1575 South Van Ness: NIMBY Neighbors Actually Arguing For Density?

What’s next: The NWBA asks the City to give them the property. The MAC argues in their favor and insists on 100% low-income housing. Everyone fights gentrification/beautification. Nothing happens for years.

Uh, not quite J. I got the email from the opponents of ICI. I think they’re more concerned 1) because ICI is an “evil” chain and 2) because the store will attract day laborers. They also cloaked their opposition on traffic, and all the carbon emmissions from those evil cars and trucks.
I’m no great fan of a paint store as a contribution to a great urban fabric. But hey, it’s kind of necessary. Much worse, ecologically, to have to drive down to Daly City for paint.

While I wouldn’t put it past the neighbors to have an alternate agenda than what they are saying publicly, I do think they are on the right track here. Cesar Chavez should be a more residential, densely-developed street. I like the concept of multi-use for the space. The current building and parking lot belong in the suburbs. This paint store can easily locate along Bayshore near the Home Depot location (I hope that gets off the ground!). My biggest concern is that Walgreens will put in another store on the site. Lord knows we need another one of those. Not!

My biggest concern is that Walgreens will put in another store on the site.
Not likely. They’re going in a block away at 3400 Cesar Chavez. But some sort of anchor for the development eventually approved would be nice. How ’bout a grocer….?

I could be wrong, but I THINK that some of the people arguing against ICI are the same people who argued FOR the mixed use on Mission and Chavez. (that’s how I got on their mailing list). So, at least some of the neighbors are being consistent.
I’d be more than willing to see paint stores along Bayshore. And yes, please, can’t that whole project (Home Depot) get underway already?

I live a block away on South Van Ness. As a homeowner, I think this is a terrible idea. It just adds to the day laborer issue and creates a full blown day laborer corridor that runs from Folsom to Mission on 26th and Cesar Chavez.
Can’t anyone come up with a more clever idea? I don’t care if its housing or even a parking garage!

The people opposed to the paint store are the same people who supported 3400 Ceasar Chavez. While I have nothing against ICI, they bought the lease fair and square, housing is a better use of the site. Build more housing in the Mission and housing will get cheaper and the neighborhood will improve. It should not be surprising to anyone that many, if not most, residents of the Mission want housing built. The disagreements are over affordability, so mostly nothing gets built.

curmudgeon you are totally right. The development team who got their go ahead now want to block someone else from making a buck… unless of course this is supreme cleverness and they have now turned ICI into the new neighborhood No 1 bad guy/gal.

The boarded up bankrupt decrepit hollywood video fits the ‘vibe’ of the neighborhood than anything else could. Every city needs a neighborhood to dump all their garbage, and this is it.

sb, I think you’re confused. With the Armory, it was the low-income housing advocates who fought against all the housing proposals (except their own, of course). They would rather see no housing, than a mixed-income development — and they have the support of Ammiano and Daly. This rigidness is the reason we don’t have more housing in the Mission.

SB,
There are more than two sides to this issue.
The folks living around the Armory and the neighborhood groups in the Mission were OK with mixed-use housing there.
It was the nonprofits who CLAIM to “speak for the neighborhood” who were against any development except their own development who killed the Armory housing proposals.
MAC, MEDA, PODER, POWER etc speak for themselves and their General Fund monies. They do not speak for neighbors, even though they say that they do.

Anyone who lived here in the 70’s and 80’s will recall the pitched battles over high-rises. It would have been almost impossible back then to imagine an Infinity, a Millenium or much of anything vertical. Now, though, no one seems to bat an eyelash. So will there come a time sometime in the next 50 years or so when no one gets bent out of shape over market-rate housing in the Mission? One can only hope.

