An Alternative Future for the North East Mission Industrial Zone

Summary: Group F
Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs (MCEJJ)
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