Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Chase Bank permit at 401 Divisadero amid formula‑retail and square‑footage disputes
Summary
After extended public comment, the Board of Appeals upheld the permit to relocate an ATM and authorize a Chase branch at 401 Divisadero, rejecting arguments that the project required section 3.12 notification or a conditional‑use hearing for formula retail or because gross floor area exceeded 4,000 square feet; board voted to deny the appeal 3–1.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 9 denied an appeal against a permit for a Chase Bank at 401 Divisadero Street, resolving disputes over neighborhood notification, gross floor area calculations and whether banks are subject to the city’s formula‑retail controls.
Appellant Quintin Mecke raised three central complaints: that a prior exterior‑ATM permit should have triggered a 3.12 neighborhood notification process; that calculations supplied to the board understate gross floor area (arguing the usable area exceeds 4,000 square feet and thus requires a conditional‑use hearing); and that "formula retail" should be interpreted to include financial services, meaning a conditional‑use authorization could be required. Mecke and neighborhood speakers submitted plans and a recent sunshine request showing alternative measurements and urged a Planning Commission hearing.
Permit counsel Christine Griffith and the Planning Department maintained that the zoning and code interpretations were long‑standing: the ATM was moved indoors to avoid a 3.12 notification requirement, the Planning Department’s site visit measurements confirmed the use was under 4,000 square feet, and the department’s longstanding interpretation is that financial services are not a formula‑retail category. Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez told the board he had personally measured the site with a senior building inspector and concluded the project complied with code.
Neighbors opposed and supported the project in roughly equal numbers; public testimony focused heavily on the square‑footage calculation and the meaning of formula retail. Several commissioners said the board previously had weighed similar issues in earlier hearings and that no new information warranted reversing the permit. On the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit the board voted 3–1; President Kendall Goh dissented.
