i would second linda avery for her fine work and keeping order. i'm here today primarily because the transportation sustainability program [speaker not understood] was held, i think its was september 25th. so, and it ended october 5th. the problem was that planning department did you good outreach, but in this case the outreach was not very good. and at the scoping meeting when i attended, for q and a, i asked some questions, got some answers and that was not allowed. the only thing allowed was for people to make comments. the meeting was very poorly attended. there were only three public speakers, three members of the public who spoke and made comments. all the other people in the room i think were probably from

departments or public transportation agencies. and i asked for a copy of the comments from the scoping and planning was very good and they gave me a copy and i went through it. [speaker not understood] bart, caltrans, golden gate bridge, et cetera. and very few comments from the public were there because not many people knew about this. and i think it's a very important issue. axile outreach should have been better. i'm hoping that the commission will ask the department to extend the scoping comment period for another 30 days. there are several organizations and coalition neighborhoods that would like to make comments and the problem is that they don't know exactly

what the issues are and how to get the questions answered. so, if you provide us with another 30 days, it will be greatly appreciated. thank you. >> is there any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll take the first item from the consent calendar. >> thank you, commissioners. item number 1, case no. 2012.207c, 201 folsom street (a.k.a. 314 main street). >> good afternoon, president and commissioners. [speaker not understood]. the wrote et before you is a request to extend the original approval for the project at 201 folsom street also commonly known as the sister project to the infinity across the street the planning commission approved the original project on september 4th, 2003 and the

project involved new construction with an 80-foot podium for lot coverage to residential towers of height 350 and 400 feet up to 38,000 square feet of commercial space, up to 725 dwelling units, up to 753 off-street parking spaces for the residential and commercial uses. but then also up to 272 additional parking spaces to replace the existing parking for the adjacent postal service facility that was next door. the planning commission also approved a three-year performance extension to the original project in 2009 and that extension expired on september 3rd of this year. the original approval motion also detailed a scenario and a process for updating the project's design in the future. this is primarily a response to the fact that the adjacent postal service facility may vacate and the 272 replacement parking spaces may no longer be necessary which would dramatically change the podium

of the building. the usps did vacate in 2010 and the department did work with the sponsors on an updated design and that design was brought before you in february of this year. the updated design was a change to the exterior design, but also a slight reduction of the dwelling units and commercial space, major reduction in parking, both in terms of removing the extra parking that was originally provided for the post office and then also reducing the parking to match the reduction in residential and commercial space. but also a significant increase in open space. and those plans were included in your packet. so, the case before you at this time is to modify the original motion and its performance period to add a 12-month extension so that the project will be approved through september 3rd of 2013 next year. no other changes to the original project or the design

are being proposed at this time. for your information, the project sponsors did file for their building permits. there are five separate building permits related to this one development. they did file those permits on july 12th of this year and we have been working to review and process those permits, but this time the site permit has not yet been issued, which is what triggers the need for the extension. the department did not receive any public comment on this case one way or the other. there were several requests for information about the project, but no comment as to support or opposition. the project supports -- the planning department recommends approving the proposal with conditions and that conclude my presentation. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. project sponsor?

good afternoon, commissioners. i'm carl shannon, it's a pleasure to be here in front of you again. we are fully committed to moving forward on this project. as staff represented, we've actually filed for our building permit and our site permit. we've got a full team and doing the construction drawings and getting this project. and its sister affordable housing project at 1400 mission both ready for construction as soon as we can. some of you will remember that part of the original condition put on these projects after they left the commission went, they went to the board of supervisors, an extraordinary commitment to affordable housing to build 25% off-site affordable housing. at the infinity we met that requirement at 900 gilman and 888 seventh. those projects are up and fully occupied. we intend to do that again here

working with tndc and a merry core development in the site of the corner of west mission and 10th. we look forward to bringing both the 201 r project and mission project forward next year. if it weren't for the economic downturn of 2008, we wouldn't need this extension, but we are working full force with both the planning department and dbi to make this a reality. we're here for any questions. my thanks, having been here for a decade, to linda for her hard work in making this place run smoothly. >> thank you. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item?

