Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee sends Bayview Industrial Triangle rezoning and cannabis retail restriction to full Board

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee · April 13, 2020
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Supervisors recommended rezoning parcels in the Bayview Industrial Triangle to preserve PDR uses, adopt NCT3 along Third Street, and impose a cannabis retail restricted‑use district; the committee made a technical parcel correction and sent both ordinances to the full Board with positive recommendations.

The Land Use Committee on April 13 recommended two zoning ordinances for the Bayview Industrial Triangle to the full Board with positive committee reports after a Planning Department presentation and limited discussion.

Supervisor Shamann Walton said the measures are intended to stabilize PDR (production, distribution and repair) businesses and preserve middle‑income jobs in the Bayview Industrial Triangle as the 1980 redevelopment plan expires June 30. Planning Department staff explained the rezoning would convert underlying M1/M2/NC3 districts to PDR1G and NCT3 (along Third Street) to allow appropriate housing density on Third Street while preserving PDR elsewhere; staff also described outreach dating back to June 2019.

The second ordinance would create a restricted‑use district prohibiting cannabis retail in the Bayview Industrial Triangle while allowing other cannabis‑related uses such as manufacturing, distribution and cultivation. Planning staff said the cannabis restriction was added after community concerns about a surge in cannabis retail applications.

Committee members made a technical correction to one parcel’s underlying zoning (M1→M2 on the assessor parcel listed) and then voted to forward both items to the full Board with positive recommendations (three ayes). No members of the public called in to comment on these two items during the committee hearing.