ShareThisSAN FRANCISCO -- A paint company and a landlord in San Francisco thought they had a good deal when they signed the lease for a paint store to move into a former video rental shop earlier this year.
But the plan had a problem: The paint company, which owns the Glidden brand, is considered a chain store and therefore was not a popular choice. The Planning Commission stopped the move, even though the company wanted to occupy a vacant spot abandoned by bankrupt Hollywood Video, another chain.
The fight illustrates how San Francisco -- a city that values homegrown companies and neighborhood character -- is increasingly hostile to chain stores and restaurants, even if the businesses want to move into empty stores.
San Francisco already bans chain stores from two small sections of the city, and Supervisor Tom Ammiano is working on legislation to ban chain stores from a larger swath of town.
The city's restrictions on new chain stores have become increasingly tough over the past few years. In 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved a law requiring proposed coffeehouses and pharmacies to provide notice of their intent to open. That made it easier for opponents to request Planning Commission hearings and to argue against the stores.
In 2006, voters passed Proposition G, obligating the Planning Commission to hold public hearings on any proposed chain store and to decide whether it is appropriate based on the stores already in the area, architectural compatibility and other considerations.
Businesses fall under that law if they are retail sales establishments with 11 or more U.S. stores that maintain two or more standardized features, including decor, facade, color scheme, uniforms, signage or trademark.
Since 2006, seven of 12 chain store applications have been approved in San Francisco. The others were rejected or the applications were withdrawn.
In recent months, however, chain store owners with applications before the Planning Commission have encountered renewed hostility and skepticism. Some commissioners have stated flatly that they don't like chain stores under any circumstances.
Last month, the commission indicated it would stop a Ralph Lauren store from replacing a closed Smith and Hawken store. Both businesses are upscale retail stores. The commission approved the permit only after Ralph Lauren agreed to provide many community programs and services.
Kathrin Moore, a commissioner who has been outspoken against chain stores, said they hurt local merchants and often are more harmful to the environment because their goods must be transported from outside the city.
"San Francisco is in the unique position of being able to encourage entrepreneurial retail to stand up to (chain stores), putting us ahead of the game in terms of sustainability," Moore said.
Ammiano said he proposed broader legislation to ban chain stores because he was seeing a trend toward "homogenization," noting the high number of Walgreens stores as well as a handful of pending applications from other chains.
Ammiano, who was traveling and could not be reached by phone, said in an e-mail statement: "I think it's prudent to address the issue now so we have a comprehensive plan and process to follow that makes sense for the community instead of an inconsistent and piecemeal approach."
Some have questioned the wisdom of Ammiano's suggested ban and the large area it would cover.
"The Planning Department believes that the permit process works and that you don't need a total ban," said Tara Sullivan-Lenane, a city planner. "The permit applications allow for neighborhood concerns to be heard and the neighborhoods aren't all the same, so they have unique concerns and interests."
The Planning Commission is scheduled to review Ammiano's proposal again in June. Any legislation would need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
