unlikely that zoning 

will ever be able to stem market reality,” although it “can slow down the process.” 

City planners who “focus their energies on guiding the economic process, to the benefit 

of those coming as well as those leaving [industrial districts], will probably have 

the most success.” 

Job Preservation: Often the Goal but not Always the 

Result 

Staying in step with industry is also important when the goal of protective zoning is 

job preservation or new job creation. When the preservation of jobs is the goal, which 

is the case in San Francisco, protective zoning falls short because newer industries 

(technology-based businesses or “re-tooled” small-scale PDR businesses) require 

greater flexibility than is allowed for under such zoning. Examples abound of cities 

where brokers complain that companies are choosing to locate outside industrial protection 

zones and that these areas, in turn, are loosing jobs and development opportunities 

to other areas without such zoning. 

San Francisco’s White Paper on industrial lands provides information on the wages 

associated with PDR jobs and finds that many PDR jobs provide higher average 

wages than those available in the services and retail sectors. This is one reason why 

San Francisco is concerned about protecting PDR jobs. These jobs also require lower 

levels of education than jobs in the information – technology – management industries 

that dominate the San Francisco economy. 

If the goal is to preserve jobs, then planners need to allow for flexibility to attract new 

manufacturers. Like many old industrial areas, the existing building stock in Seattle’s 

Sodo district, with its 35-year-old design and infrastructure, is ill suited to modern 

manufacturing. “Congestion and land prices drive traditional manufacturing uses 

[and jobs] to more economically viable locations,” while restrictive zoning compounds 

this trend by creating impediments to upgrading building stock to attract 

modern industrial uses. Thus, new facilities are not built and new jobs are not created 

to replace those that are lost. 

In Seattle’s Sodo district the IPZ created in 1995 has not resulted in new industrial 

businesses being attracted to the area or in new industrial jobs being created. Some 

industrial jobs have been protected but others have continued to leave the area for 

other macroeconomic reasons. In addition, many larger buildings sit vacant despite 

the huge amount of public investment, including two new stadiums, that has been 

put into the area, and existing and planned public transit improvements. 



III.9 




Above and below: Residential and industrial buildings 

commonly co-exist in the NEMIZ 


Land Use Compatibility: 

Residential Development is the 

Biggest Problem 

Relevant to San Francisco, these protective zoning 

districts rarely, if ever, exclude office development 

from the industrial zone; instead the focus is on 

excluding residential, and to a lesser extent retail, 

development because these uses are deemed 

incompatible with the industrial character of the 

area. In fact, new service-oriented industrial users 

often require significant amounts of office space 

because many of their activities take place in 

“office” space rather than in warehouse or industrial 

space. The restriction of office use is often an 

interim measure to mitigate extreme fluctuations 

in real estate market conditions. For example, the 

City of Berkeley instituted interim controls on 

office conversions and new construction of 5,000 

square feet or more in a portion of the West 

Berkeley Plan Area for one year; the controls expire 

at the end of 2002. San Francisco adopted similar 

controls in the Mission District and renewed them 

last summer; these interim controls expire in July 

of 2003. 

Another example is found in the resurgence of 

Chicago’s housing market, which has placed significant 

pressure on that city’s industrial base. Rather 

than convert old buildings for use by today’s manufacturing 

industry, many property owners were 

selling to residential developers for the production 

of lofts and condominiums near downtown. 

Tensions began to mount between conflicting uses 

once a few industrial buildings were converted to 

residential use. Complaints about noise and truck 

traffic began to pressure other manufacturing businesses 

to leave the area, and well-paying jobs were 

lost to outlying areas. To counteract this trend, the 

local government authorized a special zoning designation 

known as Planned Manufacturing 

Districts (PMDs) in which development is limited 

to industrial activity and other compatible uses, 

and no residential development is allowed under 

any circumstances. The PMD designation “also 

establishes stricter requirements for zoning 

changes” and is “aimed at preventing piecemeal, 

parcel-by-parcel zoning variances, and thus at preserving 

the industrial character of the manufactur-

ing corridor.” However, some flexibility is maintained in that other “special 

uses” may be permitted in PMDs; the designation is reviewed periodically 

to ensure its effectiveness in achieving its stated goals, and it can be rescinded. 

(Chicago’s PMDs are discussed further below.) 

Community Planning and Input:Vital to Successful 

Industrial Protection 

The few cities that have implemented protective zoning have first undertaken 

comprehensive planning efforts that involve local property owners, 

residents, businesses, and other stakeholders. They have considered local 

market conditions and analyzed regional economic trends so that they 

understand the future need for land for housing, offices, warehouse space, 

and other uses. Moreover, the zoning designations these cities have utilized 

have remained somewhat flexible to allow the zoning to be overridden in 

certain circumstances or to sunset altogether if it proves ineffective. The 

City of San Francisco has been conducting workshops for residents and tenants 

in the five Eastern Neighborhoods but has neither actively nor sufficiently 

consulted with business and property owners. As discussed further in 

the Case Studies section, the cities that have had some success with IPZs 

have worked closely with property owners, and most of the IPZs were initiated 

by property owners rather than by City staff. 

In Seattle there is an ongoing debate over the issue of industrial land supply. 

“The underlying anxiety is that the region may not have enough industrial 

land,” or at least not enough in the right places with the right services to 

support growth in manufacturing. The city’s manufacturing interests are 

lobbying for tougher protections for industrial districts. Commercial and 

residential interests want opportunities to develop land. The Commerce, 

Trade and Economic Development Committee of the King County Council 

recently asked commercial real estate brokers and government planners to sit 

down at the same table to discuss the supply of industrial and commercial 

land. 

In Chicago, key criteria for establishing a Planned Manufacturing District 

or IPZ include a request by the property owners and approval by the majority 

of stakeholders. Once adopted by the City, the only way to then build an 

incompatible use in a PMD would be to repeal the special PMD designation. 

If the Chicago Plan Commission approves the PMD, the plan must 

also undergo periodic review of its “effectiveness in achieving its stated 

goals.” 

In metropolitan Portland, demand for more industrial land has occurred as 

“existing industrial sanctuaries are being eroded as demand grows for commercial 

and residential space close to the city’s center.” Industrial sanctuaries 

have provided a short-term solution, but many fear “high-tech, manufacturing 

and other companies won’t locate in the Portland area unless new 

industrial land is created.” 



III.11 




The executive director of Metro, the regional services 

and planning organization, insists that a 

regional economic development strategy must be 

developed before more land in the region is designated 

for industrial use. Therefore, in Portland 

officials are working with large property owners 

and businesses in the industrial districts, involving 

them in the process of developing a strategy based 

on their future space needs. Understanding the 

desires and plans of existing landowners and tenants 

is crucial before implementing zoning policies. 

The loss of one or more major manufacturers 

may cause significant vacancy in the industrial district 

and make protective zoning unnecessary. 

Portland’s dialogue with major stakeholders in the 

area is therefore shaping the decision-making in a 

responsive, collaborative manner. 

In summary, this type of comprehensive, regional 

planning provides an analytical basis for decisionmaking 

before any zoning changes are implemented. 

Without the input of the community, which 

includes businesses and property owners, it is 

extremely difficult to develop successful industrial 

protection policy and, subsequently, zoning. 


Reuse: Industrial Districts as New 

Economic Engines 

Many cities recognize that industrial activity has 

left and will not return because of new zoning. 

Industrial areas that are not thriving or have 

become too expensive for most industrial users are 

seen as providing opportunities for new economic 

engines to help revitalize local economies and 

bring new jobs and income to cities. 

Many industrial buildings may have outlived their 

usefulness to industry, because their ceiling heights 

are too low for modern racking systems or access to 

and from the site for 18-wheeler trucks is limited 

or prohibitive. Areas with older industrial buildings 

are often perfect candidates for conversion to 

smaller-scale PDR-type businesses, loft offices, 

retail centers, or mixed-use projects. , When it 

comes to the big city industrial reuse process, a 

major lesson is flexibility. 

Adaptive reuse of industrial buildings is commonplace 

(and is allowed by the relatively flexible zoning 

designations in cities where it is undertaken). 

There are innumerable examples of R&D and 

office conversions. In Manhattan, a former Saks 

Fifth Avenue warehouse was renovated and repositioned 

to attract new media and arts-related businesses. 

The demand for space in old converted 

warehouses has been fueled in large part by a new 

This industrial building in the NEMIZ has been reconfigured 

for office and R&D uses.

generation of tenants that ushered in a revolution 

in the workplace. Many were high-tech firms and 

dot.com-style companies. “Although the dot.coms 

may have rushed headlong into these areas and 

evaporated just as quickly, they spurred a rapid and 

intense R&D shift about the workplace that ultimately 

benefited everyone.” These firms, focused 

as they are on efficiency and productivity, prefer to 

pay premiums for the open floor plans, flexibility, 

and character of lofty warehouse spaces. Simply 

put, they need office spaces that support their 

work processes, and these converted buildings 

allow for greater exchange and collaboration. 

Renovated industrial buildings also offer “a wide 

spectrum of user options, ranging from 100 percent 

office to flex business/storage leasing scenarios” 

that respond to the unique challenges of the 

modern workplace and result in an innovative 

R&D/office product that can successfully compete 

in the marketplace. 

Even in areas that retain thriving industrial activity, 

such as parts of New Jersey, aging or obsolete 

industrial buildings are being updated to meet the 

needs of an ever-changing market. For example, 

numerous buildings have been retrofitted and 

marketed successfully as flex space for telecommunications, 

pharmaceutical, and Internet companies. 

Gateway Computers adapted a former 

Union Pacific station near Salt Lake City into 

more than one million square feet of office and 

retail space as part of a $375 million investment. 

In Boston, a 500,000 square foot office complex 

has replaced a vacated Hewlett Packard manufacturing 

facility. 

As discussed earlier, even cities that have industrial 

protection zones are beginning to recognize that to 

remain attractive and competitive, they need to 

allow for more flexibility and a variety of uses that 

are not typical to traditional industrial districts. 

This approach recognizes that new industrial and 

high-tech businesses require a variety of space and 

want to locate in dynamic mixed-use areas. 

Chicago’s newest PMD reflects this trend and 

allows for more flexibility and a variety of uses. 


This converted industrial building currently houses a mix 

of PDR and live/work units. 


III.13 




IPZ Case Studies and 

Related Research 

The previous section spoke to the more general 

discussion in current literature on IPZs and industrial 

development in general. The following section 

discusses five case studies of cities that have undertaken 

Industrial Protective Zoning. A summary of 

these programs is provided in Figures 1 and 2. 

These cities include Chicago, Berkeley, Portland, 

Seattle, and Boston. A series of questions about 

the IPZ program is offered and answered when 

possible. A summary description of each IPZ is 

also provided below for each city. 

Chicago 

From the 1800s to the mid-1900s, Chicago was 

the center of industry for much of the Midwest. 

Thriving industrial areas such as the Stockyards 

and Goose Island provided jobs for thousands of 

city residents. Much of this changed in the late 

1970s and 1980s when a poor economic state and 

competition from cheaper outlying areas forced 

many businesses to leave the city to keep a competitive 

advantage. In 1970, Chicago had 48% of 

the region’s industrial employment, with about 

500,000 jobs. By 1996, when International 

Harvester, US Steel, American Can, Zenith 

Electronics, and Playskool had closed their 

Chicago plants, this number had dropped to 25% 

with a loss of 300,000 jobs. Coupled with plant 

closings, permissive M-zoning allowed residential 

and commercial projects to locate in manufacturing 

and industrial areas. This resulted in higher 

land prices and pressure for remaining manufacturing 

to leave the inner city. 

In response to these plant closings, the City of 

Chicago instituted the first of five Planned 

Manufacturing Districts (PMDs) in 1988. A 

PMD is a “special zoning designation authorized 

by the City’s overall zoning ordinance for specific 

geographic areas of the City.” Only industrial and 

its ancillary uses are allowed, with residential uses 

prohibited. To support these industrial areas, the 

PMD establishes strict requirements for zoning 

changes to prevent piecemeal zoning variances, 

which undermine the security of industrial uses 


Abandoned industrial building, Chicago, Illinois 

within the district. In establishing new PMDs, the 

Plan Commission reviews applications to determine 

whether the area is a viable industrial district. 

Factors include the size of the area, number of 

existing firms, recent public and private investment, 

potential for supporting additional industrial 

uses, and proportion of property owners and 

land users who testify for or against the proposal. 

The Plan Commission then determines whether 

the area needs a PMD designation to remain a 

healthy manufacturing area. It looks at evidence of 

conflict between industrial and other uses, especially 

residential, and demand for zoning changes 

incompatible with manufacturing uses. 

In the development of the PMDs, the need for 

infrastructure improvement and land assembly are

identified, and Tax Increment Financings (TIFs) 

are used to consecrate the PMDs. TIF use in these 

cases is unique in that they are applied area-wide to 

the industrial corridor rather than to a specific 

project. In addition to TIF, the city offers economic 

development help through Business 

Express, a program that assigns interested businesses 

an account manager who refers them to 

information about low-interest loan programs, 

infrastructure assistance, enterprise zone incentives, 

job training resources, and also links them 

with outside programs and agencies. One such private 

resource is the Jane Addams Resource 

Corporation (JARC), a community development 

organization whose primary goal is the retention 

and growth of Chicago industry and jobs through 

economic development, educational and worker 

training programs, and services. JARC offers 

forums for manufacturers to address industry 

issues, conducts labor market research to identify 

the requirements of skilled jobs, and offers computer 

training workshops for workers and residents. 

While residential uses are never allowed in a PMD, 

there are opportunities for land use flexibility. 

Applications for changing the land use of a parcel 

in a PMD must be reviewed by the zoning board, 

which considers the change on existing manufacturing 

activities, potential land use conflicts, the 

number and types of jobs in the district, real estate 

values and taxes, traffic flow and parking, and 

efforts to market the property for industrial use. 

PMDs have been effective in keeping manufacturing 

jobs within the city while creating buffers 

between residential and manufacturing areas. 

Chicago’s effort owes part of its success to the 

holistic nature of the PMD program, combining 

zoning, economic and infrastructure support, 

enforcement, and flexibility to change failing 

PMD areas. In 1999, Chicago was named by 

Industry Week as the best U.S. community for 

manufacturing. This was followed by the opening 

of new facilities for FedEx, Culinary Foods, Luster 

Products, and OSI Industries. 


Fish restaurant and distribution company in an industrial 

building, Chicago, Illinois 

Automobile sales in an industrial building, Chicago, Illinois 


III.15 




Philadelphia Quartz factory in West Berkeley 

Office conversion of an industrial building in West 

Berkeley 


West Berkeley 

Since its founding as Oceanview in the mid 19th 

century, West Berkeley has been the center of 

industry in Berkeley, and part of a group of industrial 

areas in Richmond, Oakland, and Emeryville. 

Over the course of the last century, the area has lost 

a significant number of its larger companies, such 

as Hunt & Wesson, Colgate-Palmolive, Canada 

Dry, and Durkee, to more profitable outlying 

regions. The area has also always had a certain percentage 

of residential uses for housing local industrial 

workers, but after the exodus of factories, 

artists’ lofts began to filter into unused spaces. By 

the 1980s, pressure began to increase in West 

Berkeley to convert industrial uses to live/work 

space, market-rate housing, retail and office uses, 

and most of West Berkeley had M-zoning that 

allowed all types of uses. 

In response to the mounting industrial conversion 

pressure and specific incidents such as the mid- 

1980s conversion of the former Durkee Foods site 

to office and laboratory uses, the city initiated the 

West Berkeley Plan, an eight-year public planning 

process. Adopted in 1993, the plan recognizes the 

mixed-use nature of the area and tries to accommodate 

all existing use types through zoning districts, 

allowing for more office and retail development 

on specific underutilized or vacant sites. The 

plan segregates use types based on areas of existing 

use. Each zoning category is divided into four categories: 

Permitted Uses, Uses Requiring a Public 

Hearing, Ancillary Uses, and Prohibited Uses. Two 

small areas with existing heavy manufacturing and 

a large area for light industrial are established 

through zoning and protected from conversion to 

higher uses. The Light Industrial District has the 

highest existing employment of all the Plan subareas, 

with about 4,500 jobs. There are also areas 

designated for office development and retail nodes, 

two uses that have been steadily increasing in the 

area. The city’s main concern is that “successful 

mixed use areas…can become so expensive and 

intensely developed that manufacturing and other 

uses which cannot pay maximum rents and land 

costs are forced out.” The Plan also calls for 

strengthening the ties between Berkeley/West 

Berkeley residents and West Berkeley employers, 

so that local residents enjoy the benefits of economic 

expansion.

In addition to zoning, the city has programs in place through the Office of 

Economic Development (OED). OED uses a variety of retention and 

expansion tools, including zoning changes, infrastructure improvements, 

finance and permit streamlining, site location assistance, and public works 

issues resolution. Throughout the West Berkeley Plan process, OED conducted 

interviews with all the firms in West Berkeley, planned lunches with 

industrial firms, and mailed a survey to all manufacturers and major employers 

in the area. In 1999, “OED’s outreach efforts linked hundreds of 

Berkeley residents to jobs and helped more than 10 businesses expand or 

relocate locally.” Through Berkeley’s First Source Employment program, 

OED also links qualified residents with local firms, 

helping to preserve a higher-paying employment base 

of blue-collar jobs. The OED also helps facilitate the 

reuse of large, vacant sites (such as Colgate and Utility 

Body), cited as an economic development 

activity in the plan. 

