Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Formula Retail Jack Spade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants rehearing in Jack Spade appeal after months of neighborhood debate
Summary
After extended public comment in the Mission District, the San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–1 on Oct. 9 to grant a rehearing of a contested permit for Jack Spade at 3166 16th Street, citing possible "manifest injustice" and asking for fuller legislative context on Planning Code §703.3.
Neighbors and business owners packed the hearing to oppose the proposed Jack Spade outlet at 3166 16th Street, arguing the store is a form of formula retail that threatens small independent businesses. Appellant counsel Jonathan Plotsker asked the board to rehear prior appeals and to consider Planning Code §703.3(A) (which protects small businesses) in full, not only §703.3(B) (which addresses outward appearance and formula retail thresholds). Neighbors described rent pressures and loss of neighborhood character repeatedly during public comment (multiple speakers, SEG 801–1360).
Permit-holder counsel Philip Lesser told the board Plotsker’s rehearing request lacked new evidence and said the permit sponsor had complied with review standards; Melissa Exides, representing Jack Spade, defended the company’s engagement with the neighborhood and disputed claims about rent and eviction, saying the reported rent figures were wrong and that "we're actually paying 3 to $4 a foot" and that Jack Spade had not evicted Adobe Books (SEG 998–1003; SEG 1005–1013).
Planning Department zoning administrator Scott Sanchez told the board his interpretation of the code was that the current use does not meet the formula retail definition as written, though he noted that multiple legislative proposals were under discussion at the Board of Supervisors that might change that in the future (SEG 1040–1052). Commissioners debated whether pending or proposed legislation should delay action and whether substantive new facts justified a rehearing under the board's rules.
The board voted 4–1 to grant a rehearing and set a December 11, 2013 briefing schedule (motion passed; roll call recorded at the meeting). Several commissioners said they were moved by letters and testimony addressing the legislative intent behind §703.3; others dissented, saying pending legislation and rent concerns are policy matters not appropriate to overturn a prior decision absent new facts.
What happens next: The rehearing will revisit whether the Jack Spade use should have been subject to a conditional‑use review under the city’s formula‑retail controls, including consideration of legislative history and the Planning Department’s guidance. The board set a full briefing schedule before the December rehearing.
