To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
311

February 8, 2006

MINUTES

 

of the

 

BACK STREETS BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD

 

SPECIAL MEETING

 

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

City Hall

1 Dr. Carlton Goodlett Place, Rm. 278

 

1.         CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

 

The meeting was called to order by Chair Peter Cohen at 4:10 p.m.

 

Present:             Peter Cohen                              Mark Klaiman

                        David Beaupre  (Port)               Bob Legallet

                        Oscar Grande                           David Lupo

Mike Grisso  (SFRA)                 Michael Potepan

                        Gabe Cabrera  ((OLA)

 

Absent:             Mark Dwight                            Jennifer Matz  (MOEWD)

                        Louis Guidry                             Jasper Rubin  (DCP)

                   Al Lerma   (MOCD)                   Michael O’Connor   (SBC)

                                         

 

 

2.         ADVISORY BOARD POSITION RE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS INTERIM CONTROLS

 

Bob Legallet moved that the discussion points of today’s meeting be incorporated into the official Advisory Board statement to be made to the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mark Klaiman, motion unanimously approved.

 

 

 

6.         ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.

 

 

 

Back Streets Business Advisory Board

Position on proposed Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Controls

adopted February 8, 2006

 

The Back Streets Business Advisory Board has reviewed in detail the Planning Department’s proposed Interim Controls (dated Jan 14, 2006) and have the following comments:

 

Our comments on the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Controls are through the lens of the Back Streets Businesses Advisory Board’s focus on protecting and enhancing the vitality of back streets, or more familiarly “PDR,” businesses. Other land uses issues that affect back street businesses in an indirect way, such as housing density, affordability, and transportation, etc—are critical to the success of “mixed use” districts, but the BBAB is using its own fairly narrow scope in evaluating the impacts of the Interim Controls on back streets businesses.

 

Mixed Use Residential District

We recognize that this district is intended to encourage housing. However, the Interim Controls provide no protections for existing PDR uses. There is still an importance to retain PDR uses currently in these areas as part of an overall balanced City policy about the Eastern Neighborhoods rezonings. The increased residential density in these areas should be a mechanism to require appropriate public benefits, including protecting businesses and jobs.

  • We recommend adding a development requirement to the Interim Controls for some kind of relocation assistance for displaced PDR business operators to be able to move to another comparable space within the Eastern Neighborhoods areas of the City.
  • We also recommend that the Interim Controls clarify that PDR uses are an allowed use in this district even though it is implied.

 

Urban Mixed Use District

It appears that this district is intended to achieve a balance of housing and PDR uses. However, under the Interim Controls small-scale PDR uses could still be displaced from this area.

  • We recommend reducing the minimum threshold for PDR space in new development to 1,000 square feet, as this will still provide viable space for some small business operations.
  • We also recommend that new development not providing PDR space on site be required to make a minimum contribution to some kind of program towards PDR retention and expansion district wide.

 

Employment and Business Development District

Our understanding is that this district is intended to provide the most protection for PDR businesses. Yet, there are other business types allowed under the Interim Controls that because of their economics will easily out-compete and potentially displace and/or preclude traditional light-industrial/PDR businesses. This is a dangerously broad definition of allowable “PDR” uses in these areas. We have serious reservations about the inclusion of non-PDR uses in these districts.

  • We recommend re-evaluating the new policy of promoting biotech, digital media and other high-tech in these core PDR areas of the Eastern Neighborhoods and the appropriate specific land use controls for such non-PDR uses.
  • We also recommend that “PDR” should be more explicitly defined, rather than defined simply by what it isn’t, if the Interim Controls are going to create a true PDR protection and promotion zone in the Eastern Neighborhoods.
Last updated: 12/12/2012 10:18:30 AM