According to one staff person, it is 

hard to say that the protective zoning 

has worked. Many of the factories 

and land sat vacant for a long time. 

One site that is touted as a success 

under this plan is a piece of property 

next to the Bayer complex. Because 

of the restrictive zoning, the property 

owners were forced to sell to Bayer 

because they could not find anyone 

to develop it as industrial. Some of 

this site ended up as parking for the 

Bayer facility, which has allowed 

them to develop other portions of their property with 

other lab and office facilities. Many industrial businesses 

that have located in West Berkeley would have 

done so anyway, without the IPZ, and have not created 

high-paying jobs. Most new jobs created recently 

pay $11 or $12 per hour and are not union jobs. It is 

also hard to say how many local residents have actually 

been hired by these businesses. According to new 

data from the 2000 census, 70% of the employed residents 

in Berkeley are in professional or managerial 

occupations, with very minimal employment in manufacturing 

jobs. This staff person also feels that housing 

costs in Berkeley have done more to impact lowincome 

residents than the lack of “industrial land” and 

loss of manufacturing jobs. Many of the real manufacturing 

jobs left long before 1993. 


West Berkley industrial build reconfigured for 

live/work units 

“Working Man’s” cafe located across from the 

Philadelphia Quartz factory in West Berkeley 


III.17 




TOPIC AND 

QUESTION 

Support /Incentives 

Is there an economic 

development component to 

the industrial protection 

policy? 

Does the City offer 

programs for infrastructure 

(such as utilities and 

transportation) investment? 

What role does 

transportation/access play in 

designating these areas? 

Enforcement 

Has the policy been 

effective? 

How does the city enforce 

the zoning code? 


CHICAGO, IL BERKELEY, CA 

Business Express offers links to city- and 

community-based programs to solve business 

problems. 

JARC offers economic development, 

educational and worker training programs and 

services. 

City uses Tax Infrastructure Financing 

Districts, similar to tax increment financing. 

TIF districts are overlain on planning corridors 

to provide financing for redevelopment. 

Generally yes, but City is looking at creating 

more mixed use PMDs and how to deal with 

the market’s preference for mixed use 

development in industrial areas. 

Compare documentation and/or drawings 

submitted for zoning certification and the actual 

structure and/or other use when completed. 

Zoning Board of Appeals investigates 

license/permit applications, zoning exceptions, 

and occupancy certificates 

The recent Economic Development director for 

Berkeley felt that overall the plan has been successful 

because it has protected existing industrial 

uses/users while allowing for flexibility for those 

that can’t find industrial tenants. In the case of 

West Berkeley, most of the industrial property 

owners are also industrial operators or businesses 

in the area. They are committed to the area and 

were worried about pressures from residential and 

office uses. They worked closely with the city to 

develop the plan. Financial analysis of two 

sites/buildings showed that according to financial 

criteria neither could continue as industrial, and 

both were allowed to convert to other non-industrial 

uses. 

The plan is not without its critics, who note that 

the 1999 partial demolition and conversion of a 

paint factory to 140,000 square feet of retail uses 

near the successful 4th street business district is 

proof that the plan is not adequate in protecting 

existing industrial uses from conversion. City staff 

responded to these critics by saying that the con- 

The Berkeley Office of Economic 

Development (OED) assists in zoning 

changes, infrastructure improvements, finance 

and permit streamlining, site location 

assistance, and public works issues resolution. 

Berkeley First Source Employment program 

links city residents with hiring firms. 

Information not available. 


Tried to segregate uses with some success; 

fighting construction of new commercial most 

often. Many residents not opposed to 

manufacturing as provides neighborhood 

employment. 

If a complaint is made, the city does a field 

check. If a violation is confirmed, the party is 

given an opportunity to correct the violation. 

version is evidence that the plan allows for flexibility 

where appropriate. There have been problems 

with categorizing some “new media” businesses 

and businesses with changing technologies, such as 

printing. In November 2000, a request was made 

that the Planning Commission and Council members 

revise the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the 

nodal development concept in the plan. Citizens 

and developers have complained that the current 

language is not clear and does not reflect the intent 

of the West Berkeley Area Plan. In 2001, the city 

instituted interim controls on “substantial office 

conversions and new office construction projects 

of 5,000 square feet or more in the Mixed-Use 

Light Industrial District for a year to check rampant 

office development in an area zoned for a 

variety of uses.”

TOPIC AND 

QUESTION 

Zoning & Policy 

What role, if any, does 

zoning play in the IPZ? 

When was the industrial 

protection policy/program 

established or adopted? 

What was the impetus for 

the policy change? 

What would the city do 

differently after the fact? 

How are policy areas 

chosen? 

Flexibility 

Is there flexibility in the 

program? If so, how? 

Is it possible to change 

ineffective policies? 

How are industrial uses 

classified? (Do they have a 

label, such as "PDR"?) 


CHICAGO, IL BERKELEY, CA 

No residential development allowed within a 

PMD; 

Policies to prevent piecemeal zoning; Preserve 

industrial character of manufacturing corridor. 

City is now creating a new Mixed-use PMD. 

1988 and on-going. 1993. 

Exodus of industrial uses in the 70s and 80s, 

when large-scale businesses left. Permissive Mzoning 

allowed commercial and residential 

projects in, resulting in higher land costs. 

- More business involvement, education, and 

monitoring 

-Recognize that natural barriers are effective for 

resisting residential conversion pressures and 

that commercial use is not a good buffer due to 

negative traffic impacts 

- Landscape devices also help protect industrial 

zoning. 

Factors include: Area size, 

number of industrial businesses, 

public and private investment, 

potential for additional industrial development, 

proportion of property owners and land users 

who want PMD, need for protection, conflict 

between industrial and other uses, demand for 

zoning changes incompatible with 

manufacturing uses. Areas for new PMDs at 

least 5 acres. 

The community can propose and accept nonindustrial 

land types that support industrial 

businesses and employees. 

The Plan Commission reviews whether the 

PMD is achieving its stated goals, and can 

recommend that the City Council amend or 

repeal the PMD. 

Each PMD has a general list of permitted use 

types, a list of Special Uses, Performance 

Standards, and Use and Bulk Regulations that 

include regulations for FAR and Parking. 

The West Berkeley Area Plan includes use of 

IPZs and creates a new set of land use/zoning 

districts that provide a gradation of uses 

including residential, mixed-use, and 

manufacturing/industrial. 

- 20 years of declining manufacturing, 

- Increase in conversions to office, commercial, 

and housing uses 

- Decline in workers and artists living and 

working in West Berkeley. 

The plan allows for flexibility at the parcel 

level but following the conversion of two 

parcels to non-residential uses because they 

were functionally obsolete for industrial uses, 

the City has a 6-month moratorium on 

conversions that will expire by the end of 

2002. 

Several owner-occupied industrial users were 

interested in protecting industrial uses. Area 

has a major freeway, two state highways, major 

and minor local streets, a rail line carrying 

both freight and passengers, as well as many 

local spurs, sidewalks, and bikeways. 

Yes, property owners can submit market and 

financial information that demonstrates there 

are no viable industrial uses for their property 

and request conversion to other uses. 

It appears that Planning can clarify plan 

language, but there is no mention of a 

timetable for regular review or the ability to 

make use changes (see above). 



III.19 




Portland 


“The effort to develop an industrial area plan in the northwestern portion of 

the city (Portland) was initiated in 1996 by the Northwest Industrial 

Neighborhood Association” in response to a controversial proposal from 

Costco, a “big box” retailer, to redevelop an industrial site within the 

Northwest Industrial Sanctuary. Because of its proximity to mixed-use and 

residential neighborhoods and the Central City, the district, called Guild’s 

Lake, is particularly vulnerable to pressure for redevelopment to non-industrial 

uses. 

Portland responded to this threat by designating this area as an “industrial 

sanctuary.” The goal was to encourage the growth of industrial activities and 

preserve land primarily for manufacturing purposes. Furthermore, Portland 

wanted to create and retain well-paying industrial jobs that tend to have 

above-average wages. The plan also encouraged more intensive use of industrial 

lands through redevelopment of underutilized, contaminated, or vacant 

land. The plan called for a marketing strategy to attract new business and 

jobs. Businesses were encouraged to utilize public incentives such as the 

Enterprise Zone program to stimulate investment and create jobs in the area. 

In order to keep the program flexible, “Portland’s comprehensive plan 

undergoes major reviews every five years to assure that it remains an up-todate 

and workable framework for development.” Policies can be changed 

through reviews, which include technical evaluations, a report on the plan’s 

progress, and citizen involvement to evaluate the plan’s effectiveness. The 

plan allows “limited amounts of compatible non-industrial uses that provide 

services primarily to industrial businesses and their employees.” This can 

contribute to the plan's long-term stability. Portland encourages a “diverse 

Guild’s Lake land use plan

and thriving community that includes a broad 

array of employment and housing opportunities in 

close proximity to each other,” as long as it does 

not result in conflict and constrain the viable functioning 

of industrial businesses. 

The city recognizes that to ensure economic prosperity 

for the area, it must provide incentives for 

businesses to locate and stay in target areas, and it 

must encourage target industries to locate and 

expand within industrial areas. Additionally, a 

combination of public policy; long-term infrastructure 

investment; excellent highway, rail, and 

marine access; and the commitment of the area’s 

business have helped the district to remain a vital 

employment and commerce-generating location. 

Seattle 

“The city of Seattle adopted a comprehensive plan, 

required by the state’s Growth Management Act, 

to identify locations and strategies for the city to 

accommodate expected growth over a 20-year period 

(1994-2014).” Seattle’s approach to industrial 

retention and area preservation utilizes zoning as 

the principal tool for controlling allowed uses and 

their sizes. Seattle prohibits almost all residential 

uses in industrial zones except for artists’ studio 

dwellings in existing buildings. A citywide change 

for industrial zones (size-of-use limit on commercial 

space) was implemented with the adoption of 

this plan. Some of strategies applied included an 

urban growth boundary and a consequent need to 

ensure that adequate land existed within that 

boundary to accommodate industrial retention 

and growth. Most recently, in 1999, a neighborhood 

plan for one of the City’s two manufacturing/industrial 

centers was adopted with further 

restrictions on the types and sizes of non-industrial 

uses. City officials agree that if they had a chance 

to implement the policy again, they would be 

clearer about how the edges of industrial areas 

should transition to surrounding uses. The city has 

adopted a flexible policy to ensure the businesses 

located in such protective zones are prosperous. A 

clearinghouse was implemented to help small business 

owners to find programs that offer economic 

help. Finally, the city makes it possible to change 

ineffective policies. 


View of Guild’s Lake from rail yard 

The 500,000 square foot Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog 

distribution center in Seattle’s SoDo district has been 

reconfigured for office and retail and is now known as 

“Starbucks Center.” 


III.21 




TOPIC AND 

QUESTION 

Zoning & Policy 

What role, if any, does 

zoning play in the IPZ? 

When was the 

industrial protection 

policy/program 

established or adopted? 

What was the impetus 

for the policy change? 

What would the city do 

differently after the 

fact? 

How are policy areas 

chosen? 

Flexibility 

Is there flexibility in the 

program? If so, how? 

Is it possible to change 

ineffective policies? 

How are industrial uses 

classified? (Do they 

have a label, such as 

"PDR"?) 

The city recognizes there is an economic development 

component to the industrial protection policy. 

Preserving industrial land for only industrial 

uses helps keep the city’s economic base diverse. 

Seattle’s industrial areas are very healthy. The real 

estate industry reports less than a 5% vacancy rate 

in these areas, even though rents in Seattle’s industrial 

buildings are higher than in surrounding 

cities. Still, the city recognizes that commercial 

development in these areas could outbid industrial 

users and therefore limits those commercial uses. 


PORTLAND, OR SEATTLE, WA BOSTON, MA 

Zoning maintains and protects 

this area as a dedicated place for 

heavy and general industrial uses, 

within the city. 

Various times. The Guild’s Lake 

Industrial Sanctuary was 

implemented December 14, 

2001. 

Because of its proximity to mixeduse 

and residential neighborhoods 

and the Central City, the Guild's 

Lake Industrial Sanctuary is 

particularly vulnerable to pressure 

for redevelopment to non- 

industrial uses. 

Zoning is the principal tool for 

controlling allowed uses and their 

sizes. Sodo IPZ allows for up to 

50,000 sqft of office and 30,000 sqft 

of retail in IPZ. 

Various times, most recently in 1999 

when a neighborhood plan for one of 

the City’s 2 manufacturing/industrial 

centers was adopted with further 

restrictions on the types and sizes of 

non-industrial uses. 

The city wanted to restrict 

development in industrial areas, 

specifically: (size-of-use limit on 

commercial space) 

Information not available. Be clearer about how the edges of 

industrial areas are defined and how 

they should transition to surrounding 

The areas are historic locations of 

industrial activity. 

“Portland’s comprehensive plan 

undergoes major reviews every five 

years to assure that it remains an 

up-to-date and workable 

framework for development” 

uses. 

The city’s major industrial areas are 

historic locations of industrial 

activity. 

Size of use limits vary from one I 

zone to another and, to some extent, 

by sub-areas of the city. 

Zoning serves as a tool to prohibit 

development proposals that 

convert industrial land and 

buildings to office, commercial, 

residential, or institutional uses. 

N/A 

The city wanted to support and 

create conditions in which 

industries could grow and prosper 

as well as attract new 

manufacturing and commercial 

businesses to the city 




Yes, policies can be changed 

through reviews that include 

technical evaluations, a report on 

the plan’s progress, and citizen 

involvement. 

Yes Information not available. 

Industrial Sanctuary Information not available. Boston Backstreets program 

Additionally, size-of-use limits vary from one 

Industrial Zone to another and, to some extent, by 

sub-areas of the city. Some commercial and residential 

uses were grand-fathered and are classified 

as non-conforming and subject to various restrictions 

regarding replacement and expansion. Seattle 

is a completely built-up city, so protected industrial 

land policy was implemented in historic areas of 

industrial activity. These industrial areas generally 

do not require new infrastructure. Seattle’s two 

major industrial areas are well served by rail and

TOPIC AND 

QUESTION 

Support 

/Incentives 

Is there an economic 

development 

component to the 

industrial protection 

policy? 

Does the City offer 

programs for 

infrastructure (such as 

utilities and 

transportation) 

investment? 

What role does 

transportation/access 

play in designating 

these areas? 

Enforcement 

Has the policy been 

effective? 

How does the city 

enforce the zoning 

code? 


PORTLAND, OR SEATTLE, WA BOSTON, MA 

Yes. The city provides incentives 

for businesses to locate and stay in 

target areas, and it encourages 

target industries to locate and 

expand within industrial areas. 

A combination of public policy; 

long-term infrastructure 

investment; excellent highway, 

rail, and marine access; and the 

commitment to the area’s 

business. 

Yes, preserving industrial land for 

only industrial uses helps keep the 

city’s economic base diverse. Seattle’s 

industrial areas are very healthy. 

The City has recently been 

implementing some improvements 

aimed at increasing freight mobility 

in the industrial areas. 

Information not available. The two major industrial areas in 

Seattle are both well-served by rail 

and deep-water ports. An interstate 

highway passes through one of them. 

Group of 300 property owners are 

lobbying City to undo Sodo IPZ 

as major buildings are vacant, no 

new industrial jobs have been 

created. 

Yes, in that it has prevented large 

conversions of industrial land to nonindustrial 

uses. 

Information not available. Land Use Code violations are 

enforced on a complaint basis. 

Violators are subject to closures and 

fines. 

deep-water ports as well as by an interstate highway 

that passes through one of the areas. The city 

has recently implemented some improvements 

aimed at increasing freight mobility in the industrial 

areas. As with any economically healthy area, 

there is business turnover in the industrial areas. 

It’s difficult to say what role the presence of zoning 

protections plays in attracting newcomers. 

The program has been effective in preventing large 

conversions of industrial land to non-industrial 

uses. Land use code violations are enforced on a 

complaint basis. Violators are subject to closures 

and fines. Seattle has encountered problems with 

the implementation of these industrial protective 

zones: steady pressure from real estate interests, 

who would like to develop industrial land to their 

concept of highest and best use. Seattle’s two major 

industrial areas contain a total of about 85,000 

jobs, of which three-fourths are in industrial protected 

zones. 

Yes. A low-cost tax-exempt bond 

financing to businesses is available 

as well as a financial assistance, 

technical resources, job training, 

and procurement information, 

among other services. 

Yes. $5 million over 5 years from 

City's capital infrastructure plan 

to upgrade industrial roadways, 

sidewalks & lighting 




However, as discussed earlier in this report, there 

are critics of the IPZ policy. There is a major movement 

by about 300 businesses and property owners 

in the Sodo district to undo the IPZ in the area. 

