current site permit? >> yes. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this? please step forward. 3 minutes. >> good evening. my name is helen loss ur and i live across the street. i have also lived there for 30 years. there has been a lot of renovation in that neighborhood and we've done some and generally neighbors go around and talk to the neighbors, invite them in and show them what they are planning to do and incorporate as much as possible concerns. i

did not receive notification of the permit. the first i heard about it was the notification of the appeal. i talked to doug in planning. we can't figure out why i didn't receive that. i certainly wasn't asked to sign something. i don't know where the signatures come from for 61 people to support this. the vertical elevation will obstruct our view of water from our house. at our level it actually is very visible the vertical addition from the street. the profile may not look because of the 15-foot setback that you are describing but from the neighbors across the street because we sit up, it's very visible. >> what was your address? >> 4181, 26th street. i actually submitted a letter. >> you never received the 311

notice? >> no. i have received notices in the past and i know how to engage with neighbors. in the house to the west of the property in question, when that design was under consideration, we were all made aware of it, we were invited in. the person who was doing it made sure that even if perhaps we haven't received our letter for some reason we knew there was going to be a meeting to review the plans and talk about it. that certainly didn't happen in this situation. the green space, the open park space, the ability to relate to your neighbors to arrive at solutions is i think is really key to that neighborhood. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> clarification. i just want to correct my statement that it

was a different ownership when it was a first code violation. >> okay. >> we can take rebuttal. we can start with the kings. you have 3 minutes of rebuttal, mr. king. >> the list of 61 supporters of their project, not one of the signers has a direct view of the front or the back of the remodel property. 54 of them live, 2, 3, 4 blocks away. these are hardly neighbors, missing from the list are any and all of the immediate neighbors to the right, to the left and across the street. the people actually affected by the remodel on file with this permitted appeal are letters of appeal of support from two immediate neighbors to the right, to the left, both unsolicited and also support from the three people across

the street. in short, in my mind a hundred percent of the people, most affected by this project do not support this project and support this appeal. after 33 years of seeing this property neglected, we welcome the applicants commitment to restoring it. however we believe the property should be scaled down to address the legitimate concerns of the neighbors directly and permanently affected by it. we hope to be able to work with the applicants to achieve a solution that will work for all the parties involved. >> thank you. anything more from the permit holder? miss kong or mr. levi? i just

wanted to put up the list of those who were notified of this process. these are a list that we have prepared for by a service that does this on a regular basis that i believe who need to be notified per 150 feet were notified. it was possible that the previous speaker is outside of that area. we can verify with her address. also the house to the west of the subject property is a 3 story house and is i believe when you were looking at that mid-block open space, it was clear that house had an additional section at i think north portion that makes it similar to the scale mass that we are proposed. >> did you find 4182?

>> i believe the address was 4181. is that correct? i do not see 4181 appearing on this list. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? thank you, scott sanchez planning department. i want to clarify that i did look to the property of the west there are several permits for horizontal expansion from the late 90s. there are dates from the late 90s and early 2,000 and on the planning code, private views are not protected. so just want to address those 2 points. i do not have a copy of the mailing list in front of me. i heard

the neighbors say that doug view confirmed that her name was on it and she should have received it. she may want to clarify that and if there are some issue with the postal office. i would also note there is a poster on the property as well, a bright orange poster that goes on to indicate the 30-day appeal for the notice window. >> the expansion to the building on the west is that a single story >> it's my understanding that it's a single story. >> thank you, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioner fung to clarify, our notices are identical to 311 and that does

show under our list. >> okay. submitted. okay. comments? no. your time is up. i apologize. go ahead. >> i'm sorry, i just wanted to answer your question, the pop out is a single story to property line. it's the addition and the dec service is protected by a firewall for the building. >> thank you. >> commissioners, we hear it very commonly stated that views are not protected by the planning codes. however, when we look at a neighbor to neighbor disagreement on scope

of expansion, it would be important for me to have received the type of documents as normally sent to us in plans and paragraphs so we can do our own take on what is the impact of that expansion on an adjacent neighbor neighbors. i can't make that determination without some type of review. i accept the planning department review that it's co-compliant and they have recommended. it doesn't necessarily mean that we can see total the equity that's involved in this particular case. >> i would concur with commissioner fung. one of the pieces that is missing here is the absence of the neighbor connection and the ability to

really have a dialogue. i think with the drawings and further information, i think further dialogue could have happened. >> what would be the recommendations at this point? >> if there is concurrence from the board members, i would like to continue this to receive the appropriate materials and be able to do our own take on what the impact is. >> we've got 10 nods. do you want to make that motion. >> i so move. what is the appropriate date, madam director? >> the next meeting is september 11 th and there is availability on that calendar if you would like to set it for that date. >> is to both parties september 11th, available? perhaps we

