Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Commercial Districts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee forwards ordinance naming 12 new neighborhood commercial districts ahead of vacancy tax vote

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee · January 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

The Land Use Committee moved an ordinance to add 12 named neighborhood commercial districts (NCDs) to the planning code, saying the changes are technical and intended to align local zoning maps with a pending March vacancy‑tax ballot measure; the item was sent to the full board as a committee report.

The Land Use and Transportation Committee voted to forward an ordinance that adds 12 named neighborhood commercial districts (NCDs) to the City’s planning code and updates the zoning map. The action, described by Supervisor Aaron Peskin and Amy Beinart (legislative aide to Supervisor Hillary Ronan), was framed as a technical update so voters would know which districts are included if the vacancy tax measure passes in March.

"What this does is add 12 new named NCDs to the existing, 30 named neighborhood commercial districts and neighborhood commercial transit districts in this city," Amy Beinart said, which she and supervisors said does not change underlying zoning controls but allows for neighborhood‑specific fine‑tuning in the future.

Planning staff and a planning commission representative explained the chosen areas have evolved distinct neighborhood identities over the past 30 years and that the planning commission approved the item at its January 9 hearing. A staff map shown at the meeting identified proposed additions across several supervisorial districts, including Balboa Street, Bayview, Cortland Avenue and Mission Bernal among others.

With no public comment on the item, the committee accepted minor technical amendments and agreed to send the ordinance as a committee report to the full Board of Supervisors for first reading and potential adoption in time for the March ballot timeline.

The committee did not take a roll‑call vote on the merits; the item was routed to the full board as a committee report.