Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 23, 2013 8:30pm-9:01pm PDT

8:30 pm
>> 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.
8:31 pm
>> 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
8:32 pm
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
8:33 pm
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
8:34 pm
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
8:35 pm
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
8:36 pm
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
8:37 pm
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
8:38 pm
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
8:39 pm
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
8:40 pm
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
8:41 pm
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
8:42 pm
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
8:43 pm
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
8:44 pm
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
8:45 pm
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.
8:46 pm
>> 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
8:47 pm
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
8:48 pm
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
8:49 pm
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
8:50 pm
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.
8:51 pm
thank you. >> >> san francisco - remind members of the public to please silence any mobile devises and i'd like
8:52 pm
to take roll at this time (calling names) both commissioners are expected to arrive late. commissioners first on your calendar is items like one a and e requests for additional use operations continued until september 6th. and the next items request for conditional use operations this proposed until cement 26. those are all the items i have and i have no speaker cards >> are there any public comments. seeing none, public comment is
8:53 pm
closed >> move to continue items one and 2 to september 26th. second >> on that motion (calling names) so move commissioners that passes and places you under our consent calendar all matters are considered to be routine. there will be no separate discussion of those items unless so requested. and then it will be removed and credit card for a separate hearing. at 524 howard street request for conditional use authorization and 25 d at the 999 brandon street and item 5 for case 20.12
8:54 pm
c at the 1097 howard street request for conditional operation. those are all under your consent calendar and i have no speaker cards >> any public comment? >> i assume that my consent item was pulled off. i put my item on the consent calendar because i didn't have the long report. i will withdraw my consent for this item unless there's a member that wishes it to be pulled >> you'd like it pulled off 99. maybe she wants it on >> don't want it pulled off?
8:55 pm
>> so any other public comment on the 3 items on consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner >> well, i propose we move for approval of items 3 and 5. >> second. >> on that motion commissioners to approve item 3 and 5 on your calendar (calling names) so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously and item 4 will be placed at the beginning of regular calendar. very good this is item of the adoption for draft minutes i'm in receipt of my corrections from the commissioner >> any other public comment on the draft minutes?
8:56 pm
public comment is closed. commissioner yu >> move to approve with the minutes. >> move to move on the minutes as corrected (calling names) so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places you under item 7 commission comments and questions. >> appears to be none today (laughter) >> okay. i'll take that. that places us under department matters >> i also have no report today expect to say have a pleasant
8:57 pm
break. >> commissioners we'll move into item 9. project 505 howard street informational presentation >> good afternoon. i'm kevin with the planning staff. i'll give very brief comments. in la 2000 we were granted approvals and it's essentially on office compass on howard street. the first 3 phases have been developed and phase 3 is nearing completion and has received all necessary approvals. we want to bring to you the project sponsors proposals that are intended to satisfy the public requirement. i'll ask the project sponsor to come up >> good afternoon carl with the
8:58 pm
company. we're extraordinarily pleased to bring those to san francisco. jerry inspire i think you know was very involved with the museum in new york and personally selected those piece. it's much nor that appropriate to have those inside the lobby. there's floor to ceiling glass and the lobby will be open to the public. we think those are a great compliment to the believe and hopefully, we'll have them in san francisco shortly. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? okay public comment is closed and this is an informational item only.
8:59 pm
commissioners? >> i would like to ask the project sponsor if there's something like a plaque or something to let the public know the pieces are in the lobby. >> commissioners there will be as a condition of approval it's a requirement the plaques b be in an open space plaza as well as from the street indicating the availability of the public art. >> thank you. >> commissioners if there's nothing further item 10 for 229 market street an informational update. >> good afternoon,
9:00 pm
commissioners. on october 2012 you guys approved the branch on market street. you expressed a concern on say plans specifically it was too much and too large and it was constituting a branding of the building and you added a condition that staff work with the project sponsor to address those sicken issues. you have before you a revised sicken package. the difference is that the lettering on the sign is now 15 inches tall and 15 feet long. the sign has been reduced from 24 feet