such. i have a lot of clients and they can't find' place to rent. there are plenty of spaces that are open but the landlords are holding the market for higher rent. >> just to be clear when president hwang mentioned the lack of briefing, it was the same briefing submitted for the request. >> for the merits on the permits for that issue. >> there's no brief submitted by the permit holder. >> thank you. so we have rebuttal now from the permit holder. >> i don't have too much. the first thing i wanted to say that there is actually nod -- not a spade on any garment.

there is not a logo on the product. we have design team. while we are locked into a legal agreement with the landlord and i can't speak about the rent but it's been 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. >> >>

>> hi, i'm lawrence corn field. welcome to building san francisco. we have a special series, stay safe. we're looking at earthquake issues. and today we're going to be talking with a residential building owner about what residential building owners and tenants can and should do before earthquakes and after earthquakes. ♪ ♪ >> we're here at this wonderful

spur exhibit on mission street in san francisco and i have with me today my good friend george. thanks for joining me, george. and george has for a long time owned residential property here in san francisco. and we want to talk about apartment buildings and what the owner's responsibilities might be and what they expect their tenants to do. and let's start by talking a little bit about what owners can do before an earthquake and then maybe after an earthquake. >> well, the first thing, lawrence, would be to get together with your tenants and see if they have earthquake insurance or any renters insurance in place because that's going to be key to protecting them in the event of a quake. >> and renters insurance, there are two kinds of insurance. renters insurance coffers damage to goods and content and so forth. earthquake insurance is a separate policy you get after you get renters insurance through the california earthquake authority, very inexpensive. and it helps owners and it

helps tenants because it gives relocation costs and it pays their rent. this is a huge impact on building owners. >> it's huge, it really is. you know, a lot of owners don't realize that, you know, when there is an earthquake, their money flow is going to stop. how are they going to pay their mortgages, how are they going to pay their other bills, how are they going to live? >> what else can property owners do in residential rental housing before an earthquake? >> well, the first thing you want to do is get your property assessed. find out what the geology is at your site. get an expert in to look at structural and nonstructural losses. the structural losses, a lot of times, aren't going to be that bad if you prepare. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. get in there and get your property assessed and figure it out. >> so, what is a nonstructural issue that might cause losses? >> well, you know, pipes, for instance. pipes will whip around during an earthquake.

and if they're anchored in more numerous locations, that whipping won't cause a breakage that will cause a flood. >> i've heard water damage is a major, major problem after earthquakes actually. >> it is. that's one of the big things. a lot of things falling over, ceilings collapsing. but all of this can be prevented by an expert coming in and assessing where those problem areas and often the fixes are really, really cheap. >> who do you call when you want to have that kind of assessment or evaluation done? >> the structural engineering community is great. we have the structural engineers association of northern california right here in san francisco. they're a wealth of information and resources. >> what kinds of things might you encourage tenants to do besides simply get tenants renters insurance and earthquake insurance, what else do you think tenants should do? >> i think it's really important to know if they happen to be in the building where is the safest place for them to go when the shaking starts. if they're out of the building,

whats' their continuity plan for connecting with family? they should give their emergency contact information to their resident manager so that the resident manager knows how to get in touch. and have emergency supplies on hand. the tenants should be responsible to have their extra water and flashlights and bandages and know how to use a toilet when there's no sewage and water flows down. and the owners of the building should be proactive in that regard as well. >> so, george, thank you so much for joining us. that was really great. and thanks to spur for hosting us here in this wonderful exhibit. and thank you for joining us