[inaudible]. i do find it interesting that myself, sunny moon, benny gold, carly lane, the majority of the businesses on 16th street support jack spade going in while the majority of businesses on valencia do not and as an owner of restaurants on both, i consider the neighborhoods completely different and 16th street needs help. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speak e please, and again if folks could come forward, that would be helpful,

thanks. >> my name is erin fish can and a business owner on valencia corridor, this is an issue that people are very passionate about and at the very least, jack spade has circumnavigated this and a hearing is the least we should have. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> madam chairwoman, commissioners, thank you very much for taking the time to hearing our points of view today, i'll be brief, i'm jose seaway, i run a website that's an entertainment website here in san francisco and i'm a native san franciscan, i remember 40 years ago when i went to the mission, 16th and valencia area, one of my experiences was seeing a man chasing another fellow down the middle of the meridian that valencia used to have a 4 by 4 and a spike that he was

preparing to drive down the young man's head, it's changed much for the better and i think san francisco deserves some props for that, getting to this jack spade issue and the letter in question, i think we've got two problems here, one is that we've already seen jack spade is no different from kate spade, it's the same organization, different line of clothes, but the same principles, i think the more important thing that we ought to be taking a look at here is this notion that, well, they only have 10 stores, then they can't be a chain, i don't think that's important at all, i think that's completely mute, it's not a question of how many stores they have, it's a question of how many stores they're going to have and if this was the 10th star bucks that's trying to open up down there, we'll be saying, we made a mistake doing that, this is the 10th out of 92 more jack spades that will follow in the footsteps of kate spade. i think we need to look at

where this is going, not where it's been, and in that -- with that said, i'd like you all to consider denying the letter that's been issued by the planning commission. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is lindsay and i'm the manager at beljar on 16th street, we are across the street from where jack spade is going in, and all across our street now is empty store fronts and it's impacting our foot traffic in the last few months i've seen it completely decline and i've spent over a couple of thousands repairing our windows from graffiti so we need them to go into that block on our street and that's basically all i wanted to say and there are merchants on the street that do support this. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi there.

my name is kelly galamore, i do not have a brick and mortar in the mission, i just live there and i really love it, for this issue, there's a loot of misinformation and i would really appreciate the opportunity for further investigation so that we can find out what's best for our community. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, any other speakers? >> i have my heart on my sleeve, definitely supporting the merchant and is the analysis of what's going on with the enforcement of regulation on formula retail, absolutely this will end upsetting a precedent of subsidiaries of major corporations to operate under another name and have a store there while they share the same

corporate structure, this is going to be approached and the laws are rewritten, if i understand this correctly, maybe the final permit hasn't been issued yet, they're going to have 11 stores and this letter of determination will be incorrect. this is going to fall under the jurisdiction of this council and we'll have other hearings about this issue, fantastic, if i understood that correctly in the beginning, maybe all the -- >> you misunderstood. >> great, otherwise i would be confused before, it would be great if the hearings continue here, please consider all the other factual information. >> would you care to state your name, sir. >> my name is scott carper, i will know how this will end up affecting and setting precedents so please make sure this is addressed. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> good afternoon, my name is eric [inaudible] and i'm with

[inaudible] merchants and immigration association on the mission, and we are in support of the appeal against jack spade. we do need to support the local home grown businesses. this reminds me of a business that moved in at [inaudible] and 17th, it was called arcadia, they came in as a small coffee bar and played some jazz and a couple of years later, they were all of a sudden overnight a star bucks so we need to close these holes to make sure these things don't happen in the future, these large corporations are going to take advantage of those holes so we need to close the loops. >> next speaker, please. >> hi there, my name is eileenhassey and i'm due today,

my company has four retail locations currently and will likely soon be considered formula retail, if i were interested in a neighborhood requiring a hearing, i would be enthusiastic to go through that process, i did have to go through that process of a conditional use hearing when i opened on valencia street and that was an important step for me, i was able to hear the concerns of the neighborhood and thanks in part to that, i've had a great relationship with my neighbors for nearly 9 years. if i were to go through the hearing process and learn that a neighborhood was not supportive, i would no longer be interested in opening there. when one of my fellow merchants had the opportunity to ask jack spade's marketing manager if he would still be interested in opening on 16th street, even if 100% of the residents and merchants were opposed, he was unable to say no, and to me, this goes directly to the heart of why we have the formula

