1575 South Van Ness
According to a plugged-in tipster, ICI Paints acquired the remaining 17-year lease for 1575 South Van Ness from Hollywood Video’s bankruptcy auction (“outbidding the owner and several other bidders”) and was seeking a conditional use permit to establish “a formula retail use paint store (dba ICI Paints) within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District.”
The application for the conditional use permit was, however, denied (although “ICI says they’ll fight this “to the top””). And once again according to our tipster: “Neighbors wanted a mixed-use building with ground-floor retail, not a single-storey building sitting on only 40% of the property – while the rest is surface parking – on a site zoned for a 50′ building.” NIMBY neighbors actually arguing for density? What a concept.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by J

    Wholly unsurprising to me for the Mission – I’ve worked in the area for years around various development issues and no other neighborhood is as willing to accept density as the Mission as they tend to embrace basic smart growth principles (and just think of all the hipster biking kids). Having said that, they tend to want this housing with greater levels of affordability and/or other ammenities like open space, etc.

  2. Posted by PN

    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.

  3. Posted by fluj

    I was hoping that a nice large scale restaurant that is open late would go into the Hollywood video space!
    When is a NIMBY not a NIMBY, anyway?

  4. Posted by curmudgeon

    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.

  5. Posted by Zig

    No reason to drive to Daly City
    Plenty of space on Old Bayshore and east Army St for paint stores
    Not sure who is doing the arguing here but to me it seems that paint store= day laborers standing, drinking, pissing selling drug all day
    I don’t blame the neighbors

  6. Posted by Michael E

    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!

  7. Posted by natomahead

    there’s a paint store near by on 24th and Bryant. The irony of this is that a block away, on mission & chavez, there used to be a paint shop, which closed, and is now in the mist of a battle for redevelopment. The neighbors don’t want the mixed use proposal, which is a dense residential on top of a walgreen’s (retail). That crazy lawyer lady, Susan something, even argued that the dev would be illegal because only light industrial, i.e. another paint shop, is allowed there. now these people are arguing against a paint shop a block away.

  8. Posted by PN

    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….?

  9. Posted by 3400CC

    The neighbors supported 3400 Cesar Chavez at Mission and Chavez. It is entitled. In fact, demolition started this morning for a mixed-use housing over retail building.

  10. Posted by curmudgeon

    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?

  11. Posted by Michael

    J, Please don’t confuse the North West Bernal Alliance (NWBA) with the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center (BHNC). It is the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center that wants the property at 1575 South Van Ness to be given to them. BHNC and MAC argue in each other’s favor. BHNC and MAC don’t argue for the people who actually live in the area.

  12. Posted by SimonSays

    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!

  13. Posted by CRS

    Neighbors say:
    1575 SVN as a site of a commercial wholesale supplier is not appropriate.
    CC Puede and other area clean-up groups are trying to make some general improvements to the CC corridor, to make it a bit more welcoming, green, more walkable etc.
    It is almost all a residential area; this gets lost because the street itself is so wide. In many ways, it resembles 19th Ave, which is also very residential.
    CC was widened in maybe the late 1940s, early 1950s;
    Here is a photo of the street in the process of widening:
    At any rate, a drive-through paint wholesaler leased for the next 17 years would set back the many improvement efforts underway now and planned for the future.
    And for 17 years this site would be dreadfully underutilized.
    ICI isn’t just a paint store, it’s the biggest paint manufacturer and wholesaler in the world.
    We have nothing against ICI Paints, it is simply that a residential neighborhood is not the place for an international commercial wholesaler.
    Thanks to “Michael” (above) for correcting “J” as to who NWBA is and who BHNC is.
    Oh and there are about 20 other places in a 1-mile radius where people can buy paint.

  14. Posted by anono

    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.

  15. Posted by CRS

    I should have written:
    Thanks to “Michael” (above) for correcting “PN” as to who NWBA is and who BHNC is.
    PN wrote the original comment, not J.

  16. Posted by Observer

    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.

  17. Posted by hesky1

    Thank god that people who live on or near Cesar Chavez are finally taking interest in their neighborhood. You better believe that every vacancy will be looked at as an opportunity to build something that maximizes space and fills voids in the community (weather that be housing, retail, the arts or whatever). Note to all special interests: The days of dumping shite in this neighborhood are over!

  18. Posted by sf

    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.

  19. Posted by sb

    How about a porn studio? The neighborhood groups didn’t let up on the Armory until all the housing proposals were BMR-crushed and Kink moved in. And now the neighborhoodies seem content! So, porn instead of paint, wouldn’t that make everybody happy?

  20. Posted by hesky1

    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.

  21. Posted by Drew

    “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.”

    It’s mentality like yours that keeps this neighborhood from reaching its full potential. How about we dump garbage in front of your Pac Shites condo…?

  22. Posted by CRS

    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.

  23. Posted by eekamouse

    Re: 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.
    Let’s not forget the biggest con artists of them all, the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center (BHNC).