can move it to the front of the meeting. >> yeah, let's get it on the front of this calendar. >> i move to continue this case to september 11th. >> is that to allow for submittal plans by the plan holder? that's the only submittal you are allowing? >> yes. >> okay. >> you want to offer? >> no. this is good. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue the matter to september 11, 2013. a public hearing has been held and this is the continuance is to allow the permit holder to submit the approved plans to the board and they would be due thursday prior to hearing, 11 sets to the board identity cal set to

the appellants and reduced size 11 x 17 is standard to us. >> if you can put this to the front of the calendar and we'll give each side 3 minutes. >> on that motion to continue for submittal of the approved plans due thursday prior to september 11th, president hwang, commissioner hurtado, lazarus, honda, aye. the vote is 5-0. this matter is continued to september 11th. >> before the next matter, i need a 5-minute break. please. >> welcome back to the august 21, 2013, meeting of the board of appeals. we are calling item

10 a and 10 b. item 10: items 10aa and 10bb shall be heard together: 10aa appeal no. 13-081 jonathan plotzker, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 3166 - 16th street. protesting the issuance on june 14, 2013, to jack spade store, alteration permit interior non-structural demolition of dropped ceiling, lighting, existing non-compliant restroom in vacant retail store; accessibility requirements will be addressed in subsequent tenant improvements per sfbc ab-0177. application no. 2013/06/07/8955 for hearing today.sf 101234 item 10b:appeal no. 13-082 jonathan plotzker, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 3166 - 16th street. protesting the issuance on june 26, 2013, to jack spade store, alteration permit interior non-structural renovation; new partitions, power lighting, mechanical system and new accessible restroom and dressing room; storefront to remain as is with repainting and minor repairs onlyy. application no. 2013/06/24/0254 for hearing today. adjo 1234 we will start with the appellant. since you have

filed two appeals you get 14 minutes to present your case. you are not required to take it all. good evening, president hwang and honorable members of the board. my name is jefferson mccarly vice-president of the corridor association. we ask you to revoke the permits. these permits should not have been issued prior to a conditional use hearing because under planning code 707.3 should have been considered formula retail. we will support evidence to support you in finding that jack spade stores should be counted together. we ask that you follow the letter of the law in consideration of the following points. kate and jack spade maintain three of

the 8 features as written and we ask you to consider the commitment to open future stores. we ask you to consider the will of the voters in proposition c with the super majority in november of 2006. planning code 7.3 states that if 11 or more retail establishments contain more retails should be considered formula retail. jack spade and kate spade trademark are similar and should be considered together. they are defined as trademark, quote group of works from one source of one party from those of another. kate spade could be

selling products for men under any name. but it gave it the line under the same name. >> hold on, please. there is a powerpoint presentation. your power points was supposed to go along with his comments? okay. >> kate spade could be selling what they refer to as fashion products for men under any name but chose to give it the same name in order to distinguish the source. spade was the key. when introducing their new logo it was enough for kate spade to declare simply hello spade. it is a clear certify -- the zone

is administrator has determined that the name kate spade and kate spade saturday are close enough to determine they are the single formula retail enterprise. for reasons that are unclear the zoning administrator does not consider the name jack spade and kate spade to be close enough. jack spade clearly benefits from the association with the spade brand and should be put in the same category as kate spade saturday. you have the authority to look at the group of words and interpret the current law to find formula retail on these facts. no. 3 on the list it features in section b of planning code section 3.3 is service mark. a service mark is similar to a trademark in definition. however, it identifies and distinguishes the source of service instead

of the source of goods. like a trademark it is defined as a group of words that identifies and distinguishes from a source of service from one party from those of others. again, the zoning administrator acknowledges that kate spade saturday would be counted together with kate spade because it appears in both names. with jack spade, spade relies on the name. we ask you to know what the public recognizes. they are part of the same formula. it is beyond reasonable that the group of words jack and kate are substantially similar to the group of words kate and spade. and that the intention thes

clearly to identify the source as the spade family of brands. when i say a spade is a spade, it's not just a punish. it's the idea that kate spade itself put forth in order to derive benefit from the shared association. i have already identified shared features that is already required as jack spade as retail. i would like you to consider another one. standard b 1, standardized array of merchandise. kate spade and jack spade is simply a his and hers. kate spade and jack spade merchandise are designed in the same building in new york by kate spade staff. when looking for merchandise that is minimally gender non-specific, we find it is remarkably similar in the

array. they look as they were designed by the same person. all merchandise from both stores is shipped from a single distribution location and they are from a single distributor bearing uniform marking. further, this board has previously agreed to consider a signed lease as evidence for formula retail. look, a lease is a document, it's not a store. it's a piece of paper. it's a promise, it's a commitment. it should be considered. and we should consider other similar commitments made by the defendant promises to open stores. they are set to specific marketing, we expect

to double our fleet of stores over the next few years. because fifths and pacific is a publically traded company, a materially listing to investors could mislead the public. investors are meant to make financial statements on that business which are many more times more consequential that a single lease. the commitments is more than reliable on a lease such as the one held by american apparel by valencia which never materialized. >> high as jefferson has explained the code exist today coding that jack and kate spade are part of the same formula.

