Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 2500 Folsom LOD topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overrules planning department; opens path for limited commercial use at 2500–2510 Folsom Street
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to overrule a Planning Department Letter of Determination that found the ground-floor commercial use at 2500–2510 Folsom Street abandoned; the Board said findings and conditions will be drafted later to limit future uses.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously to overrule a Planning Department Letter of Determination (LOD) that concluded the Ground Floor commercial use at 2500–2510 Folsom Street had been abandoned and therefore could not be restored.
Scott Sanchez, Planning Department staff, presented the department’s historical research and its legal analysis, telling the Board it had "no evidence of commercial use of the property" since about 1965 and that, under the planning code’s nonconforming-use and abandonment provisions, the use had been terminated. Sanchez cited notices sent in 1964 and 1968 and a termination notice in 1971 as the basis for the LOD and said the department had provided alternatives including rezoning to NC1 or seeking conditional-use continuance.
Appellant counsel Brad Gladstone and tenant/applicant Leticia Luna challenged the department’s record of notices and site visits. Gladstone argued the department had offered "snapshots in time" rather than proof of continuous vacancy and emphasized that the planning department had not produced phone-book or other contemporaneous evidence that no business occupied the site between visits. He also questioned whether the planning notices—some of which were returned or remailed—met legal notice requirements, particularly a one-year pre-expiration notice around 1979 that he said many property owners did not receive.
Tenant-applicant Leticia Luna said she had long restaurant experience in the city and told the Board she "fell in love with it, and I thought of going back into the restaurant business and putting a restaurant there," seeking the Board's support for restoring a neighborhood-serving commercial use. An independent consultant, Reza Khushni Vissan of SIA Consulting, testified that seismic and structural constraints on the ground-floor space would make converting the lower area into a residential unit very difficult and that the space was likely to remain vacant without authorization for commercial use.
Several commissioners signaled sympathy for the appellant’s position and raised procedural concerns about the completeness and clarity of the Planning Department’s notice and inspection records. Vice President Tanya Peterson and Commissioner Rafael Mandelmann expressly noted policy reasons—neighborhood benefit and historical pattern of corner commercial uses—while also asking that restrictions be considered to limit impacts on residents.
Commissioner Mandelmann moved to overrule the LOD and to adopt findings and conditions at a later date; the motion passed 5-0. The Board directed staff and the parties to draft findings and conditions that could limit hours, scale and character of any future commercial use (for example by applying LCU-style restrictions or notices of special restrictions) and to return for adoption of those findings.
The ruling does not itself issue a permit. If the parties seek to permit a restaurant or other commercial use, they will still need building permits, neighborhood notification and any required planning approvals. The Board’s action restores the applicant’s ability to pursue those options subject to the findings and conditions that will be prepared for a subsequent meeting.
