Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors, city staff clash over whether banks fall under San Francisco's formula‑retail rules; Chase permit partly upheld, one item continued
Summary
A divisive dispute over a proposed Chase Bank on Divisadero centered on whether financial institutions are covered by the city's formula-retail law and whether the combined storefront exceeds the 3,999 sq ft conditional-use threshold. The board approved one minor permit and continued a contested amendment pending a vote by the absent commissioner.
Neighbors and business owners clashed at the Board of Appeals March 16 over permits for a proposed Chase branch that would combine three storefronts on Divisadero. At issue were three legal points raised by appellants: whether financial institutions fall under the formula-retail definition, whether the project’s gross area exceeded a 3,999-square-foot threshold that would trigger conditional-use review, and whether a walk-up ATM required special neighborhood notice.
Dean Preston, who filed the appeal, argued the plain text of the Planning Code treats financial services as a subcategory of “sales and services retail” and therefore within the reach of the city's formula-retail controls. “The formula retail law specifically refers to a very broad category, which is sales and services retail,” Preston told the board. Planning staff and permit counsel disputed that construction and noted longstanding department practice treating banks as outside the statute’s explicit formula‑retail list. Planning Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez told the panel the city has consistently applied the rule in that manner since 2004.
A second contested point was square footage. The permit and lease documents provided by the owner list 3,946 square feet for the leased premises — 43 square feet shy of the threshold. Opponents urged an on‑site measurement; Planning and Building Inspection said DBI can verify the constructed area during inspection and that architects and plan reviewers use standard measurement conventions.
Finally, planning staff flagged that one permit lacked a required notice for a walk‑up ATM because the original plan showed the ATM facing an exterior wall. Counsel for the permit holder presented revised drawings that recess the ATM into an interior vestibule so it no longer qualifies as a walk‑up device and asked the board to accept that modification rather than remanding.
What the board decided
- The board denied an appeal to the awning/alteration permit (appeal 11-10) and upheld that permit 3–1. - The board was split on the larger, contested permit (11-11); the matter was continued to the board's next meeting to allow the absent commissioner to participate in a final vote. The continuation was set for March 23 with no new public comment.
What’s next
Planning staff said DBI will respond to measurement complaints and that building inspectors will verify that the as-built area matches plan documents. The applicant submitted revised drawings to recess the ATM into a vestibule and indicated willingness to finalize that change. The board noted that if the square footage proves to exceed the conditional-use threshold, the project would require Planning Commission review.
The dispute highlights a recurring tension between neighborhood preservation rules and the permitted rights of commercial tenants; multiple residents urged a conditional-use hearing to weigh neighborhood character, traffic and pedestrian safety impacts. The board paused its final decision on the most contested permit to allow the full five-member panel to vote.