retail regulations, measures which to me, kate spade that attempted to evade, they are not invested in the community, they are exclusively focused on what is good for the company and for their shareholders, i urge you to grant the jurisdiction request so that the community can have a say and we don't allow jack or kate spade to sneak into the neighborhood, i would like to add two points, one is that there are several merchants on 16th street who signed the letter of jurisdiction request, were unable to make it tonight including michael cats who's right across the street and the roxy, several other businesses that have been there for a long time, sf made a non-profit that supports [inaudible] in san francisco has a service helping place locally owned businesses into spaces so if this space becomes available, they will be

very enthusiastic to help a merchant go into that space very quickly. >> thank you. >> any other speakers, step forward, please. >> thank you, my name is karen hoek and i'm the leasing representative for the owner of the building where jack spade has a lease, and i just want to make a correction, i've heard today that -- >> sorry, i'm not sure you're able to speak. the rule is if you have a financial interest in the appeal -- >> i just wanted to make a correction to a statement that was made earlier that the tenant adobe books was -- >> okay, thanks, got it. >> okay, is there any other public comment? i see none. commissioners?

>> alright. oh, boy, here we go again. >> can i just ask the city attorney to reiterate the standard for us. robert, could you just restate the standard and what we're here for? i'm sorry, i have a question for mr. sanchez. i want to be perfectly clear here because something one of the public comments stated confused me and the statement was along the lines was, if the letter of determination -- let's just say hypothetically we grant the request, we have a hearing and we push back the other hearings on the merits of the permits. if in the end after hearing on the merits on the lod we

determine that the lod was improperly issued and that was an error on your part, then what are the implications, and would they need to go through -- would those permits that have been issued be undone or how does that work? >> so, assuming that we would have a hearing on all three items together, if the board found the letter of determination was improperly issued, that jack spade is a formula retail use, i would suggest to you at that hearing you also deny those building permit applications that establish the use and you would allow them to refile within one year if they were to receive a conditional use authorization because if they are formula retail, they need a conditional use authorization for this location. >> one minute there. actually, if the lod is revoked in essence, that does not

automatically make it a cu? >> yes, so it's either formula retail or it's not formula retail. >> i was going to say this -- no, you have determined that, alright. the only thing that can determine that -- if your determination is overruled, the only thing that could determine whether it's a formula retail or not is either revocation of the building permit or a conditional use hearing. >> well, i would say that the board would presumably make findings if the letter of determination is overruled, they would presume that flemings would be made that it is a formula retail use which would then necessitate a conditional use authorization which would authorize the use at that location and would invalidate those building permits because they would have been improperly issued. >> i don't think that's correct.

>> i don't follow you, commissioner. could you help me with your thoughts. >> overruling the lod does not automatically trigger a cu process. >> i don't think he's saying it automatically triggers it. >> yes, he does. he said that if his finding that this is not a formula use is overturned, then the opposite by inference is correct, and i don't think that's correct. >> i think what he was anticipating is that the board would make a basis for the reason for the overturning of the lod and that that -- >> there could be multiple reasons why the lod -- >> might be inner ror. >> i see, okay. >> go ahead. >> so, now i forgot my question. okay, so you said that -- well, first of all, the lod issues based on the conditions at the time that you issue it obviously, so september 12,

2012, at that time, you considered the facts before you and issued it, correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> and you also stated that under the code, you are not able to consider corporate structure or corporate ownership, correct? >> under the current code, that is correct. there are proposals that would render this a formula retail use, but those proposals are not yet part of the planning code. >> and do we know at what point or at what stage of the process those are? >> they have been introduced, there's 8 or 9 pieces of legislation winding their way through the system, some have been heard from the planning commission already, one change -- they would consider a corporate structure, but that would apply only ournd his golf, and international stores which are not currently included and that would have

been citywide, that would have been staff's recommendation, if that were to pass and the board of supervisors passed that, this would be formula use based on that standard because i believe they have stores in london and in tokyo, so they would exceed the threshold and they would be formula retail use if we considered international stores under the proposed legislation. >> okay, thank you. >> i have a question or two. i think your letter from september 12th lists 7 stores that was referenced to there being 10 now? >> that's correct, they have since that time opened three stores, also since that time, the bore has changed the threshold, so the day after the board decision was issued, i forwarded that to the project sponsor and asked them to respond and say whether or not there are any other locations that have leases because that would now, we would apply that because there's been no decision on this project yet. it's pending, it's on appeal for a hearing next week, this

