who signed the affidavit, i didn't feel comfortable signing the affidavit because i don't sign any of our leases and i thought that would be a problem if i submitted the affidavit. so phillip is the vp of real estate and construction. he was the one that submitted the affidavit and made sure that was clear. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, anything further? >> thank you, scott sanchez on the planning department. with regards to trademarks, these are separate. jack spade has one, kate spade has another. it is true they are all owned by kate spade, if you go 32 you

the jack spade, kate spade is the owner. we are looking at the numbers who maintain the same merchandise and that is what we are looking at. in this case this is their 11th storement this code specifies 11 or more. prop g reinforces. it says you need a conditional use operation for formula retail uses. as we have applied section 703.3 this does not satisfy the retail. >> if you include kate spade that is 332 globally, is that right >> i don't know how many, i know they are pushing a 90-100

in the u.s.. >> i have a question. i believe when we saw that section put up just a few minutes ago, that the introductory statement again reiterated you needed to have 11 or more. >> correct, the business maintains two or more of the following features and the various features. >> i thought i was hearing a little bit of circular logic, it might be because it's late. it sounded like the service mark argument was being used to justify whether there was more than 11 stores, in other words common trademarks, it's not how i assume you would approach it. >> i do understand that argument. i how to the more compelling argument they would

have would be regarding the trademark and that they have the trademark. there is a jack spade trademark and kate spade trademark and they are similar as defined in the planning code and at that point you would get to formula retail. but again, in reviewing this i find they are separate registered trademarks and there is nothing in the code that calls for substantial or similar or looks at the owner ship of those trademarks. >> there is nothing in the record under the current law that same is not an applicable standard? >> that's right. many of the proposals that you are out there, one would include international stores but this would be considered a formula retail. the other to be if it were a corporate ownership and owned by an entity that that

other formula retail stores. if i was starbucks and i wanted to own a bicycle shop and i would still be formula retail for that bike shop because i'm 50 percent owned by starbucks. that is the proposal. we would look at the corporate ownership. that is one of the proposals and not yet adopted. >> i have a couple of skwes. as -- questions. as far as you understand legislation, now that there are proposals with respect to corporate ownership and if such legislation were to pass, then it would easily fall within the letter. but the intent, do you understand when

the legislation was vetted in the first instance whether this was something that was considered and rejected? >> i was not involved in the crafting of it so i'm hesitant to speak when the board of supervisors ooh! been thinking about it. i would assume that at the time this would have been something novel for san francisco where i first approached it. we tried to deal with formula retail in the past. that's where we had legislation regarding large fast food restaurants. >> has anyone presented an argument with you for purposes of the department's determination to consider whether that was contemplated, rejected or completely not considered? >> i don't have that evidence. i have to rely on what the definition that we've been

applying for almost ten 10 years in the planning code. >> okay, the other question is the conditional use hearing, we know those cases if appeal don't come to our board. i'm pretty unfamiliar with that process. can you describe it a little bit? >> the typical use condition of applicants would take 3-6 months for application. it's a notice for up to a hundred feet, hearing before the planning commission and you would need a simple majority needed to prove or deny the application. they are didn't to the board of supervisors and requires 5 signatures from the members of the board of supervisors or owners of the property within 120 feet from the location. in order to qualify for conditional use

that it's necessary or desirable and additional findings when considering a formula retail use. >> that is negative next -- necessary or desirable? >> in a commercial district or if you are a formula retail application. >> okay. >> thank you. i know that commissioner hurried -- hurtado had a question for the permit holder. >> i think it was answered. if one of you could address my question is how many stores did kate spade have globally and how many are in the u.s. if you know? it's something like 90 u.s. and 150ish globally. >> that's good enough. >> thank you. >> okay.

>> commissioners, bar any questions by the parties. the matter is submitted. >> is that a clarification? >> if we can have the overhead one more time. >> spade trademark owned by kate spade. spade is a mark used in conjunction with jack and in conjunction with kate. >> we've heard this already. >> it's spade, scott has been making the point that it is made in conjunction with. >> jack spade. >> president? >> ultimately it's a mark. >> thank you. clarification. it

with it was a clarification? >> would the other party like to respond to that because it was a further argument? okay. comments? we don't have anything to say. >> i will start. i appreciate everyone coming out and i think it was an excellent discussion. you all have been talking about it and thinking about it for a long time. i haven't. it was great to hear all the viewpoints in the room. i said earlier this is a well-spoken highly articulate audience. i appreciate it was educational for me. i would have appreciated more paper but

that's my nature in the profession. i apologize for the small outburst. where i go with this, it's been difficult. i have gone back and forth as different speakers have said very different compelling things but where i go with this ultimately is a public process. ultimately this is something where i do see jack spade as being a component of a larger corporation and i see it as one in the same. so for that reason, i -- lean towards it bean a formula retailer. for that reason i will be in favor of revocation. it should have gone through conditional use process. >> i think i will talk next. everyone is extremely passionate. i'm a long time