This is the email I received:
Hello .
This e-mail is to ask for your help in stopping ICI Paints from obtaining a conditional use permit to open a paint store on the NE corner of South Van Ness and Chavez. (1575 South Van Ness). Please send an e-mail (see sample below) and, if you can, attend the Planning Commission hearing THIS THURSDAY, MARCH 13th.
Background:
In 2006, San Franciscans passed Prop. G, which requires that all formula retail (chain) stores go through a process (the “Conditional Use” process) that requires notification of neighbors and a public hearing before the Planning Commission to determine the appropriateness of the proposed store.
1575 South Van Ness is zoned NC-3 (“neighborhood commercial”), the same as Mission, 24th and Valencia Streets. This zoning is intended for neighborhood-serving businesses.
Hollywood Video (the prior tenant) declared bankruptcy in early 2007. Hollywood Video’s commercial leases were auctioned off by the bankruptcy court. ICI Paints outbid the owner of the property in order to obtain the remaining 17 years on the commercial lease that Hollywood Video held.
ICI is the largest paint seller and manufacturer in the world. ICI manufactures Dulux and Glidden for Home Depot and Wal-Mart.
As it stands today, 1575 South Van Ness is 60% surface-level parking lot. 40% of the property is not parking, improved by a single-storey building (in a zone in which a 50’ building is allowed).
Issues:
This ICI store will be stocked for the convenience of commercial contractors. Customers of this paint store will largely drive in from outside the neighborhood to purchase 5-gallon containers of ICI’s commercial-grade paints and coatings. ICI proposes to open a car-based business geared to people who do not live in the neighborhood, although ICI will sell to the general public as well (as is required by the NC-3 zoning). This is out of keeping with the surrounding residential neighborhoods (which need housing, grocery stores, laundromats, restaurants and other neighborhood services).
In addition, within a mile of this site there already are a number of independently-owned paint stores (House of Colors, Cole Hardware and CSI Paint are each a few blocks away).
What gets decided next Thursday at the Planning Commission will determine how this intersection and neighborhood function for the next 17 years (the time remaining on the lease).
Cesar Chavez is already a difficult, dangerous roadway. It will not be aided by a car-based, non neighborhood-serving store that continues to send the message that this is a drive-thru community. Like at Trader Joe’s on Masonic, vehicles (mostly pick-up trucks) waiting to get into the 6-space parking lot (no loading dock) will regularly queue in the curbside moving lane on Cesar Chavez, or in the adjacent Muni stop.
A parcel that is 60% parking lot is an extraordinarily inefficient and outmoded use of space in a city with a housing crisis. Cesar Chavez Street is not El Camino Real, lined with strip malls and “out-front” parking.
Finally, this is a really wasteful use for a massive intersection that could be a lot more livable.
Please help convince the Planning Commission not to permit this conditional use. This location will not remain vacant if ICI is denied a permit; it’s a good location – which is why the world’s largest paint manufacturer and distributor wants it.
Action:
************************************************************************
Please send e-mail to:
c_olague@yahoo.com, wordweaver21@aol.com, suelee@chsa.org, bill.lee@flysfo.com, mooreurban@speakeasy.net, hs.commish@yahoo.com, Linda.avery@sfgov.org
send a copy to:
noicionchavez@yahoo.com
Subject: Deny the Conditional Use Permit Application of ICI for 1575 S. Van Ness
Dear Planning Commissioners:
This e-mail is to voice my opposition to ICI paints opening a facility at 1575 S. Van Ness. As the world’s largest paint manufacturer and distributor, ICI will likely remain at this location for the 17 years remaining on the existing commercial lease previously held by Hollywood Video. Today we have a window of opportunity to find a positive, neighborhood-serving use for this location – hopefully one that will do better than the current single-storey building on only 40% of the property – and ICI is not that use.
ICI will function at this location primarily to serve commercial contractors looking for larger quantities and an easy place to park (this site is 60% surface-level parking lot). This is out of keeping with the overwhelmingly residential (mainly tenant) neighborhoods surrounding this location. This corner calls out for a strong neighborhood-serving use that doesn’t send the message that this is a drive-thru neighborhood.
I am also concerned that transportation safety at this intersection will be compromised by ICI’s proposed use. Contractors queuing or circling for parking in the lot will either block the Muni stop in front of the site, stop in the curbside moving lane (blocking the visibility of pedestrians crossing Chavez), or block the actual crosswalks in front of the store. This is a recipe for collisions and harm.
In addition, there are already a number of independent paint stores within a mile of this location.
Please deny ICI their application for a conditional use permit to open a facility at this location.
Sincerely,
************************************************************************

Yes I agree with Calder.
But I also think there are valid reasons for not wanting day laborers hanging in your neighborhood.
You can be sympathetic to the day laborers’ plight, support density, and also not want to encourage illegal hiring practices. They dont necessarily contradict each other.