board can consider whatever frats are -- if we find out next wednesday morning that they've opened up an 11th store somewhere? the u.s. which at this time, i do not see that, but if we get that information, i mean, i would recommend that you deny the permits because it would be a formula retail use, and that's why one of the speakers had stated that it appeared they had 11 stores and we spoke and confirmed that the atlanta store is already in the count, so we didn't see that as an 11th, if that would have been an 11th store, i would have told the board to grant jurisdiction or i would have revoked that letter of determination because of the pending permit, so i want to make that clear, we're awaiting that informationfinger we don't have that information, there are plans of expansion it seems and their filings as been pointed out by the public by the threshold that was set out by the board is a lease and i've asked for that information

and they respond ined the negative, they don't have any leases so i don't know how we can consider this formula retail under the current code. >> do you look at financial documents such as the 10k, public filings when you're examining the structure? >> we would typically look at their websites, try to do research about the number of stores that exist. there's nothing in the code right now that would have us get involved into the corporate structure, that's one of the proposals, if 50% or more of the business is owned by the entity that owns more retail establishes, then we would consider that as formula retail. >> i understand that's pending, not applicable. my last question is could you please repeat your requirements for notice for these lod's. >> so, the planning code does not require any notification for letters of determination, however, we as a matter of policy, we do send it to

neighborhood groups that are on the planning department's neighborhood group mailing lists and that's something we've implemented by policy and that was sent to 36 neighborhood groups, on the mailing list for this area, there are 36 neighborhood groups and we would have sent that out last september. >> and that's voluntary on your part? >> correct. >> so how do we provide the standard of -- i think this is what you were trying to get -- >> causing the delay of the filing because this is in september of 2012 and here we are in august. >> right, but if there's no notice requirement, i don't know how you judge your actions? >> that's correct. >> that's our job. >> this is not an entitlement, we don't see any vested rights, it's a letter of determination, the symbolic importance of this, but it was issued in

september, and i would rely on the deputy city attorney, but it would be my opinion that the board would have the ability to find this is a formula retail use establishment next week when it hears the appeals on the building permit. >> we are dealing with the jurisdiction request and not the other issues, correct? >> correct. this is about a late filing request. >> thank you. >> okay. and since you just stated the standard, i don't think we need to have it read again. the reason why i wanted to ask the city attorney, deputy city attorney to do that is because i think the focus gets lost here. we're here on a late filing jurisdiction request, the question i think -- and i think, you know, some of the public comments and i'm sitting here, some challenging and compelling testimony was presented on both sides of the issue, and i'm sitting here

thinking about what our role and what our job is to do today and it relates to whether or not there should have been -- we should allow the late filing of this jurisdiction -- the late filing of this appeal, and i'm trying to think of whether or not in fact the city inadvertently, certainly i wouldn't find that the city intentionally delayed -- i mean, caused the delay, so that's what i'm thinking about right now, whether it inadvertently caused a delay, and i'm having trouble reaching that conclusion that it did. >> i do, i believe that what we're here for is a little different than what's been heard today and i think that that would be heard next week. i think what we're here today is to determine whether the za was an error in his decision. >> no, we're not, that would be on the merits, what we're here

is whether or not they can file this appeal late. i mean, their time for filing expired in i think sometime in november of 2012 and they're late, so the basis of having the opportunity for us to take jurisdiction over that question if the city inadvertently delayed, was the cause for the delay, caused them to not file their request on appeal until recently, that's -- i think when we get testimony like we heard today, things get conflated and you know we're going to hear next week on the merits, the question of the formula retail. >> so, again, i don't see anything that would allow me to support a late filing. >> i think i agree.

i mean, i am certainly -- i certainly want to express my appreciation of everyone coming out tonight and expressing their views and obviously they're very important and i feel very educated in having heard them, after having heard them, but again, i think the issue here is that there is pending legislation to change the way that the city determines what is a formula retail establishment and that is where i would encourage members of the community to approach your supervisor and encourage your supervisor to clarify how that is determined because i think here, there is a situation where most people know that it may or may not be formula retail if you look at the corporate structure, but the code does not require that the zoning administrator, does not require that the city look

at that, so that is the crux of the problem here as to the merits, again, what we're here to look at today is whether the late filing was caused purposely or inadvertently by the city and by that standard, i don't find that it was, so i would not support the jurisdictional request, although i do look forward to hearing more about the merits of the situation next week. >> okay. >> do we have a motion? >> yeah, i'll move to deny the jurisdiction. >> okay, mr. pa chen koe, if you could call the roll, please. >> we have a motion from the vice-president to deny this jurisdiction request, on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye.

>> the vote is 5-0, jurisdiction is denied and no appeal may be filed on this letter of determination. >> okay, we're going to take a short break. (meeting is in recess).