July 16, 2014

WA EMAIL ccwu.planning@grnaiLcorn>
Cindy Wu, President
and Members
San Francisco Planning Commission
City and County of San Francisco
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
RE: Proposed Changes To Formula Retail Ordinance
Dear President Wu and Members of the Planning Commission:
In 2004, after several years of research and extensive community outreach the Board of
Supervisors passed legislation which I introduced to define and regulate Formula Retail
establishments In San Francisco. By all measures, including the studies that the Planning
Department has commissioned at some expense, this legislation has been successful by all
objective accounts. It has strengthened the citys economy by keeping money in the City,
has helped small businesses, preserved local jobs and maintained the unique fabric of the
Citys diverse, archipelago of unique neighborhood commercial districts. Albeit San
Franciscos Formula Retail legislation continues to be attacked by Corporate America.
On behalf of myself and the undersigned I am writing to strongly urge you to reject your
staffs recommendations to weaken San Franciscos formula retail controls and retain the
existing numerical definition of formula retail use as a type of retail sales activity or
establishment having eleven or more other retail sales establishments.
We are deeply troubled by the Departments proposal to raise the numerical threshold for
what defines formula retail from 11 to 20 establIshments as it is without any rational
justification.
Moreover, the Departments proposal to change the definition of formula retail from 11
to 20 and to otherwise relax the controls is flatly contrary to Proposition G, and should be
subject to voter approval. Proposition G, known as the Small Business Protection Act,
was approved by San Francisco voters n November 2006 by an overwhelming (58% to 42%)
vote, required all formula retail uses (defined as 11 or more outlets) wanting to open
another store In any Neighborhood Commercial District to go through the Conditional Use
process, thus allowing each neighborhood to weigh in on whether or not they wanted to
have that particular chain store in Its neighborhood. Proposition G also provided that the
Conditional Use process could be strengthened by additional controls not weakened.
When voters approved Proposition 6 they understood implicitly that formula retail was
defined as a type of retail sales activity or establishment having eleven or more other retail
Planning Commission
July 16, 2014
Page 2
establishments. We contend that any contrary Interpretation Is presented solely to deny
voters the opportunity to be heard on the proposed amendments before you now.
Jake McGoldrlck
Sophie Maxwell
Tony Hall
Chris Daly
cc: City Attorney Dennis Herrera <cityattomey@sfgov.org>
Commissioner Michael Antonini <wordweaver21@aol.com>
Commissioner Rodney Fong <plannlng@rodneyfong.com>
Comissioner Richard Hillis <richhillissf@yahoo.com>
Commissioner Kathrin Moore <Mooreurban@aol.com>
Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya <hs.commish@yahoo.com>
Commissioner Christine Johnson (do Christine Lamorena)
John Rahaim, Director of Planning <John.Rahalm@sfgov.org>
Jonas lonin, Commission Secretary cJonas.lonlnsfgov.org>
Christine Lamorena, Acting Commission Secretary <chrlstlne.lamorena@sfgov.org>
lcanishka Burns, Planner ckanishka.burnssfgov.org>
AnMarie Rogers, Planner cAnMarie.Rodgers@sfgov.org>
Man Gonzalez
Aaron Peskin