Even though the area allows for office and retail 

development (up to 50,000 and 30,000 square 

feet, respectively), major industrial buildings sit 

vacant. According to property owners, no new 

industrial development or businesses have been 

attracted to the area. Starbucks' headquarters is 

located in a mixed use 500,000-square foot former 

Sears warehouse and represents the largest nonconforming 

use in the state. Property owners are 

currently conducting an employment and industry 

analysis of businesses located in the area and the 

industries that are growing in the region to determine 

if industrial space is needed to accommodate 

growth in the City. Based on this movement, one 

cannot say that Seattle’s IPZs have been completely 

successful. 


III.23 




Boston 

“The goal of the Back Streets program is to support 

Boston's many small and medium-sized 

industrial and commercial companies by creating 

the conditions in which they can grow and prosper, 

and attract new manufacturing and commercial 

businesses to the city.” The program utilizes a 

comprehensive approach through the strategic use 

of land, workforce, and financial resources to 

retain and grow its industrial areas and commercial 

businesses and to support the city’s diverse job 

base. 

In total, there are eight distinctive industrial districts: 

Allston Brighton, Charlestown, East Boston, 

Hyde Park, Jamaica Plain, Neponset, New Market, 

and South Boston. The city of Boston recognizes 

that to implement an effective industrial protective 

policy that addresses the different needs of these 

distinctive districts, a number of factors must be 

considered to make it successful. Some of these 

factors include: land use, the workforce, business 

assistance, resources, and partnerships. Land use 

policies were implemented to support the growth 

of industrial space. “Zoning review guidelines were 

strengthened regarding development proposals 

that convert industrial land and buildings to office, 

commercial, residential or institutional uses.” A 

Boston’s “Back Streets” Districts 


career center and job training programs were created. 

A clearinghouse was implemented for business 

owners to find programs offering economic 

help. A variety of business assistance programs are 

available, including: a low-cost tax-exempt bond 

financing to businesses as well as other financial 

assistance, technical resources, and procurement 

information, among other services. Additionally, 

new and existing resources were brought to the 

Back Street businesses. These resources included: 

$1 million in new funds to the Back Streets 

Backup Loan Program; $5 million over five years 

from City's capital infrastructure plan to upgrade 

industrial roadways, sidewalks, and lighting; assistance 

for eligible Back Streets businesses in accessing 

the Commonwealth's 5% state tax credit for 

business financing; and many other resources. 

The program has been proven extremely important 

to Boston’s economy. Back Street businesses 

employ over 100,000 people, provide revenue to 

the city, enable the flow of goods and services in 

Boston, provide economic diversity to Boston’s 

economy, provide very attractive salaries, mesh 

with Boston’s changing population, and are crucial 

to many of Boston’s citizens. Furthermore, the program 

has been found to encourage and enable 

entrepreneurship and foster competitive service 

providers.

Industrially zoned land and open space in New York City 

New York City 

The City of New York does not currently have any IPZs. A report from the 

Pratt Institute, “Making it in New York: The Manufacturing and Land Use 

Zoning Initiative,” outlines existing land uses; makes recommendations for 

improvements; and describes other case studies including programs in 

Vancouver, Chicago, Portland, and Seattle. Its recommendations point to a 

holistic planning approach that includes financing, technical assistance, 

environmental performance standards, plus land use and zoning. 

New York City has a permissive M-zoning in place, and like many other 

cities is now facing problems with uses such as office and residential 

encroaching on industrial areas due to cheaper land prices, a lack of space 

in other city areas, and few land-use restrictions. In the study area, most of 

the manufacturing districts include residential uses that increase conversion 

pressure from these new residents on existing industrial uses. The report also 

points out that “as residents become more actively involved in the environmental 

health of their communities, the City is likely to face pressures to 

address their concerns. Therefore, it is critical to establish standards based 

on the cumulative impacts of industrial activity on these manufacturing and 

mixed-use zones in order to protect their residents and the residents of 

adjoining neighborhoods” (R:109). It points out that model industrial land 

use policies in other areas have established manufacturing zones that restrict 



III.25 





Aerial view of industrial area in New York 

or prohibit residential, commercial, or other non-industrial activities, 

and include a variety of industrial development programs. Areas that 

have tried to use mixed-use zoning to balance manufacturing with 

other uses have not always been successful in encouraging manufacturing 

to grow or stay in these zones. 

Some benefits of retaining manufacturing are explored, including 

improvement of economic diversity, which helps the resiliency of 

cities during economic downturns. As many of these businesses rent 

space, they are also not eligible for the majority of financial assistance 

programs offered by the City, which are geared toward property owners. 

The report recommends extending these programs to benefit 

business owners that are tenants (R:110). 

Overall Study Recommendations 

The report makes a series of recommendations based on the successful 

policies of other areas and the specific needs of the City. It recommends 

an integrated system that includes “financial, technical 

assistance, environmental, and land use and zoning policies” (R: 

115), and establishing designated manufacturing zones in areas of 

concentrated, pre-existing manufacturing uses where residential uses 

should be prohibited altogether. In this effort, it is important to 

choose areas with a significant amount of remaining manufacturing 

uses that are not experiencing major new commercial or residential 

development. M-zones with a significant amount of conversion 

should be converted to residential or commercial zones, as protecting 

manufacturing in these areas is very difficult. 

Defining use types and new zoning districts is an important part of 

this process. Manufacturing uses that now meet higher environmental 

performance standards due to industry changes and new technologies 

should be allowed to locate in mixed-use areas. These busi-

ness types include printing, apparel, food processing, and selected artisan 

work (R:122). New types of manufacturing activities such as telecommunications, 

media production, and biotechnology should also be periodically 

defined and added to the NYC Zoning Resolution, as some of these uses 

can afford office-level rents, but are competing with manufacturing uses for 

space. Two new district types are recommended to buffer the potential 

problems in integrating manufacturing and other uses, Transitional Mixeduse 

and Non-transitional Mixed-use districts. The Non-transitional district 

would help integrate manufacturing districts with Mixed-use districts by 

providing a buffer of use-types determined through performance standard 

compatibility. Transitional districts should be established in areas where residential 

and commercial uses have increased significantly, and there are few 

manufacturing uses left. Every effort should be made to protect the grandfathered 

businesses in these areas, which should also be given incentives to 

increase environmental and compatibility standards (R:124). 

A way to ensure compatibility among uses and increase the chances for the 

success of new mixed-use areas is through performance standards. 

Performance-based zoning has advantages over listing allowable uses 

through its reliance on an “ongoing assessment of measurable impacts associated 

with how those firms actually perform. In order to assist them with 

meeting environmental compliance, firms would be provided with technical 

assistance in conducting periodic environmental self-audits” (R:137). 

Another advantage is that performance standards allow adaptation to new 

technologies and manufacturing processes while protecting environmental 

quality and reducing pressure on scarce manufacturing land resources. 

Increasing performance standards for certain industries can allow them to 

leave manufacturing areas for Mixed-use areas. It can also help businesses 

in M-zones protect against community opposition to manufacturing based 

on health and safety concerns (R:139). The report recommends establishing 

an index of compatible uses that reference environmental performance 

standards as well as conducting a census of manufacturers to establish better 

data regarding manufacturing in the City. 

Financial incentives help small businesses fight displacement or relocate, 

while Tax Increment Financing Districts direct new tax revenues from 

rezoned industrial parcels to a fund dedicated to maintaining industrial 

areas. Higher environmental standards can allow businesses to reduce toxic 

outputs and locate in mixed-use areas, reducing the pressure on industrial 

land. An environmental standard can also be used to reclassify certain 

industrial business types to commercial, based on technological improvements 

(such as in the printing industry) that lead to a reductions in pollution, 

noise, or other noxious factors. 

Efforts should be made to protect existing manufacturers, and the increased 

tax revenues from rezoning should be recaptured and channeled to other 

areas of manufacturing retention, including the establishment of a Tax 

Increment Financing (TIF) system for “funding financial incentives to 

encourage the replacement and retention of traditional manufacturing 



III.27 





space” (R:121). Funds generated by the TIF can be used to back bonds that 

provide below-market loans and grants to remaining manufacturers, maintaining 

a balance of uses in mixed-use areas, especially in the face of increasing 

property values (R:134). It is also important to gear these programs 

toward manufacturers who rent space, and not just to those who own 

(R:129). 

The study’s recommendations are intended to “identify criteria for determining 

which areas presently zoned for manufacturing are suitable for rezoning 

to other uses, which should be retained, and which should be considered 

for Mixed-use (non-transitional) and Mixed-use (transitional) Zones. 

Included is a proposal to create Manufacturing Development Zones in 

which manufacturing uses would be given extra protection and support” (R 

113). 

Exit Interviews 

As part of this effort, we attempted to interview industrial business that have 

recently left San Francisco or are considering leaving. The 26 firms listed 

below were contacted; most of them have already moved out of the City. Of 

these firms, four agreed to be interviewed and answered a series of questions 

(see Appendix A for questionnaire). A handful of firms chose not to participate 

in an interview but provided some general indication of why they left. 

Overall, the reason for moving was the cost of doing business in the City. 

Particular mention was made of the City’s payroll tax, which is a hardship 

for smaller businesses. Some firms moved to be closer to their customers. 

Atlas Heating Odwalla Juice 

Bebe Clothing O'Keefe Manufacturing 

Berkeley Farms O'Neill Wet Suits 

BiRight Food Service Petrini Van and Storage 

Boland Trucking Pribuss Engineering, Inc. 

BR Funston R&R French Brothers 

Coca Cola Syrup Plant San Francisco Pipe and Tube 

Essential Elements San Pacific Imports 

Flynn and Enslow Sidney Davis Fabrics 

Info Image Snyder Newall 

Just Desserts Super Shuttle 

Loomis Fargo Armed Car Swiss American Sausage 

McCune Audio Visual Xpedex Paper 

Escalating rents were also mentioned as an important reason for leaving the 

City. One business mentioned harassment of employees by homeless people. 

When asked what the City could have done to keep the business in SF, protective 

zoning was not mentioned, but reducing payroll taxes and assisting 

landlords with building code compliance were cited. Two businesses mentioned 

that their SF building needed repairs and that the landlords would 

not make improvements, because of costs and concerns about code compliance 

of existing improvements.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to interview more firms. Some of the firms 

indicated that they did not have time to be interviewed or that the right person 

could not be identified; other firms could not be located or had merged 

with other businesses. Thus, it is not possible to reach any definite conclusions 

from the exit interviews. 

Conclusion 

The literature suggests that while industrial protection zones may be necessary 

and useful in some locations, making these areas attractive to industrial 

businesses that provide well-paying jobs requires additional efforts. 

Flexibility to accommodate changes in the market and to allow businesses to 

remain competitive is primary among these. The literature also shows that 

planners’ view of this type of land use policy is shifting from “permanent” to 

“temporary,” and that mechanisms need to be in place to evaluate the success 

of these zones and to allow them to transition out of industrial protection 

when such protection is no longer useful. Furthermore, zoning alone 

does not lead to effective industrial protection; it must be coupled with a 

host of economic development tools and incentives. The literature also 

points to the need to consider the views of the local community and property 

owners to create successful industrial policy. 

Key Findings 

The literature review and results of the case study research reveal information 

that can be interpreted as a set of guiding principles that have been used 

by city planners across the country in relation to industrial zoning and current 

market conditions. These are as follows: 

Flexibility: Industrial zoning should allow for flexibility in terms of 

specific uses so that businesses and industrial parks can remain 

competitive. 

Property Values: Protective zoning can have a negative effect on 

property values and thus, city property tax revenue, particularly if 

market conditions are not assessed and adequately addressed by 

the policies. 

Zoning Temporary and Not Permanent: Protective zoning should not 

be viewed as a permanent designation, but it may be used in times 

of extreme shifts in market conditions to help businesses transition 

through these shifts. 

Economic Development: Cities must offer other programs, incentives, 

assistance, and public investment in IPZs and should not 

rely on zoning alone to protect industrial uses. 

Job Preservation: This is usually touted as the goal, but it is not 

always achieved due to other economic factors and conditions; 



III.29 





efforts to recruit business and offer job training should be considered 

in combination with zoning. 

Land Use Compatibility: Depending on the type of industrial district, 

residential development should be excluded from heavy 

industrial areas, and office use should rarely be excluded. 

Community Planning and Input: To be successful, zoning changes 

should be the result of comprehensive, inclusive community input 

from residents, property owners, businesses, and other stakeholders. 

Although they have not been implemented, the recommendations of the 

New York study seem to support the other research and findings of this 

analysis and should be given serious consideration by the City of San 

Francisco. The use of performance standards and environmental standards 

could be a useful way of categorizing types of industrial activity into appropriate 

zoning districts rather than by “type of business.” The standards 

could be based on potential environmental impacts such as noise, traffic, 

and pollution. Uses with low environmental impacts likely would be candidates 

for “mixed-use districts” and transitional districts. Uses that generate 

high employment could be eligible for additional city assistance; businesses 

that hire locally could be further rewarded. 

These findings can be applied to the City’s industrial or PDR policy overall 

as well as to all five of the Eastern Neighborhoods, including the 

NEMIZ. The case studies show that zoning alone is not the answer and that 

a host of other programs and services must be combined with zoning to 

ensure that industrial protection can be successful. Even when these programs 

are in place, success is not assured, as is the case of the Sodo district 

in Seattle.

Over 4,000 invitations were distributed in three 

languages, and attendance was approximately 65 

(not including the consultant team) for the sixhour 

process. On a proportional basis this would 

be equivalent to about 450 people attending a 

Mission District-wide event. 

For the first part of the workshop, Phil Erickson of 

CD+A presented the agenda and an overview of 

planning in the NEMIZ. He outlined four major 

goals for the workshop: 

Gain an understanding of the assets, needs 

and opportunities of the NEMIZ 

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 

On November 16th MCEJJ 

sponsored a community workshop 

in the NEMIZ. The workshop 

drew a wide range of participants, 

including residents, 

workers, business owners, property 

owners, plus community 

and civic leaders from the 

NEMIZ, the Mission, and San 

Francisco at-large. 

Achieve a NEMIZ-stakeholder-based 

vision for the future. 

Provide clarity about desired land uses. 

Focus on achieving a consensus. 

Participants were divided into groups of eight to 

twelve participants, with several members of each 

group from each of five categories: Property 

Owners, Residents, Business Owners, Workers, 

and Non-Profit Groups/Community Leaders. The 

groups retired to breakout sessions that led to a 

certain number of points of consensus amongst the 

groups.



Input from Workshop 

Groups 

The following is a summary of the input provided 

by the workshop groups, a full description of each 

groups discussions and land use planning concepts 

will be provided in the final report of MCEJJ recommendations 

for the future of the NEMIZ. 

Character 

The groups had certain common themes regarding 

the character of the NEMIZ. Maintaining the 

current mix of uses was a prevalent theme, with 

many participants indicating their affinity for the 

area based on its mix of industrial, residential, 

live/work, commercial, cultural, and office uses. 

Some participants stated that they chose to come 

to the area due to this mix, and were concerned 

that zoning the entire area for PDR uses would 

destroy this fine-grained character. There was also 

a preference for the “industrial” building type of 

the area, and many felt steps should be taken to 

preserve the existing building stock, with no new 

large redevelopment projects. The majority of participants 

wanted to make clear that they consider 

the NEMIZ a distinct neighborhood, and due to 

its unique needs, should be uniquely addressed in 

the context of broader planning for the Mission. 

IV.2 Workshop Summary 

Vision and Goals 

The participants were asked to detail their vision 

and goals for the NEMIZ, with several key results. 

Creating a plan that includes both policies and 

programs (including, but not limited to zoning) 

that promote a fine-grained mix of compatible 

uses is key while most participants agreed that preserving 

PDR jobs and creating new jobs should 

also be a priority. Participants wanted additional 

housing in most of the neighborhood with the 

exception of a small Industrial Preservation Zone 

(IPZ).There was especially an interest in promoting 

housing that supports a mix of housing types 

and price ranges. Several groups mentioned 

encouraging art spaces and cultural areas, with 

neighborhood-serving retail and streetscape 

improvements. Some specific goals include: 

Support and encourage employment in 

the NEMIZ while allowing a mix of uses. 

Create strategies for attracting and retaining 

business. 

Retain PDR Jobs. 

Encourage neighborhood-serving retail. 

Encourage housing in non-IPZ areas. 

Enhance art spaces. 

Produce short and long-term economic 

development plans for the NEMIZ. 

Zoning 

Many of the participants were skeptical about the 

ability of zoning to achieve their desired land-use 

mix. Some suggested a more “market-oriented” 

approach, that would maintain current M-1 zoning, 

while others thought that zoning should be 

used in conjunction with other tools, such as economic 

development, incentives for PDR businesses 

and other businesses that support well-paying 

jobs and culture, and job training. Some common 

themes emerged regarding areas of use throughout 

the NEMIZ. A majority of participants designated 

the area in the Northeastern corner of the NEMIZ

(generally north of 16th Street and east of Florida) 

for protection of “Core” PDR uses, due to the predominance 

of larger PDR uses in this area, and 

superior transportation access. Several groups 

identified 17th Street near Theatre Artaud as a 

potential Cultural Corridor, and some suggested 

that 14th Street should become a Commercial corridor 

linking back to Mission Street. The “tail” area 

of the NEMIZ was commonly distinguished as 

separate from the NEMIZ and more a part of the 

surrounding Mission District neighborhood. All 

groups suggested encouraging Mixed- 

Use/Residential development in this area, which 

would make it consistent with surrounding uses. 