It amazes me that this discussion is even happening. This is about a company that has a long term lease on a property with rights to sub-lease. One chain store assigning a lease to another chain store within the context of their contract with the property owner.
Somehow the ‘neighbourhood’ gets to decide that the owner of this buidling, or the lessee can no longer operate their building within perfectly reasonable business practices and that they have to knock it down and build something else entirely. You know what I don’t like you’re house or your noisy kids, so could you please knock it down and put a paint store there!
Oh and I live a block or two away and I’m not really crazy about an ICI there either. However there used be a Kelly Moore across the street and when it closed my life somehow seemed to just carry on as normal, no doubt if they open an ICI there it will continue to carry on as normal (only the paint will be a little better quality).

NoeNeighbor has it right, and kudos to Bob for posting the email, which I also received. I signed up for their email list because I was supporting the 3400 development against unreasonable demands on new development there. I am sympathetic to requiring below market rate housing at 25% of the development (which I believe is city standard now) but I am tired of MAC trying to block new development in clearly underutilized locations. Every time new development is approved and built, some other existing but rundown housing gets that much more affordable as demand shifts to shinier places. Really people…how many professionals do you know living in ratty flats in less than the most desirable neighborhoods who would move if only something better were available at a similar price? More development, please…keep the current BMR requirements, but stop blocking new developments with unreasonable BMR requirements. Oh, and I am a BHNC member/supporter, although I agree they are a bit on the aggressive side. However, they are doing good work both within and outside of Bernal, and the affordable/public redevelopment they have done in Bernal has been a net positive to the neighborhood.