regarding the standardized ray of merchandise, common trade marks in b 2 and common service marks in b 3. you have a clear basis to find that the spade stores should be counted together under the law as it is currently drafted. the zone is administrator so far has a different interpretation. although i hope after today's presentation he will agree with us. today the zoning and strar does not find it as part of the same formula. this is just an interpretation. it's a judgment call. to understanding this interpretation several of us got together and contacted the zoning administrator on a conference call. he did name examples that would be formula. he acknowledged the fact before us that the real life in asset saturday and kate spade would

be in both names. i ask the zone is administrator about a hypothetical. i asked if starbucks coffee decided to start a tea store for the store used blue instead of green, starbucks has green stores, instead of the mermaid logo, it had a dragon and sold no coffee, the look would be different, the color scheme would be different. despite these differences the zoning administrator readily agree that starbucks tea would be accounted for as starbucks. that entirely independent businesses who share no common ownership structure at all could be coming together as formula even if it was zero coordination among them. if

entirely independent businesses had a standardized or what could be taken as standardized ray of merchandise, the department could deny them a business. this is absurd but this is a result that was conceivable to the zoning administrator. on this basis, a new independent coffee shop, for example whose merchandise is coffee tea and pastries like many of them get them from the same sources offers wifi as a core display of show of local artist, offers communal tables and individual seating. all of those can be combined to keep out a new entrance because they could be combined as formula retail. this coffee shop formula is real. but this interpretation surprises us. i

ask the zoning administrator are you saying that entirely unrelated parties can define as formula. if i open a store called alicia spade, could that count as a spade store? he said it could. all of this should give us a really good idea to defeat formula retail. pop uks ups with unrelated brands like the store radar and you can have the 11th needed to top up the requirement to form a conditional use hearing. that would be an absurd result. we do not think that prop g is absurd. we want a logical result based on the law. let's be clear here, the issue here is one of interpretation and judgment. it not a question of the letter of the law. the

letter of the law supports a finding that jack spade is formula retail. today we ask you to exercise your judgment and ask you to find that kate spade and jack spade are just like kate spade saturday and kate spade and just like the hypothetical starbucks coffee and just like the hypothetical kate spade and alicia kate spade. one thing is clear, the voters made the enterprises go through a conditional use hearing that it would double it's stores. the ceo stated on an earnings call that jack spaed can be a hundred million dollars market. there are 94 kate spade stores. kate spade itself represents jack spade as

being aware. this is formula. prop g targets precisely this business and demands this type of business go through a conditional use hearing. it's this bill has lost sight of that and that it should be on the findings which states in the beginning san francisco is a city of diverse and distinct neighborhoods. we merely ask that you read section with section 3 a and find the legal result. help us define the diversity by protecting the character of these commercial areas. find the spade as as a single conditional use area. >> to conclude, kate spade

thinks the community support them. the vcma is asking that you revoke their permit in a you hear them as a conditional use hearing. >> thank you, we can hear from the permit holder now. >> honorable members of the board of appeals. here representing jack spade today. i was going talk but at least i don't have to. jack is not formula retail. what they have asked you to do is go above the law. there are ninety different proposals on how to change formula retail. that's basically if you want to do what the board of supervisors is do you doing down there. as

you recall that last week the zoning administrator said the opposite code is 27.3. that is the project sponsors and the architects for determining the building process as of right whether it's subject to the conditional use project. jack spade currently has 10 domestic stores and has no leases or present intentions to lease any locations other than 3166, 16th street san francisco. the written affidavit from real estate construction arrived today. mr. sanchez received a copy of it. if it pleases president hwang i have level copies for you commissioners. >> tell me what it is again? >> it's the affidavit that

states i phillip being sworn stated under penalty to perjury as follows. i over see the real estate for all jack's stores. it's part of my responsibility and writing of all stores. at this time there is 10 jack spade retail stores. at this time we have neither written nor signed any loi's. we have no -- apparent signed leases. at the completion of the store in san francisco, we'll be operating a total of 11 jack spade stores in the united states. sworn before in