One group noted that zoning in the NEMIZ 

should be more consistent with the rest of the city 

in terms of height controls, density, parking, and 

affordable housing standards. 

Several groups expressed opinions that they prefer 

the NEMIZ as it is, and that intervention should 

only be used to keep one use-type from dominating 

in the area preserving the fine-grained mix of 

uses. The varied mix of land uses that the groups 

decided on must be treated sensitively, and conventional 

zoning may not be adequate for the task. 

Flexible zoning that incorporates market forces 

and organic growth is needed. 

Some suggestions for zoning: 

Keep existing M1-zoning in place, allowing 

market forces to determine the future 

of the neighborhood. 

Establish an IPZ for ‘Core’ PDR uses in 

the Northeast corner of the NEMIZ at 

Harrison and 16th Streets 

Public facilities which are unlikely to relocate 

(e.g., the Muni bus barn) should not 

be included in this protection scheme. 

Allow PDR uses which are less “noxious” 

(i.e., “Medium” and “Light” PDR) to 

buffer other uses (e.g., retail and residential 

areas) from Core PDR, and generally 

allow these uses to integrate into the 

mixed-use areas of the NEMIZ. 


Workshop Summary 

IV.3 




Develop a use strategy for multi-story 

PDR Buildings. 

Encourage physical improvements such as 

planting trees and installing other amenities 

along streets, especially along 16th, 

17th, and 20th Streets. 

Encourage a mix of housing prices and 

styles. 

Encourage neighborhood-serving retail 

and discourage “destination” retail. 

Consider establishing air rights for large 

parcels which could be developed by 

building on top of existing low-intensity 

uses (for example, the PG&E lot at 19th 

& Folsom). 

Final Goals 

The groups picked one or two members to present 

the final goals, including dissenting opinions to all 

the participants at the end of the workshop. Each 

group had the opportunity to present their views. 

Some common final goals are listed below: 

The NEMIZ should support a mix of uses 

including housing, arts, entertainment, 

office and industrial. No one use should 

dominate the neighborhood. 

The NEMIZ should generate jobs. 

IV.4 Workshop Summary 

Establish short and long-range economic 

development incentives for desired uses 

including permits, taxes, job-training programs, 

impact fees, and/or parking 

requirements. 

Create a NEMIZ mixed-use district that 

includes a list of uses tied to clearlydefined 

objectives for jobs and housing. 

Buffer zones are preferred between incompatible 

uses, but are not always realistic or 

needed given current mix of land uses and 

the actual external impacts of many PDR 

businesses. 

Create and maintain clear parking standards 

for new development. 

Develop a transportation plan that 

includes the Mission Creek Bike Path, 

pedestrian access and street improvements, 

truck access, and bike lanes. 

Provide incentives other than zoning to 

achieve these objectives.

Concerns Regarding Potential of 

Creating Existing Non-conforming 

Uses 

Throughout the workshop process, many participants 

noted that they were disappointed that they 

were not informed about the City’s process for the 

entire Mission District. Participants also felt that 

the industrial zoning proposed in the City’s 

“Alternative B” is a blanket approach that does not 

account for the portions of the NEMIZ that have 

evolved into a mixed-use district. 

In preparing for the workshop Community Design 

+ Architecture obtained land use data for the 

Mission from the City. As the team reviewed the 

data it became clear that the data do not accurately 

reflect existing land uses. The team went about 

correcting and clarifying the major errors through 

field research and MCEJJ member surveys. The 

team’s spot correction of land use indicated that 

over 40% of the NEMIZ parcels in the city data 

are in error. 

Using the corrected land use data and the City’s 

Proposed “Alternative B” zoning CD+A produced 

a map indicating the parcels that, if Alternative B 

were adopted, would be considered non-conforming. 

This mapping revealed that over 22% of the 

parcels in the NEMIZ (approximately 31% of the 

land area in the NEMIZ) could become non-conforming 

if the zoning proposed in Alternative B 

were implemented. Many of the groups were 

strongly opposed to the number of non-conforming 

uses that could include a variety of live/work, 

business service, retail, and cultural uses throughout 

the NEMIZ. Many groups indicated that nontoxic 

PDR should be conditionally grandfathered 

rather than unilaterally protected. 


Workshop Summary 

IV.5 


PLANNING & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 

In considering goals for both the NEMIZ and for 

the City of San Francisco, the team has prepared a 

set of supportive recommendatons for adressing 

PDR citywide, and a set of goals focused specifically 

on the NEMIZ. The policy recommendations 

are accompanied by a proposed land use 

alternative to serve as the basis for alternative zoning. 

Citywide Industrial 

Policy Recommendations 

These citywide policy recommendations are 

included here, because they have a relationship to 

the rezoning of the NEMIZ. 

The Mission Coalition has gathered 

the input of NEMIZ stakeholders, 

conducted a thorough 

theoretical and practical investigation 

into the PDR concept, 

and has worked intensely to 

articulate a vision for the future 

of the NEMIZ. The MCEJJ 

effort resulted in the following 

consensus policy and planning 

recommendations. 

A. Refinement of PDR 

Definitions 

The definitions of PDR need to be further refined 

to be more related to the potential impacts of PDR 

activities. When the PDR definitions are linked to 

land use zoning consideration needs to be given to 

the access, building-type, and space requirements 

of various PDR types. 

MCEJJ has developed a set of PDR definitions 

that build from the City’s work, and SPUR’s 

Housing Action Committee (HAC) refinements 

to these definitions. But PDR definitions need to 

reflect the specific conditions within a planning 

area. The definitions have been created to be spe-



Reuse of army barracks for PDR in Bayshore 

Core PDR uses feature local impacts such as fumes that 

make them incompatible with other uses (in this case residential) 

V.2 Policy & Planning Recommendations 

cific to the existing use patterns, parcel sizes, existing 

building stock, and truck access characteristics 

of the NEMIZ. It may be necessary to create definitions 

that are specific to each of the five Eastern 

Neighborhoods relating to their specific characteristics. 

The goal is to create definitions that can link use 

definitions to the activities and impacts of PDR 

that affect compatibility with other uses and to 

expand the definition of PDR to include a broader 

group of businesses that are involved in production, 

distribution, and repair, rather than just light 

or heavy industrial uses. Another issue that can be 

addressed during the EIR process, is the problem 

of how activity-specific definitions are difficult to 

administer and enforce, because specific use definitions 

can quickly become outdated as business 

practices change. The following definition of 

‘intensity’ PDR use begins to build this groundwork 

by creating PDR use zones that focus on the 

intensity of activity, and environmental and other 

performance standards. 

B. Consider Setting 

Environmental and Other 

Performance Standards 

The City should investigate developing a set of 

environmental and performance standards that 

can be applied to PDR businesses and all types of 

development in IPZs. 

Environmental standards would measure such 

activities as traffic, parking, noise, fumes, vibration, 

hours of operation, and other effects on environmental 

conditions in the surrounding area and 

quality of life impacts. Land uses and businesses 

could be evaluated and categorized according to 

these standards, regardless of the business or activity 

or industry. The PDR Use Zones that are recommended 

here (Core, Medium, and Light) 

would then have environmental and other performance 

standards linked to them. Core uses 

should be kept separate from residential and other 

‘impact sensitive’ land uses. Medium uses have 

more moderate impacts and can be in mixed-use 

zones, while light uses have minimal impacts and 

can mix with residential uses .

C. Evaluate Each Industrial 

Neighborhood and Customize the 

IPZ Approach to Local Conditions 

within the Broader City and 

Regional Context 

The City needs to carefully evaluate each of the 

Eastern Neighborhoods to determine what if any 

areas have the necessary conditions to support an 

IPZ and what type of IPZ, or whether that neighborhood 

has transitioned to a mixed-use or other 

type of district. 

A careful review of existing land uses, businesses, 

building supply, land supply, and transportation 

network and access needs to be undertaken. For 

example, Chicago has a thorough process set up to 

determine if an IPZ can be created in an area; this 

process includes meeting with property and business 

owners. 

The City of San Francisco has not created a uniform 

evaluation process, and analysis and planning 

for each Eastern Neighborhood are proceeding 

with different processes and levels of analysis. We 

believe that the Central Waterfront planning effort 

represents the best effort to date in regards to 

understanding the relationship of the planning 

area to the City and region, and in relation to the 

specifics of existing building stock and uses. 

However, this area, which is a key industrial area of 

the City, is not included in the Eastern 

Neighborhoods rezoning study and is not being 

coordinated with the other five neighborhoods. 

D. Develop a Comprehensive 

Industrial Preservation Policy 

The City needs to develop a comprehensive industrial 

(‘Core’ PDR) preservation policy with a series 

of economic development programs and financial 

assistance programs to help ensure that industrial 

jobs are protected and encouraged. 

Zoning alone is not sufficient to address the issue 

of industrial jobs and business. The City should 

consider creating a “PDR economic development 

corporation” that can be used to offset the costs of 

developing space for targeted core PDR uses that 


Wider streets and single story buildings with loading 

docks make Bayshore an attractive environment for highvolume 

industrial distributors. 

Policy & Planning Recommendations 

V.3 





cannot be covered by existing rents. PDR incubator buildings in the Central 

Waterfront and Bayview/Hunter’s Point neighborhoods could be developed with 

financial assistance of such an EDC, and support the maintenance and creation of 

PDR space that is appropriate to each of the Eastern Neighborhoods and the Central 

Waterfront. According to local brokers, the private sector market will not generate 

this product, because rents do not support the cost of subdividing existing larger 

buildings or constructing new buildings for these uses, which tend to want small 

spaces ranging from about 3,000 to 6,000 square feet, on average. Other financing 

mechanisms could be considered, including business improvement districts and/or 

neighborhood improvement districts. 

E. Any IPZ Program Needs to Be Flexible and Include 

Monitoring 

If the City establishes permanent IPZs, the program needs to allow for flexibility and 

monitoring and evaluation with the option that an IPZ can be removed if it proves 

to be unsuccessful and/or unnecessary. 

IPZs can be more effective when they allow for flexibility and include mechanisms 

for removal based on set criteria, which include the majority of property owners petitioning 

for removal. The Chicago program and process seem to be well-planned and 

logical in this regard. Of the cities reviewed, Chicago's program has been in effect 

over the longest period of time, and it has established a number of districts. The IPZ 

use requirements should be strong enough to support continued industrial / ‘Core’ 

PDR uses, while being reasonable enough to allow owners to prove that there is no 

viable industrial use for their property. Such a flexible program could be tied to other 

economic development tools and programs as recommended above to exhaust all 

possible means of creating a viable industrial building or site before allowing for conversion 

to other uses. Should an IPZ prove unsuccessful for an area, a simple and 

clear process should be outlined for its removal, and replacement zoning should be 

developed in a reasonable period of time. 

Flexibility and monitoring can help to ensure that industrial land is always well-utilized and continues 

to generate employment (new FedEx facility in the Bayshore).

NEMIZ 


The following recommendations relate specifically 

to the NEMIZ and the City’s proposals for the 

rezoning of the NEMIZ as part of the broader 

Mission Neighborhood planning effort. 

A. Eliminate Potential for “Preexisting 

Non-conforming” Uses 

The City’s most recent preferred zoning option 

would result in a large number of “pre-existing 

non-conforming” uses, about 180 parcels or 1/3 of 

the NEMIZ total land area. New zoning should 

consider existing land use patterns to reduce this 

potential, and a new approach to non-conforming 

uses should be defined that eliminates the negative 

impacts of this designation. 

MCEJJ’s recommendations for new zoning designations 

address this issue directly by minimizing 

the number of parcels and buildings that do not fit 

within the land use designations for the various 

zones. There will likely be a small number of uses 

in the PDR/IPZ Zone and other zones that will 

need to be classified as pre-existing non-conforming 

uses and that their continued use is ‘grandfathered’ 

in to their District. We recommend that 

NEMIZ-specific non-conforming use requirements 

be defined that give businesses, residents, 

and property owners certainty that their pre-existing 

uses will be allowed to function into the future. 

This will need to include the potential for uses to 

expand to a certain degree as their needs change 

over time. This issue needs to be considered carefully 

to balance the desires of NEMIZ stakeholders 

and the City to shape the future of the area 

with the needs of specific residents and businesses 

that are occupying buildings in the NEMIZ today. 


Theatre Artaud (above) and is one example of an existing 

use that risks becoming “non-conforming” under the 

City’s “Alternative B” zoning. 


V.5 




B. NEMIZ-Specific PDR 

Definitions 

MCEJJ has prepared a NEMIZ-specific set of definitions 

for PDR uses that reflect the existing uses 

and available building types, parcel sizes, and 

access opportunities and constraints within the 

NEMIZ. 

This recommendation includes the following use 

and activity sub-categories: 

Automotive PDR: automotive repair (both maintenance 

and body work/painting). 

Clothing PDR: clothing manufacturing, distribution, 

and wholesale. 

Commercial/Service PDR: Businesses that provide 

a service to other businesses and the public; may 

also involve wholesale or some retail sales. 

Examples include: Mission Linens, the 

Schoenstein & Sons Pipe Organ Company, 

Lumbermans, plumbing or electrical supplies, auto 

parts sales, print shops, etc. 

Construction PDR: contractor facilities (offices, 

yards, production facilities). 

Cultural PDR: prop and stage production, artists’ 

studios, artesian manufacturing. 

Food PDR: food manufacturing, preparation, and 

wholesale/distribution. 

Manufacturing PDR: general manufacturing not 

associated with other sub-categories. 

Mixed-Use PDR: properties that include a mix of 

PDR uses or a mix of PDR uses with other uses. 

Public/Institutional Facility and Utility (PIFU) 

PDR: City/County, public or non-profit civic 

institution, or utility production, distribution, 

and/or repair facilities, such as Muni, City Sign 

Shop, PG&E, AT&T, and the SPCA. [Note: PIFU 

is a land use definition used in San Francisco’s 

existing Zoning Code]. 

Storage PDR: self-storage and warehouse facilities. 


Tech/Media PDR: film production, sound studios, 

graphic and web design, and other similar technical 

and media related production uses. 

R&D PDR: research and development facilities 

that combine a variety of uses including: wet, dry, 

or computer research labs, production facilities, 

storage, and some office uses. NEMIZ examples 

include Dolby Labs. 

NEMIZ PDR types by land use compatibility 

and impact: 

These definitions build from HAC’s comments in 

regards to the City definitions. 

Core PDR: Production, distribution, and repair 

uses that provide value to the local economy and a 

valuable employment base to the community. 

These uses, in general, should be located in a PDR 

Exclusive Zone or Industrial Preservation Zone 

(IPZ), because of potential conflicts with commercial 

and residential uses, such as fumes, noise, 

vibration, times of operations, and semi-truck traffic. 

Medium PDR: Production, distribution, and 

repair uses that provide value to the local economy 

and a valuable employment base to the community. 

These uses, in general, do not present potential 

conflicts with commercial and residential uses, 

such as fumes, noise, times of operations, and 

semi-truck traffic. But these uses, in general, do 

not experience conflicts with Core PDR uses. 

Light PDR: Production, distribution, and repair 

uses that provide value to the local economy and a 

valuable employment base to the community. 

These uses, in general, do not present potential 

conflicts with commercial and residential uses, 

such as fumes, noise, times of operations, and 

semi-truck traffic. But these uses, in general, can 

experience conflicts with Core PDR uses and 

should be buffered from Core PDR zones.

PDR Sub-Category Core PDR Medium PDR Light PDR 

Automotive Auto body work and repair; auto painting facilities 

with toxic waste storage and air emissions; may 

produce excessive noise. 

Examples Celica Auto Body; Sherwin Williams Auto Painting 

Clothing May require trailer truck access with level loading 

docks; typically requires adequate access for larger 

trucks; may include heavier machinery 

Examples Byers The Sak 

Commercial & Service Businesses that provide a service to other 

businesses and the public, but that require regular 

truck access, larger warehouse facilities and may 

produce excessive noise or emissions; Core users 

may include those with hours of operation that 

extend beyond normal business hours. 

Regular automotive service, tire, exhaust, and oil 

change service centers; may not produce excessive 

noise beyond normal business hours. 

Smaller production with periodic shipping and 

receiving via smaller trucks; typically requires 

ground floor access with large (roll-up) doors; 

wholesale activity may demand off-street parking. 

Services and wholesalers with moderate access 

needs for both cars and trucks; typically will require 

some on-site storage and large doors for shipping 

and receiving 

Examples Mission Linens The Schoenstein & Sons Pipe Organ Company; 

plumbing or electrical supplies, auto parts sales, print 

shops, etc. 

Construction Larger yards and distributors with regular 

movement of large and heavy items. May include 

on-site pre-fabrication. 

Examples large electrical contractor on Bryant between 17th and 

Mariposa 

Smaller construction-related wholesalers, requiring 

automobile and light truck access, with infrequent 

shipping and receiving 

Lumbermans 

Cultural Prop shops involving construction, painting and 

shipping/receiving of bulky items for entertainment 


Small-scale (cottage-industry) production with 

occasional pick-ups and deliveries 

Examples Prop shops 

Food Requires ground floor access; larger floor plate; Requires truck access, ground floor access; may Requires ground floor access, wholesale and retail 

loading for semi-trailer trucks. May produce noise emit minor fumes; may not operate between 12:00 - activity may require off-street parking. 

and/or moderate air emissions. May operate 

beyond normal business hours. 

