An Alternative Future for the North East Mission Industrial Zone

Summary: Group C
Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs (MCEJJ)
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)
Planning Goals Worksheet
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