Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Formula Retail Lod Jack Spade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines late jurisdiction request over Jack Spade store; community sharply divided
Summary
Merchants and neighborhood groups sought late jurisdiction on a 2012 zoning letter that found Jack Spade was not 'formula retail.' After hours of testimony, the board denied the late filing under the narrow standard for delayed appeals and left the pending permit appeals to proceed on their merits.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 14 denied a late jurisdiction request from the Valencia Corridor Merchants Association and neighborhood groups seeking to challenge a February 2012 zoning letter of determination (LOD) that concluded Jack Spade’s Sixteenth Street location is not a formula-retail use.
Petitioners argued that Jack Spade — which identified itself as a small, neighborhood-oriented chain when the zoning administrator issued the LOD — is in fact functionally tied to Kate Spade and parent company Fifth & Pacific. Speakers, including community organizers and merchants, presented corporate filings and other documentation they said show shared headquarters, payroll and distribution networks; they said the Zoning Administrator’s determination denied residents the public hearing the city’s formula-retail rules were designed to trigger.
Melissa Exitis, representing Jack Spade, said the local Jack Spade stores are distinct in design and operation and that the company sought a letter of determination precisely to allow community input; she said Jack Spade had disclosed ties to Kate Spade in applications and press outreach. Scott Sanchez, the Planning Department zoning administrator, told the board that letters of determination are not entitlements or vesting actions, that the department’s practice (and the planning code at the time) counts Jack Spade stores separately from Kate Spade, and that the board would have the opportunity next week to consider any permit appeals on their merits.
Commissioners framed their decision around the narrow legal standard that governs late-jurisdiction requests: the board may grant a late appeal only if the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to miss the statutory filing deadline. After hearing extensive public testimony on both sides, multiple commissioners said they did not find the city caused the delay and that the petitioners had opportunities to monitor the Planning Department’s postings, to pursue the planning commission process, and to file timely appeals. The board voted 5–0 to deny the late jurisdiction request, leaving the underlying permit appeals to proceed on their scheduled calendar.
Next steps: The board’s denial prevents a late appeal of the February 2012 LOD, but the underlying building-permit appeals are scheduled for hearing and the board said it could consider formula-retail issues on those merits.