  24. Posted by zzzzzzzz

    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.

  25. Posted by Marc

    Bayshore sounds great — that said — no lease was available at a Hollywood Video bankruptacy auction.
    How is this supposed to work exactly? Magic? Or should the City just eliminate private property and redesign everything? i.e. Start from scratch?

  26. Posted by Bob

    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.
    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).
    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.
    Please send e-mail to:,,,,,,
    send a copy to:
    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.

  27. Posted by calder

    Ah, this is the same group of neighbors that supported 3400 Ceasar Chavez (former paint store) and although they spoke a lot about mixed use development etc., they also made it clear then that they very much opposed the presence of day laborers in the area and saw the project as a way to reduce their numbers. Now they oppose a new paint store and the same day laborer issues are raised. Somehow I get this gnawing feeling that this has less to do with supporting density or “smart growth” etc., and a lot more to do with their class and race issues of which the day laborers are emblamatic.

  28. Posted by client9

    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.

  29. Posted by NoeNeighbor

    Most of the people who actually live in the neighborhood supported the new development that was recently approved and would like something better than a paint store on the Hollywood video site. Most of these people are also supportive of the idea that new housing developments should include some below market rate housing. However, they are opposed by MAC and other radical activists who oppose any market-rate housing. Essentially, MAC is worried that each time someone who has a decent job moves in the neighborhood, the Mission “changes” in some horrible way. MAC would prefer that no new housing be built then allow anybody with a job to move into the Mission. And if that means that no new below market rate housing is built, then MAC is fine with that — they really aren’t focused on helping poor people out. If this seems absurd, then go to the MAC website — they are really quite clear about their intent.

  30. Posted by DML

    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).

  31. Posted by kaya

    Interesting discussion, just as these development posts always are. I cringe at stories like the poor yogurt shop guy in North Beach, but I didn’t even realize what was going on with the Hollywood Video until I read this post… I cringe, too, at the idea of this missed opportunity. Sure the new owners technically shouldn’t be limited by the neighbors about what they can put in this spot, but then why is it OK for goverment to dictate things like fishing limits? Where’s the point that managing resources becomes a case of government overstepping its bounds?
    Sure, SF is overzealous in its quest to moralize to business, but there’s a huge potential in this area and this proposed business is a step back in the wrong direction. The day-laborers don’t bother me, but the uncomfortable marriage of residential and industrial in the neighborhood does.
    Maybe if the City got on with it and got development in Bayshore moving, ICI would have found some better digs, anyway, and this wouldn’t be a discussion.

  32. Posted by BernalDweller

    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.

  33. Posted by Johnny

    I don’t want the store in my hood. It is already Mexican and Latino enough! It is time to push the day workers to Mexico and beyond! Make the Mission Irish again!!! Get the Mexicans day workers out — block them and their search for work!!!!!

  34. Posted by CRS

    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. / (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

  35. Posted by Dave

    ICI needs a new store location because they recently lost their lease on their long-time store at Market and 15th St. and had to vacate. I live one block up the street from that (former) store, and I think the NIMBY Mission neighbors are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.
    While I never thought that a paint store was the best use of the Market/15th property, it was a nice, clean, well-run store with friendly (unionized, for what it’s worth) employees. Yes, painters would drive there, park in their parking lot, and buy paint. The traffic volume was minimal and their parking lot was never full. I greatly enjoyed the convenience of being able to walk down the street and pick up a gallon of paint (color-matched as necessary) and other paint supplies when I needed to repaint something. I’m sorry they are gone.
    Now we’re supposed to get a new Washington Mutual branch to replace the ICI store in my neighborhood. Nothing against WaMu, but I’d rather have kept the paint store than have yet another bank branch. Ah, progress. Now I can drive to Colma and buy paint at Home Depot. 🙁
    I don’t really get why a paint store is such a bad thing. Everybody needs paint sometimes. And can you name a paint store that ISN’T a national chain? No, I didn’t think so. Just because a store is part of a big company doesn’t mean it isn’t also a neighborhood store that serves its local community.
    The NIMBYs better be careful what they wish for, they might get it, and it might be a lot worse than a paint store.

  36. Posted by eekamouse

    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.

  37. Posted by rusty

    eekamouse – How can you say this is a “residential area”?
    Across S. Van Ness, we have a gas station and car repair facility, ith a large warehouse next to it on the west side.
    Next door to the 1575 location (north side), there is Appliance Parts International, and a large warehouse and 2 large parking lots, which takes up more than half the block. Next door on the East side is a group of car repair shops, including a “bling rims” wheel store, a chain AAMCO shop, and a smog test shop. The car repair shops are physically larger than the old Hollywood Video store and parking lot combined.
    Across CC from 1575 is a “Plant on premises” dry cleaner, and housing.
    Why don’t we use eminent domain laws to take over all the other businesses on that block – note there are NO residences on the block bounded by CC, SVN, Shotwell and 26th – and put in high density housing there?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles