An Alternative Future for the North East Mission Industrial Zone

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs (MCEJJ) 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
Mission Coalition for Economic Justice & Jobs (MCEJJ) 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. Planning Goals Worksheet 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’. Ideas and Vision for the NEMIZ 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. Establish Zoning for NEMIZ 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
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:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?