Stronger restrictions on formula retail — chain stores — could be coming to San Francisco in the next few months, but they are facing significant opposition, a Planning Commission meeting last night showed.
In the Mission, the Valencia Street commercial corridor and its merchants’ association has a history of fiercely opposing formula retail, most notably with its opposition to the entry of American Apparel and Jack Spade. The latter was a subsidiary of larger clothing retailer Fifth and Pacific, and ultimately pulled out of the location on 16th and Valencia location it was pursuing after significant backlash.
The contention concerns subsidiaries of existing chain stores. Chains like Gap, for instance, sometimes start subsidiaries that quickly spread on their own, Supervisor Eric Mar said at Thursday’s hearing. Mar cited the expansion of Athleta, a sportswear subsidiary of Gap, that initially started with one location in San Francisco and one in Marin before opening up more than 60 stores in two years.
“[This is about] really protecting our city from being overrun by strip mall type cultures,” Mar said. Mar formed a working group last year to figure out how to prevent subsidiaries from rapidly expanding in San Francisco and presented a proposal to the Planning Commission that would subject the fourth store of a subsidiary of a larger chain to extra scrutiny.
A subsidiary would be identified primarily by its ownership. If someone who owns or runs an existing chain — defined as a store with 11 or more national locations — owns more than half of the business’ assets, it is considered a subsidiary of that chain.
Representatives of neighborhood groups and small business associations supported the measure, citing concerns over large retailers disguised as small operations muscling in on commercial corridors.
“Times have changed, and so must the planning code, to reflect what’s going on now,” said Kathleen Dooley, a member of the North Beach Business Association. She argued that the proposal wouldn’t completely stop subsidiary stores from expanding into chains. “We’re just simply saying if that’s what you are, that’s fine, apply for a [conditional use hearing] and we’ll move forward with that. And that is a reasonable thing to ask.”
To trigger the additional scrutiny, a store must share physical characteristics, uniforms, or standardized products with three other existing locations. The owner of a chain could open up any number of individual, unique businesses in San Francisco. But if he or she were to open three branches of one kind of store, the fourth would be subject to additional review.
Legislating on ownership proved to be a major sticking point for opponents of the plan.
“It is a longstanding tenet of planning that we do not control based on ownership,” said John Rahaim, the Planning Department director.
The proposal was also criticized for its strictness in a city with already exacting standards for formula retail.
“In the past years this commission has done a really good job of denying and approving formula retail and I think for the most part they’ve been very appropriate,” said Rodney Fong, president of the Planning Commission.
“I don’t think this is needed legislation,” added Commissioner Michael Antonini. “If you get too strict, sometimes you drive business away.”
Though three commissioners expressed support for the measure in some form and tried to block a motion to disapprove it, the failed motion led to a default recommendation for disapproval.
The motion now goes to the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors, which will vote on the measure before passing it onto the full board for a final decision.
Politics under the veil of ‘helping the community’ has given rise in part to high rents, high commercial rents etc. Try owning a business in SF and find out what economic pressures await you aside from rent. Thank you City Hall.
>> added Commissioner Michael Antonini. “If you get too strict, sometimes you drive business away.”
Yes, Michael, and in those sometimes, that is the point. People have their heartstrings pulled by commercials or films or stories talking about a quality of life that is priceless, and it’s true. No one attaches any value to it in the face of commerce.
Can we ban formula “progressives”?