grossly overstated. in terms of 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. >> >>

>> you're watching quick bite, the show that has san francisco. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> we're here at one of the many food centric districts of san francisco, the 18th street corridor which locals have affectionately dubbed the castro. a cross between castro and gastronomic. the bakery, pizza, and dolores park cafe, there is no end in sight for the mouth watering food options here. adding to the culinary delights

is the family of business he which includes skylight creamery, skylight and the 18 raisin. >> skylight market has been here since 1940. it's been in the family since 1964. his father and uncle bought the market and ran it through sam taking it over in 1998. at that point sam revamped the market. he installed a kitchen in the center of the market and really made it a place where chefs look forward to come. he created community through food. so, we designed our community as having three parts we like to draw as a triangle where it's comprised of our producers that make the food, our staff, those who sell it, and our guests who come and buy and eat the food. and we really feel that we wouldn't exist if it weren't

for all three of those components who really support each other. and that's kind of what we work towards every day. >> valley creamery was opened in 2006. the two pastry chefs who started it, chris hoover and walker who is sam's wife, supplied all the pastries and bakeries for the market. they found a space on the block to do that and the ice cream kind of came as an afterthought. they realized the desire for ice cream and we now have lines around the corner. so, that's been a huge success. in 2008, sam started 18 reasons, which is our community and event space where we do five events a week all around the idea of bringling people closer to where the food comes from and closer to each other in that process. >> 18 reasons was started almost four years ago as an educational arm of their work.

and we would have dinners and a few classes and we understood there what momentum that people wanted this type of engagement and education in a way that allowed for a more in-depth conversation. we grew and now we offer -- i think we had nine, we have a series where adults learned home cooking and we did a teacher training workshop where san francisco unified public school teachers came and learned to use cooking for the core standards. we range all over the place. we really want everyone to feel like they can be included in the conversation. a lot of organizations i think which say we're going to teach cooking or we're going to teach gardening, or we're going to get in the policy side of the food from conversation. we say all of that is connected and we want to provide a place that feels really community oriented where you can be interested in multiple of those things or one of those things and have an entree point to meet people.

we want to build community and we're using food as a means to that end. >> we have a wonderful organization to be involved with obviously coming from buy right where really everyone is treated very much like family. coming into 18 reasons which even more community focused is such a treat. we have these events in the evening and we really try and bring people together. people come in in groups, meet friends that they didn't even know they had before. our whole set up is focused on communal table. you can sit across from someone and start a conversation. we're excited about that. >> i never worked in catering or food service before. it's been really fun learning about where things are coming from, where things are served from. >> it is getting really popular. she's a wonderful teacher and i think it is a perfect match for us. it is not about home cooking. it's really about how to facilitate your ease in the kitchen so you can just cook. >> i have always loved eating food. for me, i love that it brings me into contact with so many wonderful people.

ultimately all of my work that i do intersects at the place where food and community is. classes or cooking dinner for someone or writing about food. it always come down to empowering people and giving them a wonderful experience. empower their want to be around people and all the values and reasons the commitment, community and places, we're offering a whole spectrum of offerings and other really wide range of places to show that good food is not only for wealthy people and they are super committed to accessibility and to giving people a glimpse of the beauty that really is available to all of us that sometimes we forget in our day to day running around. >> we have such a philosophical mission around bringing people together around food. it's so natural for me to come here.

>> we want them to walk away feeling like they have the tools to make change in their lives. whether that change is voting on an issue in a way that they will really confident about, or that change is how to understand why it is important to support our small farmers. each class has a different purpose, but what we hope is that when people leave here they understand how to achieve that goal and feel that they have the resources necessary to do that. >> are you inspired? maybe you want to learn how to have a patch in your backyard or cook better with fresh ingredients . or grab a quick bite with organic goodies. find out more about 18 reasons by going to 18 reasons.org and learn about buy right market and creamery by going to buy right market.com. and don't forget to check out our blog for more info on many

of our episodes at sf quick bites.com. until next time, may the fork be with you. ♪ ♪ >> so chocolaty. mm. ♪ >> oh, this is awesome. oh, sorry. i thought we were done rolling. ♪ ♪ at 62942 working with together we can support your children. it's been my dream to start is a valley school since i was a little girl. i'm having a lot of fun with it

(clapping) the biggest thing we really want the kids to have fun. a lot of times parents say that valley schools have a lot of problems but we want them to follow directions but we want them to have a wonderful time and be an affordable time so the kids will go to school here. we hold the classes to no longer 12 and there's 23 teachers. i go around and i watch each class and there's certain children i watched from babies and it's exciting to see them

after today. the children learn how to follow directions and it ends up helping them in their regular schooling. they get self-confidents and today, we had a residual and a lot of time go on stage and i hope they get the bug and want to dance for the rest of their san francisco - remind members of the public to please silence any mobile