7:00 AM. 

Examples Wonder Bread factory; Popcorn factory; large coffee 

roaster, Schmidt Chocolate 

Potrero Brewing Company, Pasta Pomodoro catering Hostess outlet, panederias, small catering company 

PIFU Large parcels typically with large lots or structures City/County, public or non-profit civic institution, 

for parking, storage or maintenance; may have or utility production, distribution, and/or repair 

special needs such as power transmission lines; facilities that operate within standard hours of 

typically operates beyond normal business hours; operation and do not incorporate large yards. 

because of investment required to relocate These should not create excessive noise or 

infrastructure, it is unlikely that these uses will additional traffic. These uses may require a small 

move in the near future. These uses typically 

require frequent exit and entry of vehicles. 

lot for service vehicles. 

Examples MUNI, PG&E, Fire department training lot City Sign Shop 

Manufacturing Larger parcels usually with industrial buildings of Manufacturing process may produce minor fumes; 

significant mass and area. Manufacturing process distribution of goods may require occasional truck 

may produce noxious air emissions or excessive access during normal business hours; hours of 

noise; distribution of goods may demand frequent operation may extend beyond normal business 

large truck access; hours of operation may extend hours, provided that noise emissions are limited 

beyond normal business hours; facility may store during these times; only very small amounts of toxic 

toxic materials or fuel; storage of production chemicals or fuel may be stored on-site. Raw 

materials or machinery may be visible from the materials and production machinery should not be 

street 

stored on-site. 

Examples Ocean Sash Manufacturing, Kilgor Machine Works Mission Creek Printing, Stanislaus Doll Shop 

Mixed Buildings that contain a mix of PDR uses no more Buildings that contain a mix of PDR uses no more 

"intensive" than medium PDR and which do not "intensive" than light PDR and which do not create 

create excessive noise, fumes or traffic; typically excessive noise, fumes or traffic; may require freight 

houses light PDR uses on upper-level floors with elevators; uses may not emit noxious fumes or 

lower-level floors taking advantage of loading noise, and must require only small truck or auto 

facilities; buildings typically include a large freight 

elevator. 

access. 

Examples Contractors and other PDR users at 400 Treat Tile distribution, towing, art studio 

Mixed-Use Properties that include a mix of uses including PDR. Properties that include a mix of uses including PDR. 

PDR uses may have extended hours of operation PDR uses are generally located on the ground floor 

and require small truck access. 

and typically require large roll-up doors for 

occasional truck access. 

Examples Renovated Hamm's Brewery Lion Building; Environmental Hardwood Floors and Dog 

Day Care 

R&D R&D PDR space may require larger floorplans, 

taller ceilings, and flexibility for interior layouts; 

typically requires minimal truck access, and may be 

located in multi-story buildings. 

Examples Williams-Sonoma 

Storage Self-storage, warehouse facilities and storage lots Self-storage facilities designed for occasional 

with extended hours of operation, and frequent car, automobile and small truck access 

small and large truck access. Building frontage or 

exposed lots typically result in blighted and unactivated 

streets that are not supportive of other 

uses. 

Examples large electrical contractor on Bryant between 17th and 

Mariposa 

Attic Self-storage 

Tech/Media Minimal receiving/distribution needs, regular hours 

of operation 

Examples Tech TV; film studios at 612 Alabama 


V.7 




C. The Majority of the NEMIZ 

Should Have Mixed-Use 

Designations 

The majority of the none IPZ areas of the NEMIZ 

are currently mixed-use in nature and new zoning 

should reflect and support these patterns of use 

that are valued by the community. 

Most of the PDR businesses in the NEMIZ that 

the City wishes to encourage and/or protect are 

compatible with other uses, including residential 

and commercial uses, however, they may not be 

able to pay the same rents as many of these other 

uses. They can be encouraged by targeting them in 

mixed-use buildings where a developer or property 

owner can cross subsidize the PDR use with other 

higher paying uses on the upper floors. This makes 

sense because the most rent sensitive PDR uses 

need ground floor space and loading/truck access. 

The areas where ground floor PDR is encouraged 

should be on streets with adequate truck access 

and width to allow for loading and unloading, see 

attached Accessibility Map. This would also allow 

multi-story buildings in the NEMIZ that need to 

be revitalized to be economically viable as PDR 

rents will not support remodeling these buildings. 

The initial MCEJJ Consensus Zoning District 

Map indicates three types of mixed-use zones (see 

MCEJJ Consensus Zoning District Map on page 

V.10). A matrix on page V.11 fruther explains 

restricted and allowable uses in each of the MCEJJ 

zoning designations. 

PDR/Commercial Zone 

There are two of these zones located along the 

northern edge of the NEMIZ. They reflect the 

general underlying pattern of existing development 

which is a combination of larger retail and 

office commercial uses and PDR. The zoning 

would also allow pre-existing residential uses and 

consideration could be given to some additional 

residential or live/work use particularly in upper 

floors of buildings. 

Residential/Mixed-Use Zone 

Much of the western edge of the NEMIZ, a small 


area to the south, and the ‘tail’ of the current 

NEMIZ have this zoning designation. Again, it 

would reflect the general existing land use patterns 

which include a large extent of residential and 

live/work uses with a mix of some smaller retail 

and office uses. A variety of PDR and commercial 

uses would be allowed, but the PDR uses would 

need to be within the ‘medium’ and ‘light’ categories 

or be able to document that they would not 

have negative impacts on surrounding residential 

uses. 

NEMIZ Mixed-Use Zone 

The majority of the NEMIZ to the south of 16th 

Street would be in this zoning category. Ground 

floor ‘medium’ and ‘light’ PDR uses would be 

encouraged with flexibility to recognize the incompatibility 

of existing larger floor plate buildings 

with the majority of today’s PDR businesses which 

require smaller spaces. A variety of ground floor 

uses would be allowed with preference given to 

commercial or cultural uses in the ‘Commercial 

Overlay’ and ‘Cultural/Commercial Overlay’ districts. 

Existing ‘Core’ PDR uses would be ‘grandfathered’ 

into the zone and encouraged to continue 

their operations in the NEMIZ while mitigating 

potential negative impacts. New ‘Core’ PDR 

uses could be allowed if they satisfy environmental 

and other performance standards. 

Conforming properties in the proposed NEMIZ Mixed-use 

Zone

D. Create a Small IPZ Focused 

on Key ‘Core’ PDR Uses 

A small portion of the NEMIZ should be considered 

for an IPZ, generally in the northeast corner 

of the district while the rest of the NEMIZ should 

be mixed-use. 

Local residents and property owners worked with 

Community Design + Architecture to correct the 

City’s land use database for the NEMIZ through 

the use of alternative databases and many hours of 

field work. This results in the documentation of a 

more accurate existing land use pattern that truly 

reflects the NEMIZ today. The area has long since 

transitioned from its industrial beginnings. A large 

portion of the PDR uses in the area are public utilities 

or facilities or light types of PDR that are 

compatible with other uses including residential 

uses. 

The workshop participants generally agreed with 

this assessment, and defined an IPZ / ‘Core’ PDR 

Zoning District in the northeast corner of the 

NEMIZ. This area would support the existing 

land use patterns and would exclude residential 

uses from the area. Smaller and medium sized 

retail uses would be allowed to provide services to 

employees in the area. Non-PDR commercial uses 

would be limited to upper floors of existing buildings. 

Uses ancillary to the primary PDR use would 

be allowed. A program would be established to 

monitor the effectiveness of the IPZ and property 

owners/businesses would be given the option to 

vote on discontinuing the IPZ after a reasonable 

period of time. 


The Wonder Bread bakery (above) and Byer clothing 

(below) would be protected Core PDR uses within MCEJJ’s 

Industrial Protection Zone. 


V.9 




NTON 

SPENCER 

18TH 

19TH 

20TH 

FAIR OAKS 

GUERRERO 

DORLAND 

CLINTON 

BROSNAN 

14TH 

LIBERTY 

15TH 

GAISER 

CAMP 

UMBERLAND 

AMES 

PEARL 

DUBOCE 

DEARBORN 

ELGIN 

BIRD 

LINDA 

LIBERTY 

21ST 

HILL 

22ND 

ALVARADO 

LAPIDGE 

23RD 


CALEDONIA 

SPARROW 

CUNNINGHAM 

Commercial 

IPZ/’Core’ PDR 

NEMIZ Mixed Use 

PDR/Commercial 

Pub Cultural/Open Space 

Residential 

Residential/Mixed Use 

VALENCIA 

RONDEL 

JULIAN 

CLARION 

SAN JOSE SYCAMORE 

WOODWARD 

LEXINGTON 

WIESE 

HOFF 

BARTLETT 

OTIS 

SAN CARLOS 

MINNA 

MISSION 

CAPP 

NATOMA 

ADAIR 

CAPP 

SOUTH VAN NESS 

SHOTWELL 

ISIS 

TRAINOR 

ENTERPRISE 

FOLSOM 

12TH 

MISTRAL 

Commercial Overlay 

New NEMIZ Boundary 

1 

Cultural/Commercial 

Transit Corridor 

Transit Corridor & Cultural/Commercial 

BERNICE 

TREAT 

TREAT 

15TH 

HARRISON 

13TH 

MCEJJ Consensus Zoning District Map 

North East Mission Industrial Zone (NEMIZ) 

March 3, 2003 

OLK HAMPSHIRE 

ALABAMA 

11TH 

ALABAMA 

15TH 

MARIPOSA 

FLORIDA 

BRYANT 

10TH 

18TH 

YORK 

DORE 

HWY 101 TO I 80 

HAMPSHIRE 

BRANNAN 

POTRERO 

09TH 

15TH 

UTAH 

16TH 

17TH 

22ND 

23RD 

STBOUND 

UTAH 

SAN BRUNO 

19TH 

20TH 

UTAH 

I80 TO 

S 

SA 

S


V.11 

Ground Upper Ground Upper Ground Upper Ground Upper Ground Upper Ground Upper 

Core PDR CP [4] CP [4] P P 

Medium PDR P P P P P P P P CP [3] 

Light PDR P P 

Small Retail 

(≤ 5,000 sf) 

Medium Retail 

(5,000 < X ≤ 15,000 sf) 

Large Retail 

(> 15,000 sf) 

Parking Lot [5] 

Parking Structure [2] 

Small Office 

(≤ 5,000 sf) 

Medium Office 

(5,000 < X ≤ 15,000 sf) 

Large Office 

(> 15,000 sf) 

NP 

(E)-P 

P NP P 

P only in T, 

C, & CC 

Overlays [1] 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

CP 

(E)-P 

NP 

NP 

(E)-P 

P only in T 

Overlay [1] 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-CP 

NP 

(E)-CP 

NP 

(E)-CP 

NP NP 

NP NP 

P P P P P P P NP NP 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

P P P P P 

P P P P P 

P P P P 

na P na P na P na 

CP 

(E)-P 

CP 

(E)-P 

CP 

(E)-P 

CP 

(E)-P 

CP 

(E)-P 

CP 

(E)-P 

CP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

CP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP NP 

NP NP 

NP NP 

na NP na 

CP 

(E)-P 

NP NP 

P P P P P P P P P P NP NP 

P as ancillary 

use to PDR 

or Retail 

— 

P in CC 

Overlay [1] 

NP 

(E)-P 

P 

P 


use to PDR 

NP 

(E)-P 

P 

NP 

(E)-P 


use to PDR 

or Retail 

NP 

(E)-P 

P P P 

P 

NP 

(E)-P 

P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

P NP NP 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP NP 

Cultural P P P P P P P P P P NP NP 

PIFU P P P P P P P P P P NP NP 

Residential 

NEMIZ Mixed-Use IPZ/'Core' PDR PDR/Commercial Commercial Residential/Mixed-Use Residential 

NP 

(E)-P 

P 

NP 

(E)-P 

NP 

(E)-P 

Legend 

Legend: P Permitted 

(E)-P Pre-existing use is Permitted 

NP Not Permitted 

CP Conditionally Permitted 

(E)-CP Pre-existing use is Conditionally Permitted 

na not applicable 

NP 

(E)-P 

P 

NP 

(E)-P 

P P P P P 

GENERAL NOTES: 

A. Existing code compliant uses shall be designated as "pre-existing conditionally permitted uses" standards should be set to allow these uses to function effectively while protecting adjacent uses from 

potential negative impacts. 

FOOTNOTES: 

[1] Overlay Zones: Transit Corridor (T), Commercial (C), and Cultural/Commercial (CC) 

[2] Parking Structures are allowed if part of a parking district or shared parking strategy and ground floor use fronting onto public streets is required. 

[3] Medium PDR would be permitted with monitoring program on performance standards and less than 7,500 sf in size. 

[4] Core PDR would be permitted with monitoring program on performance standards. 

[5] Surface parking is permitted only as an ancillary use to other permitted uses and design standards should be created to buffer public streets from parking lots. 


Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs



NTON 

SPENCER 

18TH 

19TH 

20TH 

FAIR OAKS 

GUERRERO 

DORLAND 

CLINTON 

BROSNAN 

14TH 

LIBERTY 

15TH 

GAISER 

CAMP 

UMBERLAND 

AMES 

PEARL 

DUBOCE 

DEARBORN 

ELGIN 

BIRD 

LINDA 

LIBERTY 

21ST 

HILL 

22ND 

ALVARADO 

LAPIDGE 

23RD 

CALEDONIA 

SPARROW 

CUNNINGHAM 

VALENCIA 

RONDEL 

JULIAN 

CLARION 

SAN JOSE SYCAMORE 

WOODWARD 

LEXINGTON 

WIESE 

HOFF 

BARTLETT 

OTIS 

SAN CARLOS 

MINNA 


MISSION 

CAPP 

NATOMA 

ADAIR 

CAPP 

SOUTH VAN NESS 

SHOTWELL 

ISIS 

TRAINOR 

ENTERPRISE 

FOLSOM 

BERNICE 

TREAT 

12TH 

MISTRAL 

TREAT 

15TH 

OLK HAMPSHIRE 

HARRISON 

13TH 

ALABAMA 

11TH 

ALABAMA 

15TH 

MARIPOSA 

FLORIDA 

BRYANT 

10TH 

18TH 

YORK 

DORE 

HWY 101 TO I−80 

HAMPSHIRE 

BRANNAN 

POTRERO 

09TH 

15TH 

UTAH 

16TH 

17TH 

22ND 

23RD 

STBOUND 

UTAH 

SAN BRUNO 

19TH 

20TH 

UTAH 

I 80 TO 

S 

SA 

S 

E. Redefine the Boundaries of 

the NEMIZ 

Some areas on the edges of the NEMIZ are primarily 

residential or have a stronger relationship to 

adjacent planning areas. These areas should be 

removed from the NEMIZ. 

The ‘tail’ of the NEMIZ to the south of 20th 

Street is primarily a residential area. It should be 

designated Residential/Mixed-Use with a small 

area of Public Cultural/Open Space, and be integrated 

into the larger Mission Neighborhood 

District. 

The small area to the north of Duboce in the 

northwest corner of the NEMIZ should be designated 

Residential/Mixed-Use and integrated into 

the Market & Octavia Neighborhood Planning 

Area. In fact, it appears that the Market & Octavia 

‘Better Neighborhoods’ plan overlaps with a portion 

of the NEMIZ to the south of Duboce as 

well. This discrepancy should be resolved with the 

involvement of residents, workers, businesses, and 

property owners within the area of overlap.

APPENDIX

Summary: Group A 

Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs (MCEJJ) 

APPENDIX 

Participants of Group A were primarily business and property owners. 

They were well acquainted with one another and outspoken. The group achieved an overwhelming consensus 

on all but minor issues. There was complete agreement that the neighborhood should maintain M-1 zoning. 

M-1 zoning was favored because its flexibility provided the best means to protect the diversity of the 

neighborhood with its mix of industry, housing, commercial, and office uses. Several participants agreed that 

under M-1 zoning, market forces would continue to shape the NEMIZ with a dynamic mix of uses. They felt 

strongly that the City should not zone individual areas for specific uses because it would create too many nonconforming 

uses. The group proposed a compromise to the City’s Alternative B by designating an area north 

of 16 th Street as the primary location of industrial uses (IPZ) but this would include a requirement that any 

existing non-industrial uses would be conforming. The group believed that the southern end of the NEMIZ 

or the “tail” could be rezoned residential because it already fits into the fabric of the surrounding residential 

area. 

The group’s main concern was the concept of non-conforming uses in the City’s Alternative B. They wanted 

to “do away” with the concept of “non-conforming uses” with the exception of environmentally hazardous 

industry. They also acceded that there should be buffers from industry around schools. In general, the group 

was disappointed with the City’s rezoning process and was very concerned that it has created hostilities 

between interest groups in the NEMIZ and groups west of South Van Ness. 

The group was very enthusiastic to participate in this workshop. They were all passionate to preserve the 

diversity of the neighborhood. What they liked best about the NEMIZ is the dynamic mix of uses found 

throughout the neighborhood, the restaurants, the good public transit access (both buses and BART), that 

parking is relatively easy, and the presence of artists. There was consensus that there should be more public 

open space and streetscape improvements. Streetscape improvements ranged from bike lanes on some streets, 

to allowing accessibility of 40-feet trucks on others. The latter was a specific concern of one long-term 

business owner whose business depends on large vehicles for transport. The street that his business resides on 

is now too congested to accommodate them. 