resident in san francisco and have a deep root in the mission district as well. my parent had a shop on mission on 24th. my daughter goes to school at 15th and valencia right now. i understand the blight that mission street has. i do walk those streets. but i do remember when valencia street had that very same blight. i remember that when blue bottle, the cool coffee shop was owned and operated by the hell's angels and it was a motorcycle repair shop and also remember when places were not that pleasant to walk. it's compelling to me that i agree with our president that jack spade is a larger entity and should be considered a formula retail. i believe the public has a right to voice it's been

in regards to a formula retail or a large chain coming into an area like the mission district. i believe the voters were very specific in their desires of what they would like san francisco to stay and to become. so i would too agree with my president and yeah. >> i will disagree. i was at planning when we had the discussions on the first controls on formula retail. initially the zoning administrator had the authorization to make the determination not just a letter of determination, but to actually not approve permits, but at that time it was 4. the

number was 4. this has now been codified. it went through an extensive process and everyone here wants to talk about the intent. well, the intent is quite clear. the intent was to set up a process and a set up of numerical threshold. i think that intent is quite clear. contrary to what we had in the previous case that the people set some sort of precedent, the reason for that was not so much that the argument over what was formula retail, the reason there it was a question of what was equity and what was predatory nature of what was occurring and that specific instance. i think for myself it's what i reacted to. in this instance, i resonated very achilles -- closely to the comment that is made, if there is a specific code and it's

quite clear there is, then people need to be able to rely upon that. i don't see issues of equity here. i don't see issues other than perhaps a lifestyle determines for that particular area. but i remember walking this neighborhood as a kid and 16th street was always bad. it's still bad. at that time however, it was a blue collars working class on claef. i'm not in support of this permit. >> i'm not either. it is a close call and i tried to listen to all the arguments but when you have a standard such as 11, i think that needs to hold. we've had a lot of arguments on a lot of different

cases, you come right up to 9 or 10, but the number is 11. as a single corporate, it's not a criteria. i find the stores to be different. if it were kate spade saturday, i might have a very different feeling about it, but it's not. so i am not prepared to uphold the appeal. >> i have comments, not that it matters. >> it might, we haven't had a motion yet. >> so i, my main struggle with this was the reliance issues. there is a statute that seems to be if you interpret it as the ca has it's pretty clear on it's face. stores in the u.s.. however, my hesitation in going

along with that interpretation is that it would make me throw my comments out the door. the spirit of this law is to protect small businesses. that is the spirit of the law, that is why it was enacted, that's why the majority of voters voted for it. i understand that a numerical threshold was put into law and that is artificial and very persuasive to me that this was the 11th store. if it was 2, 3, 4, it might make a difference to me. i know there is legislation append to go fix the statute or make it clear. so all of those factors to me are determinant, and i feel the

perfect issue is to have a public venue. i think the cu process is the appropriate place to have that kind of a debate. it's not up to us. it's up to the board of supervisors and to the communities who have to live in this neighborhood. for that reason, i would support in granting the appeal. >> one of the reasons after i hear the nay sayers, is that one of the things we can do, it's not like a lifestyle. this is the community's concerns need to be taken into consideration. i think hurtado articulated it beautifully around the spirit of whether this was the intent and that's why i'm asking the question and there seems to be no answer whether this intended to bring a corporate structure within a community with so many local

businesses that are thriving. i don't think this was the intent and whether it was contemplated for purposes of enacting this legislation. if it had be contemplated and discussed an rejected, that would be persuasive to me. i don't know if that sideways anyone, but i'm willing to make a motion to revoke the permits on the grounds that the effect on the surroundings businesses of the community are impacted deeply by this permitting. i don't know if that's good enough. >> are you looking at -- >> second. >> section 26 of the business

regulation? >> yes. >> i'm suing -- assuming you would say the negative affect? >> correct. thank you. >> we have a motion from the president to grant both appeals and revoke both permits with a finding of negative effect on the surrounding businesses and community and on the basis of article 1 section 26 of the business and tax regulations code which is the general welfare standing. on that motion to revoke both permits, commissioner fung, no, commissioner hurtado? aye, lazarus, no, commissioner honda? aye. the vote is 2-3 to

revoke the permits. under the city charter, four votes are needed to over turn any departmental action like the issuance of these permits. so absent another motion these permits would be upheld by default under law. >> the permits are upheld by default. thank you. >> we have no further business. thank you. >> >>