DML wrote:
> It amazes me that this discussion is even happening. This is
> about a company that has a long term lease on a property
> with rights to sub-lease. One chain store assigning a lease to > another chain store within the context of their contract with
> the property owner.
This is happening because of the “Small Business Protection Act” (Prop G) which voters passed in 2006. It requires chain stores to go through the Conditional Use permit process.
It hardly sets precedent though.
It’s happened in the Richmond with Starbucks.
See also the two articles below concerning Batteries Plus on Divisadero and Ralph Lauren on Fillmore, which had a long-term lease as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Article in Beyond Chron:
Neighbors Block Another Chain Store on Divisadero
by Dean Preston and Dan Nguyen-Tan, 2007-11-05
In an important test case of Proposition G, neighbors have successfully blocked a new chain store at the corner of Divisadero and Oak Street. Wisconsin-based Batteries Plus, with over 300 stores nationwide, sought to open its first San Francisco store at this location. Neighbors, armed with an extensive city-sponsored planning study reflecting the neighborhood’s anti-chain store preferences, presented a united opposition to Batteries Plus.
On November 1, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to block the project after significant neighborhood mobilization – over 460 petition signatures from neighbors. A broad coalition of neighborhood residents spoke against Batteries Plus’ application. Every major neighborhood group in the area opposed the project, including Haight Divisadero Neighbors and Merchants, Alamo Square Neighborhood Association, North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association and Central City Progressives.
Under Proposition G, chain stores seeking to open in neighborhood commercial districts must obtain conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission. The measure ensures that neighbors have a say in whether chain stores locate in their neighborhoods.
Neighbors have long opposed chain stores in this stretch of the Divisadero corridor, mounting successful campaigns to defeat Burger King, Domino’s Pizza and Blockbuster from moving onto Divisadero. In the meantime, new local businesses like Mojo Bicycle Café, Madrone Lounge and Metro Kathmandu have opened in the neighborhood and overall vacancies have decreased.
Neighborhood residents argued in this case that the Planning Commission should honor the neighborhood planning process undertaken by the City over the last two years. The published results of the Lower Divisadero Corridor Business Survey were clear: the neighborhood opposes formula retail chains, auto-serving businesses, and wants businesses that primarily serve the neighborhood.
Batteries Plus is a franchise chain that exclusively sells batteries, with car batteries representing 8% of their sales nationally, and would draw customers from throughout the City since the Batteries Plus business model typically allows for only one or two stores per city. Some neighbors argued that Batteries Plus might receive a warmer welcome from neighbors in other commercial corridors, such as Van Ness Ave, that were considered by the franchisees before they selected Divisadero.
Notwithstanding the planning study and the overwhelming neighborhood opposition, Planning Department representative Jonas Ionin recommended approval of the project. Although the Commission ultimately rejected the Department’s recommendation, serious questions remain as to why the Planning Department would recommend approval of a business so clearly at odds with community wishes – and why the Planning Department failed to advise the Batteries Plus proponents to seek input from various neighborhood groups prior to submitting their permit application and to contact the City’s own part-time economic development staff person responsible for promoting businesses in the Lower Divisadero corridor.
This block of Divisadero, between Oak and Fell Streets, is particularly important for future Divisadero planning. With three gas stations and only a few commercial storefronts, the block divides two more pedestrian-friendly stretches of Divisadero that serve as home to variety of locally-owned businesses selling anything from comic books, kitchen supplies, truffles, to home hardware. Neighbors argued that it was essential to have pedestrian-friendly, neighborhood-serving businesses in these pivotal storefronts.
Martini Cleaners, a small family owned business, had been in this location for a decade. The landlord sought to increase their rent by over 100%, a prohibitive increase. Some residents feared that allowing a chain store to come in under these circumstances could have set a dangerous precedent, encouraging commercial landlords along Divisadero to jack up rents and hold out for chain stores who can pay higher rents, rather than working with independent local businesses.
The Planning Commission decision comes on the heels of a controversial effort by Starbucks to locate a store in the inner Richmond district. In that case, the Planning Commission approved the Starbucks over neighborhood objections, only to be overturned by the Board of Supervisors. Neighborhood organizers against Batteries Plus believe that the Starbucks decision by the Board of Supervisors gave the Planning Commission more reason to more carefully consider their votes on Batteries Plus.
Together the Starbucks and Batteries Plus decisions send a strong message to chain stores seeking to open in certain neighborhood commercial districts, as well as to commercial landlords seeking to obtain top dollar by renting to chain stores: don’t waste time on plans that are opposed by the neighborhood.
The unanimous Planning Commission vote and neighborhood organizing related to Batteries Plus prove that Prop. G is working, providing San Franciscans a voice in determining the character of their neighborhoods.
Dean Preston is a resident of the Divisadero neighborhood and opposed Battery Plus’ application. Dan Nguyen-Tan serves on the Board of North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, February 22, 2008
Anti-chain regulations rattle retail
S.F. won’t let Polo pony up
San Francisco Business Times – by Sarah Duxbury
Chain store opponents have stepped up their battle against formula retail in San Francisco’s neighborhoods, and Pacific Heights is the front line.
Last week, following opposition by the Pacific Heights Neighborhood Association and the Fillmore Merchants Association, the city Planning Commission voted 6-1 to deny Ralph Lauren permission to open a boutique on Fillmore Street.
Ralph Lauren has signed a lease for 3,500 square feet at 2040 Fillmore St., the former site of Smith & Hawken, another chain store. The New York-based fashion retailer has long wanted to open a shop on Fillmore Street, where upscale national brands like Marc Jacobs, Simon Pearce and Jonathan Adler have rung up success and turned the neighborhood street into a shopping destination where one-off boutiques mingle with national players.
While the Planning Department had recommended the commission approve a conditional use permit for Ralph Lauren, the Fillmore Street Merchants Association has decided to oppose all future chain retail.
sduxbury@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4963
This case proves that Prop G works.
It does not set any sort of precedent, however.
The “Batteries Plus” case on Divisidero and the Ralph Lauren on Fil

To me it reads like “Dave” doesn’t understand that a single-storey building surrounded by 60% parking lot on a corner lot on the north side of a 100′ wide boulevard in a city with a serious housing crisis is an outmoded use of a fantastic location 5 blocks from BART. “Dave” doesn’t mention that the ICI store this one on S. Van Ness is supposed to replace is on a parcel zoned only for commercial, not neighborhood commercial – meaning that ICI and “Dave” are talking out of both sides of their mouths when they say claim that this store would be neighborhood-serving. ICI is looking to shoehorn a wholesale business into a residential neighborhood – without housing or anything redeeming on top – encircling themselves with 1950s-style surface-level parking, for the 17 years remaining on the lease. For contrast, Standard Brands Paints worked with Bridge Housing to build 190 Coleridge Senior Homes above its store on Mission opposite Cole Hardware – 5 blocks from 1575 S. Van Ness.