Participants appreciated the current identity of the neighborhood and do not want the NEMIZ to be “knit 

into the fabric of the mission” because that might compromise the diversity of uses and the historic industrial 

nature of the neighborhood. 

Planning Goals Worksheet 

The Goals presented from previous NEMIZ planning events created tremendous confusion for the group. 

Several participants felt that too many concepts were grouped into one goal. The language was difficult to 

interpret, and almost all participants were not comfortable committing to an opinion without discussion of 

each goal. Eventually discussion clarified some concerns but by and large participants re-wrote many of the 

goals. 

Appendix A.1


Ideas and Vision for the NEMIZ 

The Goals/Comments of the group are as follows: 

Existing non-conforming uses should be zoned conforming uses. 

Live/work spaces should be woven into the fabric of the existing neighborhood with design 

improvements. 

More bike paths and lanes, wider sidewalks on some streets and reduction of sidewalks on others. 

Restrict industrial areas to where streets are wide enough to accommodate 40ft trucks 

Separate industrial uses from schools. 

Develop the “Mission Creek Bike Path” 

Support Mixed use 

Enhance artistic and cultural spaces 

Investigate the potential for the NEMIZ to be a Neighborhood Improvement District 

Support housing but balance with other uses 

Produce a short and long-range economic development plan for the NEMIZ. 

The NEMIZ should be a job generating area. 

Eliminate the PDR expression or expand its definition. 

Establish Zoning for NEMIZ 

The group strongly supported M-1 zoning to protect the diversity of uses in the neighborhood and some 

agreed that M-1 zoning creates flexibility that allows natural market forces to determine the future of the 

neighborhood. They objected to any zoning that would promote certain uses in specific areas because they 

value the mix of uses that exist block by block. Consensus was reached that the southern “tail” of the 

NEMIZ could be rezoned residential to fit into its surrounding neighborhood and that the northern area 

could be rezoned as IPZ, if necessary. 

Implementation Tools 

Zoning 

Eliminate idea of non-conforming uses 

Tax incentives for small and medium size businesses and artists and arts activities. Eliminate payroll tax. 

Capital improvements plan to implement transportation plan. 

Final Goals 

1. NEMIZ should be job generating. 

2. The NEMIZ should support mixed use including housing, arts and entertainment and 

industrial. 

3. Eliminate the concept of “non-conforming” uses as long as they are not environmentally 

hazardous and eliminate the expression PDR or expend its definition. 

4. Produce a short and long-range economic development plan including tax incentives. 

5. Develop a Transportation Plan including the “Mission Creek Bike Path,” pedestrian access 

and streetscape improvements, 40ft truck access, bike lanes, etc. 

Appendix A.2

Summary: Group C 


Group C was comprised of two residents, two property owners, and two individuals who lived and worked in 

the Box Factory. 

The primary point of consensus that came out of the group was an appreciation of the current mixed-use 

character of the NEMIZ, though all agreed that the existing zoning is too permissive to protect this character. 

Two extreme views were voiced early on. The first held that the City’s proposed zoning may somehow allow a 

loophole whereby non-profit housing developers could add housing to the area to the exclusion of market-rate 

developers. The constituent felt that this allowance in high-densities and would concentrate poor residents in 

the NEMIZ. From the other perspective, one individual felt that the NEMIZ had a responsibility to other 

neighborhoods, especially the Mission, to add affordable housing in the NEMIZ. All agreed that the NEMIZ 

should allow for some housing (some of which could be affordable) as well as a mix of uses, while preserving 

important industrial uses that would provide jobs for San Franciscans both inside and outside the NEMIZ. 

Two resident/workers from the Box Factory noted that they liked the idea of living and working in the 

NEMIZ. 

It was generally agreed that zoning alone would not be a sufficient tool to achieve the desired mix of 

development in the Mission. The group looked to discretionary review, guided by a set of land use and 

design guidelines as a solution to zoning for the type of mixed-use character they were after. (See “Establish 

Zoning for the NEMIZ,” below) 


The Goals listed from previous planning efforts around the NEMIZ were a source of confusion for 

participants. In part participants were not clear about the history of these goals (i.e., they did not participate 

in the 1994 and 1999 planning process.) Also some items goals were unclear in their intent or phrasing. In 

order to limit unfocused discussion stemming from the goals analysis, and because we were running short on 

time, we proceeded through the goals taking votes for “disagree, agree, etc.” It immediately became apparent 

that, sometimes due to lack of clarity in the goal, or sometimes due to ambivalence, a third category noted as 

“Mixed” would have to be created as a response. 

The group generally voted together, with one individual generally presenting a dissenting opinion. In some 

cases further discussion brought this individual from a “disagree” opinion to “Mixed.” The following table 

summarizes the results of this portion of the small group process. The items hi-lighted in blue represent those 

for which there was most agreement. 

Appendix A.3


Previous 

Planning Efforts 

1994 NEMIZ 

Zoning Proposal 

Effort 

1999 Interim 


Zone (IPZ) 

2001-2002 Mission 

Rezoning Planning 

Process 


Appendix A.4 

Goals (from these Planning 

Efforts) Your Opinion 

Knit NEMIZ into the fabric of the Mission 

District and Surrounding Neighborhoods 

Allowing existing non-conforming uses to 

become conforming uses 

Identify areas within NEMIZ for housing 

an allowable use in those areas 

Temporarily eliminate the threat to the 

supply of industrially zoned land and 

building space available for industrial 

businesses 

Provide adequate space and direction for 

location of residential and live/work 

development 

Preserve diversity and vitality of the 

NEMIZ, identifying areas best suited for 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

development 

Maintain all existing PDR Businesses, but 

do not expand into new areas 

Create balance between traditional PDR 

jobs and new businesses, but exclude 

‘smokestack’ industries 

Preserve existing affordable housing and 

promote a range of new housing 

opportunities, in terms of size and 

affordability 

Discourage loft type residential 

developments (this is noted as needing 

further discussion) 

Allow art places, residential, and retail in 

industrial areas (this is noted as needing 


Exclude residential from industrial areas 

(this is noted as needing further discussion) 

Agree Disagree Mixed 

0 1 3 

5 0 1 

5 1 0 

1 4 1 

4 0 2 

6 0 0 

0 6 

4 1 1 

6 0 0 

1 3 2 

6 0 0 

0 5 1 

Additional 

Comments 

Participants agreed that the NEMIZ is distinct from the Mission, but some stressed the importance in 

recognizing (especially in terms of land use) the relationship of the NEMIZ to surrounding neighborhoods, 

especially the Mission. With regard to non-conforming uses, there was general agreement that this was a 

problem, but it was stressed that we need to clarify the impact of each non-conforming use on the NEMIZ 

before carte blanche approval. Also, one individual spoke with Jill Slater at the City of San Francisco Planning 

Department regarding the issue of what it means to become a non-conforming use and was told that there 

really was no implication for what you could do with a property or its value. The participant was perplexed by 

the inconsistency of what he was told by the City and what was presented in the background presentation at 

the workshop. All but one agreed that housing should be made allowable in certain areas of the Mission. The 

dissenting opinion disagreed because he said that the “scale/scope of the housing” was not clear (is it 

affordable? what are the densities? etc.)

Additional issues include that came out of this process include: 


Need to retain some flexibility in development option in to ride out changes in economic times; 

Need to provide a diversity of housing options in the area; 

Need periodic review of planning/zoning for a more proactive (less reactive) approach; 

NEMIZ residents/owners etc need more representation/voice in planning the Mission; and, 

NEMIZ is important to Mission and San Francisco. 

The group selected the following as the primary issues in to consider in planning in the NEMIZ: 

The NEMIZ should be a mixed-use neighborhood with more jobs generally in addition to the 

preservation of PDR jobs and more housing 

Majority concern over zoning existing uses as “non-conforming”: existing uses need to be 

acknowledged, not ignored. 

Majority agreement that zoning alone can’t guarantee #1 objectives 

Economic development incentives including permits, taxes, job training programs, impact fees, 

and/or parking requirements are also needed 

Majority agreement to create a NEMIZ special use district that includes a mix of uses tied to clearly 

defined jobs/housing objectives. New projects are subject to a discretionary review by the planning 

commission for enforcement of “intent” (minority dissent that discretionary review has no teeth) 

Buffer zones are preferred but are not always realistic given existing land uses where residential uses 

are often adjacent to core PDR uses. 


Due to lack of time and diminished focus, the group did not come to a fully conclusive proposal for rezoning 

the NEMIZ. The following are points that seemed to be supported by all: 

Public Institutions, Facilities and Utilities should be removed from the examination process, as they are 

unlikely to change. (Brown “X”) 

Existing “Core PDR” use should be protected with something like and IPZ. (This area is represented in 

Blue and is generally north of 16 h and east of Florida in addition to the parcels at Alameda & Florida 

owned by Byers Clothing) 

Transitional uses should surround core PDR uses (Orange) 

The tail of NEMIZ should be zoned to tie into the fabric of the existing residential and neighborhood 

commercial neighborhood surrounding it. (Yellow) 

Existing Large Big-box Retail uses should be brought into conformity by zoning them Community 

Commercial. Potential sites for additional big box development north of 14 th street should not be a 

problem so long as they do not threaten core PDR uses. (Red) 

What land remains should be considered as a Special Use District which would be subject to discretionary 

review aided by a set of land use and design guidelines that represent the “intent” to keep the NEMIZ’ 

unique, mixed-use industrial feel. One individual pointed out that discretionary review may lack the “teeth” 

to regulate development in this fashion. Other agreed, but wished to pursue the special use district concept 

anyway, providing that additional incentives and tools should be considered to give the “intent” the teeth it 

needs. This dissenting opinion did not feel that additional incentives would be enough, stating that 

ultimately zoning would determine the future land uses in the NEMIZ. 

Appendix A.5


There was also some discussion surrounding the creation of a Research & Development (R&D) district at the 

northwestern corner of the NEMIZ (west of South Van Ness Avenue and north of 15 th 

Street.) This area 

could possibly provide smaller spaces for biotech research. It was not clear if there was consensus or even 

majority opinion around this concept. 

Additional Notes from Discussion 

Much of the conversation that took place in the small group did not fall within the structure of the small 

group discussion. Below are some additional points that were made. 

Consider an entertainment zone around theater Artaud 

A conflict exists between needs of residents/owners and larger needs of mission, SF, region 

City should address low-medium skilled blue collar flight through job training 

The City has definite need for low/medium income housing 

It is a good idea to establish PDR sub-classes (core, medium and light PDR) in zoning so that a 

buffer is created between PDR and housing 

Potential for NEMIZ to link to Mission Bay, new economic development opportunities 

Question as to how one promotes mixed use development through zoning 

How do you use upstairs space in Multi-story buildings? 

Office, residential, mixed-use development should be promoted in order to maximize the utility of 

buildings (some noted that these uses should not come to dominate the NEMIZ) 

Final Goals 

The group selected the following as the primary issues in to consider in planning in the NEMIZ: 

Appendix A.6 

1. The NEMIZ should be a mixed-use neighborhood with more jobs generally in addition to 

the preservation of PDR jobs and more housing 

2. Majority concern over zoning existing uses as “non-conforming”: existing uses need to be 

acknowledged, not ignored. 

3. Majority agreement that zoning alone can’t guarantee #1 objectives 

4. Economic development incentives including permits, taxes, job training programs, impact 

fees, and/or parking requirements are also needed 

5. Majority agreement to create a NEMIZ special use district that includes a mix of uses tied to 

clearly defined jobs/housing objectives. New projects are subject to a discretionary review by 

the planning commission for enforcement of “intent” (minority dissent that discretionary 

review has no teeth) 

6. Buffer zones are preferred but not are always realistic given existing land uses where 

residential uses are often adjacent to core PDR uses)

Summary: Groups D and I 


Groups D and I had a predominance of residents and were representative of tenants, live/work residents, and 

single-family homeowners, in addition to a property owner/developer. Two individuals also had a 

background in affordable housing development (land use lawyer and housing project associate). The group 

had differing opinions on several goals and eventually agreed on deciding on only presenting the goals that all 

agreed to or a minority abstained upon. 

The primary concern of the group was the loss of diversity and character of the NEMIZ area due to the 

‘Alternative B’ plan. They believed that parts of the area were significantly different from the surrounding 

neighborhood and wanted to preserve the uniqueness of the industrial/commercial/residential mix. The 

initial response was to keep the existing M-1 zoning intact. However, later acknowledging that it was 

inevitable that the City planning process was going to introduce new zoning changes, the group agreed on a 

proposal to preserve the northwest area of the NEMIZ for core industrial uses, while allowing for a corridor 

for the arts along Florida, and fine-scale mixed residential and commercial use in the rest of the 

neighborhood. The fundamental principles governing future change that they proposed focused on 

restricting the built and social density of new construction and occupation patterns to levels which are 

appropriate to the physical scale, social dynamics and transit capacity of the existing neighborhoods. In 

addition, the idea of design guidelines was also introduced as a way of maintaining the integrity of the area’s 

unique character. 

There was also lot of concern about residences and businesses becoming ‘non-conforming’ uses and they 

wanted to understand the detailed implications of the proposed plan. There was a concern for the on-going 

viability of the NEMIZ in its diverse land uses. The property owners in the group felt that the NEMIZ 

should be subject to the same treatment and regulations as other parts of the City, i.e. in the proportion of 

affordable housing units required in a residential development. 

On the subject of housing, the group had contending views regarding affordable housing and live/work lofts. 

Affordable housing opponents were initially concerned about density. However, after an extended discussion, 

it was realized that the issue was more about developments with large footprints and/or high density, and 

inappropriate building facades. The groups finally agreed that more housing in the area was required and all 

types of units should be encouraged over just live/work or affordable units. An emphasis was made that new 

residential development sizes and densities should be moderated, building facades should complement the 

neighborhood (in new developments) or maintain existing industrial building skins. A proposal was also 

raised to upgrade and regularize existing in-law or auxiliary units and to provide ways to maximize the 

residential potential of the existing building stock, possibly by providing exemptions for parking requirements 

in conversions. Individuals voiced concerns about live/work lofts being inappropriately developed and 

occupied as purely residential structures. The group discussed the ideas and alternatives for recovering lost tax 

revenues. 

The group also discussed the appropriateness of having industrial uses in the area due to negative externalities 

and physical constraints such as narrow streets. They did recognize the need for keeping industrial uses in the 

city, but objected to the approach of perceiving industry as something to be protected due to the changing 

regional economic conditions and running costs in San Francisco. They proposed thinking of the IPZ as an 

Industrial Promotion Zone, instead of an Industrial Protection Zone. They were inclined to find viable 

industrial uses and promote those types of uses not just through zoning measures, but also with the added 

support of municipal funding or measures such as the creation of special business districts. The group defined 

a smaller area in the northwest corner of the NEMIZ and next to the freeway which currently has little mixed 

use, and where lots and building structures would be appropriate for industrial uses and. There was a 

consensus on regulating the types of uses in the industrial zone and keeping PDR uses that employ 

exceptionally large number of workers (e.g. high-tech and dot-com) out of the mixed-use zones. The concern 

Appendix A.7


was that such employee-intensive uses lead to a cyclical influx of new people in the neighborhood, straining 

existing infrastructure and changing the character of the neighborhood. There was also concern voiced about 

having other uses coming into the industrial zone like affordable housing, therefore they agreed that any new 

industrial zone should not allow any new housing. 

The group touched lightly on commercial uses wherein they favored smaller neighborhood-serving retail over 

larger ‘big-box’ development. In general, they promoted a fine-grain mix of retail and housing throughout 

the west and south portion of the NEMIZ. One area of intensification proposed by an arts advocate and 

agreed upon by the group was to create a corridor of cultural and artistic uses along Florida Street, anchored 

by institutions such as Theatre Artaud. 

In conclusion, they wanted to preserve the mixed-use character of the NEMIZ, with the proportion of uses 

reflecting the overall distribution of these uses over the city; support an appropriate level of housing 

expansion; and create an industrial development zone for viable industries appropriate for the city’s 

employment base, economic diversity and environment. 


The text of goals listed from previous plans was confusing for most in the group. This led to extensive 

discussion over the intent of each goal and the group eventually spent an hour and quarter going over the 

goals and suggesting their own. They voted on the previous goals however, adding a lot of conditions to their 

votes, thus effectively preventing any consensus over the goals in the final presentation. Of the goals listed, the 

group felt that most were never realized. 

