Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects challenge to UPS store classification at 1410 Franklin St, 5–0
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to deny an appeal that sought to reclassify a proposed UPS store at 1410 Franklin Street as formula retail; Planning staff had classified it a retail professional service and the Board upheld that determination.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 5–0 vote denied Christopher Shulman’s appeal of a permit for a UPS store at 1410 Franklin Street, agreeing with Planning staff that the use is a retail professional service rather than a general retail (formula retail) use that would require a conditional use hearing.
Shulman argued the store functions like general retail (copying, mailing and sales of office supplies) and presented exhibits and citations aiming to show UPS should be subject to formula retail controls. He said classifying the location as retail professional deprived the neighborhood of full public input via a conditional use process.
Permit holder Sichu Chu (store owner) said his outlet is small and primarily sells services, estimating that more than 90% of sales come from services such as shipping, mailbox services, notary and in‑store printing; he said tangible goods represent a small fraction of revenue.
Scott Sanchez, Deputy Zoning Administrator, told the board staff’s review and past practice place this kind of UPS/pack-and-ship operation in the retail professional service category (planning code §303.1) and that similar stores historically have been reviewed as professional service uses. He said the department and zoning administrator found the permit consistent with the planning commission and code definitions.
After brief questioning and public comment, Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued; Commissioners Santacana, Lazarus, Honda and Tanner voted aye. The Board recorded the 5–0 vote and denied the appeal, allowing the permit holder to proceed subject to standard waiting and inspection processes.