>> call this meeting of the historic preservization to order. >> welcome to the regular meeting for august 7, 2013, the commission does not tolerate any disruption or out bursts. silence the mobiles devices please speak directly into the microphone, and if you care to do state your name for the record. i would like to take role. >> commissioner hasz? >> present. >> wolfram? >> here. >> hylan? >> here. >> commissioner johns. >> johnck, here. >> jo*ns. here. >> matsuda. >> here. >> and pearlman? >> here. >> first on the calendar is general public comment, at this time the members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject

matter jurisdiction of the commission except for the agenda item, your opportunity to address the commission the opportunity will be afforded when it is reached and each may address the commission for a three minutes. >> two speaker cards. >> yes, president, hasz, and members of the commission, first, thank you for having the note on your agenda that you will adjourn the meeting in memory of alice carry. and i think that you all know that alice was the preservation architect for this building and some of the other notes that have circulated around either by e-mail or in john king's obituary of her work. and but, i think that there are a couple of other things, that could possibly add to alice's story which are not known to

most people. one is that it was mentioned by king that she had a construction company before she became an architect. and i think that the interesting thing is that she named that number tabatha babbot. which is a woman, who is credited with inventing the circular saw in the 1800s. and when she and paul lived on guy place in racon hill there must have been some dispute, and i don't know of the particulars, but she began an organization and a neighborhood group called the rekontenakious tenants or rin tin tin for short. also i found these in our photo library. this is a picture of the landmarks preservation advisory

board as i think that this was a picture of the design review committee because there are only four of us there. and marsh was our secretary on the left. and myself, alice, and michael crow, and gene, and here is that little better shot. and if i believe that it was a design review, and june was a historian and her husband was karl cordum and the head of the maritime museum and michael crow was a historian and was very interested in architecture and wrote a book on that subject. and alice, second from the left, and then we won't identify the other person. any way, thank you for adjourning in her memory. and you all know that service is on the 21st, and everyone is invited.

thank you. >> my name is johana and i want to thank you for honoring alice kerri. alice introduced me to this room by suggesting that i be considered for the landmark board so this is where i wanted to remember her. >> when i started working for her, she had bought a fire house in downtown san francisco and was converted it to her office and one day she came to my desk with a copy of an old drawing of horse station partitions there was a type of stalls that would have been in the building and she asked me to redraft them, the horse stalls into office cubicles she had a wonderful sense of humor. >> alice was involved in many

of the most important preservization projects in san francisco either directly as the architect or in directly in a review capacity such as being a part of the board or a member of the numerous communities including sf heritage. she also wrote the first city contract for the old company number two, she made a tremendous contribution to the city of san francisco. at first i felt like alice should get a grand gesture. a bronze cast of her fenly french car in the middle of the palace of fine arts or a gold leaf a on the dome of the city hall, but then i remember what she taught me and what defines her work. that the successful preservation project is the one that leaves no trace of the

preservationist, she left her mark on me, thank you again for honoring her. >> thank you. >> i did put in a card. i am here too, to thank you for recognizing alice at the end of your meeting. i wanted to mention the fact that the memorial service is unfortunately the same time that you are supposed to have your second meeting in august. and i think some of you may wish to go, i know that staff may wish to go. and so i would like you to think about that. on the other hand, also, if you have to have a meeting, i would like you to not have things on that the preservation community would care desperately about, so thank you. >> thank you. >> my other card is still there. >> okay. >> good afternoon, historic

preservation and i was looking around and taking a look around the lake and i think that they filled it in now and found a few good things and i was digging and looking around in there and i hope that you preserve that area and i am glad that they fixed the wall there around that historic mary speckles lake and i want to wish you a little rock ♪ and work it. preserve it ♪ out and you can make it very preserve ♪ a historic exciting. with a little lucky ♪ you can lay the plans down and you can make it ♪ no misunderstanding. ♪ with a little historic love. ♪ you can make it work out ♪ . make it all historic work out.

good luck with the historic preserve vasing and i am reached to digging down in the north beach area and the south of market and there is a lot of historic in that ground. when you are looking through the ground be sure not to break the bottles and find those and be careful with the historic finds that we used to find in the ground, thank you. >> good afternoon president hasz and commissioners and thank you for remembering alice at this meeting and my name is katherine and i was not planning on speaking today but this morning i had a message about alice from a friend in new york, susan tunack and she started friends of taracata and alice was a member and a supporter and the message from susan made me think about

alice's reach and her influence. mostly it reminded me about alice's extreme generosity to so many organizations, large and small, and her willingness to lend her name to campaigns to save the historic buildings, to jump in and mentor individuals and grassroots groups who are interested in a particular cause such as saving a mission which is how i had the opportunity to meet her and get to know her so well. there are so many things to say about alice, but today i simply wanted to reflect on her generosity and spirit of time. and she will be much missed, and irreplaceable actually but not just in san francisco thank you. >> we will close public comment. >> if there is nothing further we can move on to the department matters, item one,