The Existing Goals voted upon: 

Previous 

Planning Efforts 

1994 NEMIZ 

Zoning Proposal 

Effort 

1999 Interim 


Zone (IPZ) 

2001-2002 Mission 

Rezoning Planning 

Process 

Appendix A.8 

Goals (from these Planning 

Efforts) 

Knit NEMIZ into the fabric of the Mission 

District and Surrounding Neighborhoods 

Allowing existing non-conforming uses to 

become conforming uses 

Identify areas within NEMIZ for housing 

an allowable use in those areas 

Temporarily eliminate the threat to the 

supply of industrially zoned land and 

building space available for industrial 

businesses 

Provide adequate space and direction for 

location of residential and live/work 

development 

Preserve diversity and vitality of the 

NEMIZ, identifying areas best suited for 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

development 

Maintain all existing PDR Businesses, but 

do not expand into new areas 

Create balance between traditional PDR 

jobs and new businesses, but exclude 

‘smokestack’ industries 

Your Opinion Additional 

Comments 

Agree Disagree 

7 1 

6 2 

8 0 Identify what kind of 

housing and where 

3 4 

6 2 Disagreement with 

inclusion of live/work 

8 0 Should be mixed 

together 

6 1 

Text not clear. 

What kinds of PDR? 

What are other 

businesses? 

No offices. 

No micro-zonation

Preserve existing affordable housing and 

promote a range of new housing 

opportunities, in terms of size and 

affordability 

Discourage loft type residential 

developments (this is noted as needing 


Allow art places, residential, and retail in 

industrial areas (this is noted as needing 



Exclude residential from industrial areas 

(this is noted as needing further discussion) 

The Goals/Comments of the group are as follows: 


8 0 

4 3 

8 0 

0 6 Yes in some areas 

Zoning in the NEMIZ should be consistent with the rest of the city. Controls on height, density, 

parking, affordable housing etc should match the general trend of the city. 

Create no parking on ground floor ordinance to encourage more pedestrian oriented businesses and streets. 

Encourage all types of housing in the Non-IPZ areas, while avoiding large block development. 

Maintain architectural integrity of the NEMIZ with design guidelines. (Similar to Boston) 

Encourage neighborhood-serving retail over bigger community-serving supermarkets. 

Encourage tenant participation in public/community processes/workshops. 

Affordable housing requirements should not discourage private financing. 

Amend housing ordinance to allow building/converting parts of single-family houses into in-law housing 

without increasing parking. 

Revisit Live/Work ordinance and close loophole encouraging misuse of units as only residential. 

Zoning in the NEMIZ should be consistent with the rest of the city. Controls on height, density, 

parking, affordable housing etc should match the general trend of the city. 

Create no parking on ground floor ordinance to encourage more pedestrian oriented businesses and streets. 

Encourage all types of housing in the Non-IPZ areas, while avoiding large parcel/high-density 

development. 

Affordable housing requirements should not discourage private financing. 

Amend housing ordinance to allow building/converting parts of single-family houses into in-law housing 

without increasing parking. 

Revisit live/work ordinance and close loophole encouraging misuse of units as only residential. 

Appendix A.9


Maintain architectural integrity of the NEMIZ with design guidelines (similar to those in Boston.) 

Encourage neighborhood-serving retail over bigger community-serving supermarkets. 

Encourage tenant participation in public/community processes/workshops. 

A minority of participants expressed the following ideas: 

Maximize affordable housing where housing is allowed 

Try and make live/work developers to compensate in back taxes for units promoted as residential. (School 

fees) 

Allow sliding scale for taxes on future live/work development depending on tenant. (School fees) 


The individuals of group were fairly agreeable on zoning boundaries that were drawn on the sheet, with the 

exception of one individual, who felt the Alternative B should be respected as being representative of the 

community’s views which were voiced during the planning public process. However, she did acknowledge 

that the shortage of housing in the area and in the City could be addressed by moderately increasing the 

mixed-use zone to the West and South of the NEMIZ. 

The discussion that ensued led to a general consensus that defined a much smaller area as an IPZ (the 

Northwest corner between Harrison and 16 th 

Streets, and along the Freeway). The corridor along Florida 

Street would be designated as an arts corridor. They labeled the rest of the area as mixed –use with the 

condition of regulating the types of PDR uses allowed, as well as controlling labor densities, and a defined 

limit of housing in the zone. They demarked the southern tail area as residential. 

Final Goals 

The group ran out of time for summarizing and coming out with a common set of goals, hence they decided 

to vote on the list of suggestions and goals and present only those ideas that everyone agreed upon. 

Appendix A.10

Group D/I: Zoning Concepts 


Appendix A.11


Summary: Group E 

Group E comprised of six participants, with one business owner, two property owners, two residents 

who have lived in the neighborhood for over 50 years, and an artist. One of the resident/property 

owners had recently moved to the NEMIZ, attracted by its mixed-use character, relative highdensity 

and the flexibility allowed by the current zoning designation. 

During the introductions, the group identified the following reasons as major attractions for living 

or working in the NEMIZ: 

Mix and diversity of uses 

Vibrant community 

The fact that people could live and work in the same area and avoid the use of a car and rush hour 

commute was another attraction for wanting to live here. The group placed a high value on 

flexibility and diversity in the neighborhood and voiced their concerns about preserving the existing 

character, with its mix of uses, businesses and people. The group therefore did not want to lose the 

flexibility of the current zoning. They did not want single uses to dominate the area, nor do they 

want existing businesses to move out after they become non-conforming uses under the proposed 

rezoning. They felt that several businesses had already moved out of the NEMIZ in recent years 

because of issues related to truck access and parking, business/payroll tax and high rents during the 

dot.com boom, and that there was a need to check that from happening again. 

A fall-out of businesses moving out of NEMIZ is vacant buildings. This results in an increase in 

prostitution and drug dealing in certain areas due to a lack of vigilance on the streets. The group 

wants the neighborhood to attract more restaurants and entertainment type uses and maybe become 

an entertainment/cultural hub in the Mission District. They also want the city to follow a 

participatory approach to decision-making for the neighborhood, and the residents and 

property/business owners to have a greater stake in deciding the future of their neighborhood (by 

having the ability to control the type of development that goes into the area). 

The group was very concerned about the future of their neighborhood, especially due to the city’s 

efforts to rezone the area. They want a dialogue with the city and felt that the MCEJJ workshop was 

a good opportunity to discuss their ideas and voice their concerns. 


The Goals listed from other NEMIZ plans were a source of much debate for the group. Some of the 

language and terms were difficult to understand and needed clarifications from the facilitators. 

However the group reached consensus on most of the goals from previous and present planning 

efforts in the NEMIZ. The group was opposed to isolation from the adjacent neighborhoods but 

was also opposed to the integration of the NEMIZ with its surrounding neighborhoods. The group 

felt that NEMIZ and the surrounding Mission District are very different in their character - while 

the NEMIZ was more industrial, the surrounding neighborhoods were completely residential. Most 

of the group wanted non-conforming uses to become conforming uses, as they did not want to loose 

the flexibility. The group was in favor of easing restrictions for new housing as long as adequate 

Appendix A.12


parking was provided, but was against designating specific areas/zones for it since that would be 

restrictive. Some members felt that remodeling existing vacant industrial buildings to housing and 

other uses would provide a 24-hour presence in the neighborhood to make the area seem more vital 

and safe. 

1999 Interim Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) 

Goal: Temporarily eliminate the threat to the supply of industrially zoned land and 

building space available for industrial businesses 

Comments: This only excludes and restricts other development. Flexible zoning is 

acceptable, but there are other measures too – incentives. 

Goal: Provide adequate space direction for location of residential and live work 

development 

Comments: Again, do not restrict anything. Instead review zoning regularly. Take out 

PDR zoning and keep the businesses. 

2001-2002 Mission Rezoning Planning Process 

Goal: preserve the diversity and vitality of the NEMIZ, identifying areas best suited for 

residential, commercial and industrial development 

Comments: Preserve diversity but do not identify areas – ‘no designation’ 

Goal: Maintain all existing PDR businesses, but do not expand into new areas within 

the NEMIZ 

Comments: Maintain flexibility 

Goal: Create balance between traditional PDR jobs and new businesses, but exclude 

smokestack industries 

Comments Agree 

Goal: Preserve existing affordable housing & promote a range of new housing 

opportunities, in terms of size and affordability 

Comments: NEMIZ needs diversity in housing types, not just low income 

Goal: Discourage loft type residential development 

Comments: Disagree 

Goal: Allow art places, residential, and retail in industrial areas 

Comments: Agree 

Goal: Exclude residential from industrial areas 

Comments: Disagree 

Additional Goals for the future: 

Flexibility 

Fine grain development (not big blocks) 

Mix of uses 

High density (not w/o parking, not necessarily high-rise) 

Appendix A.13



The group constantly debated with two opposing issues in the NEMIZ: one, maintaining the 

flexibility in zoning designation to provide the freedom to shape the character of the neighborhood; 

and two, ensuring the preservation and enhancement of the existing ‘fabric’ and character of NEMIZ. 

The group argued that flexibility in zoning was desirable, but due to a lack of definition in 

development outcomes (zoning or policies), could also prevent the residents and businesses from 

shielding the neighborhood from external (or even internal) economic, political or social factors. 

Factors, such as the dot.com boom (external economic) and the current rezoning proposal (external 

political), that did, and will in the future, change the character of NEMIZ against the wishes of the 

NEMIZ community, were highlighted as concerns. 


Zoning could be a tool to maintain some control over the development outcomes. But since this tool 

is mostly restrictive, and has limitations in dealing with mixed use, fine grain development, the 

group felt the need to come up with policies that would guide specific types of development under 

the umbrella of a flexible M-1 zoning designation. These policies and ‘visions’ for the NEMIZ are 

summarized below under specific topic areas. 

Housing policy 

Need to balance housing with industrial uses. 

Need housing around big PDR uses such as the existing MUNI facilities to have ‘eyes’ 

on streets. 

Need a mix of housing types (a range of income groups, not just low income; a range of 

sizes and types, not just live/work; a range of densities, not just high rise projects; and a 

mix of uses at the fine grain level, not just at the neighborhood level). 

Restrict big block developments such as the low income housing between 18th and 19th 

and Alabama and Florida Street. 

Industry and Businesses Policy 

Do not kick out anyone who’s already here. 

Allow light, small industrial uses 

Allow hi-tech industries that provide high-end jobs and is compatible with housing 

Encourage a diverse mix of industries/uses including the service industry and restaurants 

Do away with conditional-use permit requirements for additions and modifications to 

existing buildings and uses. 

Streets and Open Space 

Improve landscaping along residential streets and major arteries (more trees, etc.). 

Build bike paths on streets that have less traffic, such as Shotwell and Cap Street. 

Have better traffic control at 16 th and Harrison Street. 

Maintain and improve existing parks. 

Improve lighting along paths and around parks. 

Develop more outdoor community areas. 

Transit and Parking 

Provide better transit access and services in NEMIZ. 

Have designated public parking areas. 

Appendix A.14


Looking into the possibilities of developing parking garages. 

Ensure that each project/development accounts for parking demand that it generates. 

Arts and culture 

Theatre Artaud makes the NEMIZ very unique. Build on the existing resources and 

encourage an Arts District in the area with small/mid-size theatres. 

Provide tax breaks and public funds to support art establishments (example, Theatre 

Artaud, an historical building, requires restoration, can become an attraction for San 

Francisco). 

Also encourage and integrate this area with complementary uses (cafés, book stores, 

studios, restaurants, etc.) 

Community Building 

Build a sense of community by providing more services and facilities that cater to the 

needs of NEMIZ residents and businesses. 

Integrate school facilities w/ other recreational facilities 

Provide play grounds 

Build a community center 

Appendix A.15


Group E Zoning Concepts 

Appendix A.16

Summary: Group F 


Group F was a small group of 5 participants consisting of 3 business and property owners, 1 property owner 

who also lives in the neighborhood, and 1 resident who runs a small urban design/architecture business out of 

her residence though her primary employment is outside of the neighborhood. One property owner was also 

representing a relative. The majority of the participants had not been involved in the planning process lead 

by the city. Only two people had any previous knowledge and may have participated in a couple of the city’s 

efforts. Most were indignant at not being invited to the process and were rather wary of city efforts because of 

this. 

Consensus was reached unanimously on several issues, although maintaining the diversity of uses within the 

NEMIZ was a driving force behind much of the discussion. Since the group was largely made up of property 

owners, most felt that this should be achieved with minimal intervention from the city by allowing the status 

quo to continue. One very vocal property owner tended to dominate the discussion and generally advocated 

this hands-off approach to the shaping of the NEMIZ, not comprehending why non-conforming 

classifications were necessary, or zoning for that matter. Although her opinions at times dominated the 

discussion, most of the other members did not strongly oppose them, though some felt that zoning would be 

useful and needed to counter this laissez faire attitude. Many felt that qualifiers were needed on particular 

issues and were able to voice them. 

Flexibility in zoning and inclusiveness rather than exclusivity were popular, however, there seemed to be some 

confusion as to how zoning would work to achieve this diversity and flexibility. In general, “organic growth” 

and “market forces” were concepts that the majority of the group felt should play a larger role than zoning in 

shaping the character of the NEMIZ. 

Another popular idea was to retain the fine grain mix of uses that already exists within the NEMIZ. In other 

words, preventing single-use zones and large redevelopment projects. However, there was discussion and 

consensus in strengthening the land use character of particular areas and corridors by creating a cultural 

corridor along 17 th 

Street, strengthening Harrison as an industrial corridor due to its wider right-of-way, and 

encouraging 14 th 

Street to strengthen its commercial character. 

Another focus of the discussion was to create a more pleasant living and working environment within the 

NEMIZ. Participants added several goals that would de-emphasize the historic industrial character of the 

neighborhood, while addressing the fact that the area has evolved into a neighborhood with a diverse mix of 

uses. Many supported encouraging more employment within the area, but adding that cultural uses were also 

desirable. In addition, it was felt that supportive services (i.e., restaurants, shops, everyday services) for 

residential and employment should be encouraged in the neighborhood and located within walking distance 

of its clientele. In conjunction, public spaces, such as parks, should be encouraged within the neighborhood 

while enhancing the walking environment within the neighborhood and its connections to the immediate 

surroundings, particularly The Mission District via 20 th and 16 th Streets. This could be done by encouraging a 

concentration of land uses along a corridor (i.e. cultural amenities along 17 th 

Street) or upgrading streets with 

street trees and other pedestrian amenities. 

Participants were concerned that many of the uses within the NEMIZ would become non-conforming under 

the city’s Plan B, particularly residential uses as some lived in and owned residential units in the area. Coupled 

with the fact that there was a more than adequate supply of industrial, vacant space, they did not feel that 

there was much of a threat to this type of use and thus, no need to define so many uses as non-conforming. 

All felt that uses within the NEMIZ were largely compatible, even between residential uses and some more 

noxious PDR uses, reinforcing their wishes for diversity to remain allowable within the NEMIZ. Dissent was 

not strong and was largely due to minor points that some felt should be noted. These are discussed further in 

the next section. Live/work was not necessarily a hot issue as one property owner and one resident owned and 

lived in a live/work environment. However, most were concerned over the lack of enforcement that has 

Appendix A.17


allowed live/work units to become largely high-end residential units. Affordable housing did not come up as 

an issue and was often not in the radar. 


Most of the participants were comfortable giving their opinions on the goals from previous planning efforts. 

However, a couple of the participants were not comfortable with the language and asked that we go through 

and explain each of the goals before they cast a vote. This section took up much of our time and there was 

difficulty in moving beyond the goals discussion, as many of the participants were more comfortable with this 

more general approach at goals for the NEMIZ rather than talking about particular parcels or areas. 

As mentioned earlier, the participants were in general agreement as to whether they agreed or disagreed with 

past goals. Dissent was generally diffused as people discussed each issue and it was agreed upon that all were in 

agreement with some qualifiers. The dissenting opinions are given below: 

1994 NEMIZ Zoning Proposal Effort: 

“Knit the NEMIZ into the fabric of the Mission District and surrounding neighborhoods” 

There was general support for this goal, once we clarified what was meant by the term 

“knit.” However, there was also some concern that the existing mixed-use character of the 

NEMIZ should be protected; they supported the idea that the NEMIZ should relate to the 

surrounding areas, but they didn’t want that to mean losing the existing character. \ 

“Allowing existing non-conforming uses to become conforming uses” 

One participant felt that some current uses might not be desirable in the NEMIZ. This may 

include some of the larger PDR facilities such as PG&E. Others also felt that this would 

open the doors to other unforeseeable uses that might be detrimental to the existing 

character. There was some confusion in the group as to whether this statement was referring 

to the existing zoning or the new proposed zoning (Alternative B) Regardless, there was a 

strong concern that most current uses – both business and residential – should not be 

considered non-conforming. 

2001-2002 Mission Rezoning Planning Process: 

“Preserve existing affordable housing and promote a range of new housing opportunities, in terms of size 

and affordability” 

One participant did not want to see large-scale development of affordable housing. This was 

in keeping with the idea of maintaining the varied, fine-grained character of the NEMIZ. 

“Discourage loft type residential developments” 

Participants were not sure if this meant live/work. The group was not against live/work per 

se, only against allowing live/work to be used exclusively as residential. The disagreement was 

largely due to not understanding the implications of “lofts”. 

“Create a balance between traditional PDR jobs and new businesses, but exclude ‘smokestack’ industries” 

The group supported this goal, but they also assumed that no smokestack industries exist 

today 


Allow flexible zoning that incorporates market forces and organic growth. 

Appendix A.18


Continue to support and encourage employment in the NEMIZ while allowing a mix of uses. 

Allow a fine-grained mix of compatible uses 

Allow supportive services within close proximity. There was a lot of discussion here about how services 

should support the businesses as well as the residents. 

