An Alternative Future for the North East Mission Industrial Zone

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs (MCEJJ) 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 Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs (MCEJJ) 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
Page 1:
AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE Prepa
Page 5 and 6:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 7 and 8:
The history of this neighborhood is
Page 9 and 10:
The City is addressing areas which
Page 11 and 12:
For non-Core PDR users, such as fur
Page 13 and 14:
Any IPZ Program Needs to Be Flexibl
Page 15:
EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT This
Page 18 and 19:
An Alternative Future for the NEMIZ
Page 20 and 21:
An Alternative Future for the NEMIZ
Page 22 and 23: An Alternative Future for the NEMIZ
Page 53 and 54: PLANNING & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS I
Page 55 and 56: C. Evaluate Each Industrial Neighbo
Page 57 and 58: NEMIZ Recommendations The following
Page 59 and 60: PDR Sub-Category Core PDR Medium PD
Page 61 and 62: D. Create a Small IPZ Focused on Ke
Page 63 and 64: Policy & Planning Recommendations
Page 65: APPENDIX
Page 68 and 69: Mission Coalition for Economic Just
Page 94: Mission Coalition for Economic Just
show all

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?