Create strategies for attracting and retaining business. 

Develop a parking strategy that includes concentrated parking while encouraging walking and public 

transit use. One participant suggested adding parking to the area, but wasn’t very clear as to how exactly 

it should be added to the area. A second participant wanted to qualify what “adding parking” meant. She 

was of the opinion that it should not be added in a manner that would create a suburban environment in 

the area – that is, an abundance of prominent parking lots. It did not seem like there was disagreement 

as much as just a lack of knowledge as to how to address parking. The facilitators suggested calling it out 

as a parking strategy in order to address concerns in a comprehensive and strategic manner rather than 

just program in parking. 

Allow cultural uses throughout the NEMIZ. This was directly intended to contradict the larger Mission 

planning effort. According to one participant, cultural uses in the NEMIZ have been expressly 

prohibited in that plan. Some participants stated that the plan encourages cultural uses to locate in the 

Mission to the detriment of the NEMIZ. They felt that the NEMIZ should also be allowed to attract 

cultural amenities. For reasons that were unclear, the group decided to go with “allow” rather than 

“encourage” in the wording of this goal even though they felt that this was unfair. 

Connect the NEMIZ to surrounding neighborhoods using physical public improvements. 

Encourage a variety of public green open space throughout the NEMIZ. 


The group was reluctant to point out specific areas that should have a predominant character, as their desire 

was to maintain the fine-grained diversity of the neighborhood. Land use bubbles are, therefore depicted 

using a mix of colors to represent the intermingling of a variety of uses. Suggestions were, however, made to 

enhance the existing character along specific corridors creating spatial and programmatic connections within 

the neighborhood and as connections to surrounding neighborhoods. In particular, encouraging PDR uses 

along Harrison as it already contains many industrial uses and is one of the few streets in the neighborhood 

that has a wide-enough right-of-way to accommodate trucks. Some participants were concerned that this 

would create a single-use street, so it was clarified that concentrating industrial uses along Harrison did not 

necessarily mean creating a single-use street. A similar suggestion was made to enhance the commercial 

character of 14 th 

Street, which already contains a concentration of neighborhood-serving commercial uses. 

Along 17 th 

Street, rather than enhance its character, it was suggested that cultural uses be encouraged along 

the street in order to create an attractive connection to the Mission District. ODC and Theater Artaud are 

currently located along this street. 

The lack of open space was also of concern. One group member wanted to focus on the streets as public open 

space, but the rest of the group preferred to focus on green space. Rather than specifying particular parcels as 

open space, the group scattered pockets of open space around the neighborhood. These parks would 

complement Franklin Park by providing smaller, but more scattered opportunities for recreation and open 

space. Programs for the parks included: recreation, gardens, playgrounds, benches, trees and dog walks. At the 

last minute, one group member added his support for the Mission Creek Bike Path Proposal to complement 

these open space amenities. Another concern was the lack of parking within the area. One property owner felt 

Appendix A.19


that the neighborhood did not have enough parking to serve its users. Another participant, however, felt that 

qualifiers needed to be in place in order to avoid creating a suburban character in the neighborhood. The goal 

was further specified to introduce the concept of parking facilities that would be in keeping with encouraging 

a pedestrian-oriented character in the neighborhood and the fact that it is well-served by transit. 

Finally, physical improvements such as planting street trees and installing other pedestrian amenities along 

streets, particularly along 16 th 

, 17 th 

, and 20 th 

Streets was unanimously agreed upon by the group to create a 

more pedestrian-friendly environment that would connect the neighborhood to the Mission District. A 

couple of group members felt that these improvements could be used to create corridors that connected both 

existing open space and cultural amenities. 

Final Goals 

The group did not finalize their goals into main points. Also, with the short amount of time left, the group 

did not get far in proposing other implementation tools. Many participants were not familiar enough with 

implementation. However, a suggestion was made to use development bonuses, which would allow developers 

greater densities in exchange for providing other amenities such as open space. In response to this one 

member suggested discussing densities, but this did not go further. Finally, tax breaks were suggested, but 

were not specified as to what types and how they would assist in carrying out their goals. The group was not 

amenable to improvement districts or parking districts. 

Appendix A.20

Group F: Zoning Concepts 


Appendix A.21


Summary: Group J and K 

J and K had a predominance of business and property owners, several who live in the neighborhood, and 

consensus occurred between members on several issues. 

During the workshop discussions, members of the group expressed concern that the City of San Francisco 

used incorrect data to determine areas of industrial zoning. The group was also concerned about the high 

number of non-conforming uses under the City’s Alternative B. Another item of near universal agreement 

was maintaining the existing character of the NEMIZ, with its mix of industry, housing, commercial, and 

office. Several members of the group stated that while they could be in other areas of the city, they stay in the 

NEMIZ due to its character. They expressed concern about one use-type prevailing, but were wary of the 

city’s intervention, preferring a market-oriented approach. Another priority goal of the group was to protect 

existing industrial areas from being rezoned residential. A fear is that too much residential would change the 

character of the area and lead to other problems, such as parking shortages. There was concern that once 

industrial buildings are retrofitted for residential or office uses, it is unlikely they will be converted back for 

industrial uses. A dissenting voice in the group stated a desire for more affordable housing, and communityoriented 

uses, especially in the “tail” area of the Southern portion of the NEMIZ. In general, they felt that the 

city was pushing the rezone through too quickly, considering the data problems and non-conforming uses 

Alternative B would create in the NEMIZ. 

An enforcement issue mentioned is that Live/Work spaces should be used for work. Two members of the 

group own and work in a Live/Work unit. The group is not opposed to Live/Work units in general, only 

when they were used as high-end apartments or other non-intended uses. On new residential construction, 

the group was concerned about a large number of either high-end or affordable housing units in the 

neighborhood, as they feel too much of either would change the neighborhood’s character. They also 

expressed concern about the process for approvals of new housing construction, citing changes in the design 

of the apartments on the Penske lot at 19 th and Alabama Streets. 

The attitude of the group was suspicious and reserved. Several members of the group were reluctant to give 

personal input, and members expressed disappointment at not being invited to participate in the city’s 

process. Most group members also acknowledge that they are motivated by the desire for the neighborhood to 

stay exactly as it is. The group expressed cynicism that their input would be taken into account by the city. 

One member of the group repeatedly expressed the opinion that the city’s Alternative B is an attempt at a 

“land grab”. Other members were concerned that the great number of non-conforming uses under Alternative 

B would lead to the construction of predominantly affordable units, and lower property values. There is also 

concern about the effectiveness of using zoning to plan these areas, as current zoning allowed the construction 

of large numbers Live/Work lofts and Dot-Com offices in the area, many of which are empty today. 

They are also in favor of more neighborhood-serving retail, such as the 16 th 

and Bryant shopping center. The 

members approve of that center because it brings essential services to the neighborhood, as well as more foot 

traffic for safety. However, the group was not in favor of more “big-box” regional development, such as the 

Best Buy in the far North of the area, especially in the core NEMIZ. 


The Goals listed from other NEMIZ plans were a source of confusion for the group. They felt that much of 

the language was difficult to understand, and most of the group didn’t feel comfortable giving an opinion 

before thorough discussion of each goal statement. After 45 minutes, we had gotten through the first 3 Goals 

before scrapping the effort and moving onto some of the group’s specific goals. 

Appendix A.22


In general, the group voted together on the goals they discussed. Most of the group did not want the NEMIZ 

to be “knit into the surrounding neighborhoods” due to the fear that this would lead to an “avalanche” of new 

uses into the area. The point was also raised that the Mission is different from the NEMIZ, with “radical 

differences in lot sizes and current uses”. Most of the group wanted non-conforming uses to come into 

conformance, and most of the group was not in favor of new housing due to the lack of definition of housing 

types. 


NEMIZ should stay as is in use, despite large flaws in the system, such as parking requirements and how 

the uses of space are defined. Both of those issues need to be clarified. 

Feel that the diversity and coexistence of the neighborhood is key, and that the proposed zoning creates 

barriers instead of flexibility. 

Need to be thoughtful about industrial space. Very little left, so if it changes from industrial it really 

should be for the benefit of the people (working class) (This was the opinion of one group member). 

Industrial land is a scare resource. 

Maintain diversity of NEMIZ. 

Reconcile the findings of CD+A with the existing GIS Land Use data of the City of San Francisco. The 

use of improper data is unacceptable. 

Unique Character must be maintained. 

Totally opposed to creation of non-conforming uses. 

Need to clarify what is here and leave it as is. 

Non-conforming uses will create a slum. 

Residents and workers came to the NEMIZ for a reason, so leave it as is. 


The group pointed out several areas where contentious (mainly residential) projects had been 

constructed/approved, including the Penske Site, and a Live/Work Building on Harrison and Mariposa. 

Their main concern was for an accurate picture of current land uses to be established before establishing 

zoning and that new zoning should protect and promote the current mix of uses, and should not emphasize 

one land use type over another. A minority in the group designated the “tail” area south of 20 th street for 

affordable housing. In general, the participants were in favor of more business uses instead of new residential 

uses, if given a choice. 

Final Goals 

1. San Francisco planning needs to reconcile new data findings with current data. 

2. Identify Uses and maintain the diverse character of the NEMIZ. 

Appendix A.23


Appendix A.24 

3. Don’t rezone from Industrial to residential. Keep existing uses as is. (Including the type of 

zoning that allowed a mix of fine-grained uses to occur in the first place.) 

4. Live/Work spaces should be real Live/Work spaces, not apartments. Establish checks through 

the business license or a system to prove work is occurring in the space. 

5. Do not create non-conforming uses as in city’s “Alternative B”. 

6. Maintain /Create clear parking standards for new development. 

Summary: Group L 

Group L consisted of a mix of residents, property and business owners and one advocate with the Mission 

Anti-Displacement Coalition. Several of the participants fell into more than one of the above categories. 

The group devoted considerable time to discussing whether or not zoning was an appropriate tool for shaping 

the NEMIZ’ future. Early on in this discussion, it became clear that Group L was divided into two factions 

with divergent opinions on this issue. On one side, a slight majority of participants favored a ‘hands-off’ 

approach to regulating land use in the NEMIZ, which would not include strong provisions for the protection 

of PDR uses, but rather allow for mixed-use development to occur throughout the area. Land use decisions 

would be largely driven by property owners’ decisions rather than by zoning as established by the Planning 

Department. On the other side were two participants who strongly advocated the need for protecting PDR 

uses in the neighborhood. Their position was based on the notion that clear rules for regulating land use in 

the NEMIZ had been lacking for years to the effect that numerous businesses providing jobs for residents 

(more specifically the Latino population) of the NEMIZ and the Mission at large had been eliminated in the 

past, while others were still being threatened by the influx of more non-PDR uses. The first sub-group 

expressed opposition to and suspicion about the zoning efforts by the San Francisco Planning Department, 

whose intentions were seen as a threat to gains people felt the NEMIZ had made toward developing from an 

unsafe, decaying neighborhood to a safer and more livable place based on the rise of new residential and 

mixed-use projects. The group also saw the City’s zoning effort as interfering with the right of property 

owners to decide about the most beneficial land use for their property. The second group on the other hand, 

was generally in agreement with the Planning Department’s intention of protecting PDR uses and the 

introduction of clearer rules pertaining to land use and the tighter control of non-PDR uses pushing into the 

area. 

Toward the end of the discussion the two groups came closer in their views on several of the discussion points 

with some basic differences remaining. Proponents of a rather fluid, largely mixed-use driven future of the 

NEMIZ acknowledged the importance of jobs to the Mission as a whole and agreed to the need for some 

‘rules’ about the incompatibility of certain uses. They also agreed in concept to the need of limiting some uses 

such as destination restaurants and commercial development to protect the viability of other parts of the 

Mission (specifically Mission Street as a commercial corridor). These participants remained suspect, however, 

of the concept of wholesale PDR protection as proposed by the City. Exemplary for the difference between 

the two groups was the discussion of potential land uses on a vacant parcel owned by a property owner at the 

table. While the property owner desired the flexibility of being able to build residential mixed-use next to a 

PDR-use, the proponents of PDR-protective zoning countered that, in general, most property owners knew 

ahead of time that they were buying in an ‘industrial’ area and should not have expected the later ability to 

implement non-compatible (but more profitable) land uses. 

Overall, it was clear that all participants sincerely argued for what they thought best for the NEMIZ or the 

larger Mission neighborhood. The key difference lay in the level of intervention imposed on the flexibility of


decision-making by individual property owners and whether the City’s proposed zoning changes represents 

the right tool for establishing the rules for setting this level. 


The provided goals worksheet quickly became a subject of discussion as to its specific content and 

appropriateness. Several members of the group felt uncomfortable with simply agreeing or disagreeing with 

issues from past planning processes. The group eventually agreed to revisit the subject of goals at the end of 

the group discussion. After this decision was made, the facilitator subsequently noted all comments that could 

be interpreted as goals so they could be used for this later discussion. 

Goals not agreed upon between the two sub-groups: 

Allow for a lot of flexibility with regard to land use decisions by property owners (not to be 

interpreted as absolutely ‘no rules’). 

Continue and support the emergence of a dynamic, safe, and viable neighborhood. 

Zoning as proposed by the City is not the right tool to address the future of the NEMIZ. 

The NEMIZ needs more rules not less. Zoning and rules are necessary to protect PDR (jobproviding) 

uses in the NEMIZ. 

Some areas need strong protection from encroaching non-PDR uses. 

Goal agreed upon between the two sub-groups: 

Jobs in the NEMIZ are important to the community and need to be protected in some way. 

The neighborhood should not become ‘all residential’. 


Several of the NEMIZ residents expressed that they were drawn to the neighborhood because of the 

mixed-use nature of the place and the opportunity it provides. They felt that it was important to 

avoid empty shop fronts that exist because of a lack of demand for the type of uses required by zoning 

laws. 

One member of the group advocated rendering streets in areas with higher concentration of 

residential uses more neighborhood-friendly and safer for pedestrians by making the existing street 

grid discontinuous by introducing (Berkeley-type) barriers or the occasional abandoning of segments 

of public r.o.w. in favor of added residential development. In this context, the introduction of corner 

bulb-outs was brought up as an additional concept to make streets safer for pedestrians. Several group 

members reacted favorably to the general idea of making streets in residential mixed-use areas more 

pedestrian and neighborhood-friendly. 

The proponents of PDR protective zoning strongly felt that in the future the NEMIZ area should 

continue to provide jobs for Mission residents. 


Land Uses 

The neighborhood needs an intelligent approach to mixed-use, where housing is located next to 

compatible uses. 

Different types of housing development should be mixed to avoid having areas with all affordable 

housing or all lofts. 

Appendix A.25


One member of the group suggested establishing a housing overlay for ‘big-box’ uses such as 

‘Best Buy’ and ‘Office Max’. 

There was some agreement that it may make sense to focus housing development along South 

Van Ness north of 16 th Avenue. 

There was general agreement that ‘destination restaurants’ should not be located in the NEMIZ 

because of the lack of proper transit and the influx of traffic and parking needs this would bring 

to neighborhood streets. Neighborhood-serving restaurants would be allowed. 

There was some agreement that commercial development should primarily occur on Mission 

Street. Neighborhood-serving commercial would be allowed. 

The group largely agreed that the area south of 20 th Street should become a residential area with 

the opportunity for residential mixed-use development to occur within. 

It was pointed out that several underutilized sites exist in the area that could be put to a higher 

use if the air rights would be used to add appropriate uses (such as offices) on top of existing uses. 

The PG&E property was named as a particular example of this kind of site/use combination. 

A group member in strong support for protection of PDR uses in the NEMIZ, suggested 

designating the area north of 17 th and east of Folsom Streets as ‘Core PDR’. Here PDR uses 

would enjoy a stricter protection from encroaching non-PDR uses and be supported in their 

needs for infrastructure such as street access. It was furthermore suggested to designate the area 

between 17 th and 20 Street for ‘PDR-light’ and ‘Mixed-Use’, depending on already existing use 

patterns. 

The two sub-groups had different ideas about how access to PDR uses in the NEMIZ would be 

maintained: 

Needs to be neighborhood-friendly; should be determined business-by-business or 

cluster-by-cluster but not in a simplified corridor approach, which creates barriers within 

the community. 

Appendix A.26 

Should not be restricted in a way that makes it unattractive for PDR uses to locate in the 

NEMIZ. 

Opponents of too much residential development and uses that follow residential development 

maintained that the NEMIZ could not accommodate too many new units and destination-type 

uses because public transit was serving the neighborhood well enough. 

Proponents of continued residential mixed-use development agreed that transportation and 

parking was a key issue. It was suggested that the neighborhood should not get into ‘housing 

cars’ and rather rely on low parking ratio requirements to build up enough demand for public 

transit becoming a viable option. 

Implementation Tools 

Two ideas relating to implementation of ideas and goals came up during the discussion:


The possibility for the City to specifically foster development that is neighborhood-friendly and 

contributes to the goal of providing continued employment for Mission residents independent of 

PDR. 

The suggestion to study and explore prior to a final rezoning what sort of uses actually are likely to 

provide employment in the future. 

Appendix A.27


Group L: Zoning Concepts 

Appendix A.28

An Alternative Future for the North East Mission Industrial Zone

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?