>> [speaker not understood]. sfgtv will actually -- after you identify yourself. sue hester. i just need a little manipulation help to expand the entire thing. thank you. i have manipulation problems. sue hester. i was involved in the entire rincon hill process and am involved right now in pier 30-32 seawall 330. this is the photo that was in the file for this project. this is the project. this is 30-32.

this is seawall at 330. seawall at 330 and piers 30-32 are very active projects. you are about to start the sloping process in the planning department in the next month. and it is a major project. this project on main street, there is only one street besides the embarcadaro and 2nd street that has a straight shot to the embarcadaro from downtown, main street. it's where this project is located. there has been no -- this project was approved nine years ago. it was based on an eir that was done in the previous couple of years. i was involved in all of that. at no point did the analysis include a hotel, an arena, and all of the other thing that are

integral parts of the project that is coming through on the property. we now have a of tuesday night, which is two nights nights ago, hotel proposal on seawall of 330, which is 330 versus this. you have this picture in your file. how do we let a project sit around for nine or 10 years? the eir is -- the final action was nine years ago, but the eir was before that. what is the process for you to take into account that this is a parking resource potentially for the arena? the amount of traffic for the arena and the change of seawall lot 330 based on what you have, i don't think you have information.

and i'm just saying the city is very dynamic. there was not a recession when this project was approved. the recession was in 2008. it's now nearly 2013. and this project was approved nine years ago based on a really old eir by [inaudible]. and i throw that out to you. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is andrew green. i live in sunset. and these buildings are just another representation of what i see as your meat lock of inspiration and respect for the beauty of this city. we are already what people want. we already are, and it seems like you are still trying to become.

you know, for years people fought what was the [speaker not understood] of this city, and this is another representation of the complete destruction of the character of this beautiful place. you really need to look deep inside yourselves and see why, why do you need -- why can't you reign in your desires and the desires of others? there's so much wonderful architecture happening right now. we live in a time of great design and great possibilities and we're just slaughtering this place for garbage. when 1 rincon hill was built, we were supposed to realize that in the 25-year plan, part of our plan was to take that building down. when you look out from twin peaks, you see all four spans of the great bridge lifts your spirit, so beautiful, city by the bay. boom, boom, boom, we just destroy it. it's a shame. it's a shameful behavior. please, me and others, when this project came up, i was taking care of my friend sick

and dying. he was living in an sro, vietnam veteran. i sacrificed, 24/7, i counted on my representatives to do the right thing. you're just doing the wrong thing. what should we think other than shameful behavior? please, no more skyscrapers south of market. there is so much that can be done other than this. it's just disrespectful and it's disrespectful of planning department in the late 60s, early '70s, alan jacobs, people who cared about planning for the future of all our citizenry. it seems like we've given up on we the people and we're just going for the upper or middle class. and having, you know, we put some money into affordable housing, but it does president really solve the problem of the cost of housing. it's just a little bandaid. we've got to get to the roots. the roots are us, we the people. we are the cause.

-- of the increase of housing because we're insecure of our financial fusev. anyway, i speak out against these buildings. thank you. * futures. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? opening it up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. and this is -- >> public comment is closed. thank you. commissioner antonini. >> as we remember from our hearing in february of this year when we looked at the evolution, where it's actually fortuitous that the building was not able to be built because of economic conditions along the time when the infinity was built, which is a couple of very fine buildings. but these buildings, i think based upon the redesign, will be even better. and we were able to hear that at our informational hearing. and also in response to what had happened with the infinity project sponsor consistent with our approval has made the building, you know, with fewer

units consistent with what we're allowed to change, with more two and three bedroom units because of the realization that the infinity has a very high number of families with children in response to that, this has been modified accordingly. and, so, also, you know, the design changes as were described in the fact that there is more of commercial retail space on the main floor as well as more open space and in the original plan. so, we have a superior product that's ready, that's shovel ready. in fact, it's ready. the shovels are just about in the ground. so, it only makes sense to approve this and i think it's the complement to what was originally approved. and as we are seeing with some of the other projects that have been delayed during the economic downturn are starting to move forward as we see cranes throughout the city. it's the beginning of the completion of the rincon hill

plan which we had envisioned and to a large degree approved, and we're going to see a lot more of that in the next year. and then i think this is an excellent project and, of course, the extension is a formality because we're about ready to go, but it's not more than a formality. it does have to be approved, this extension, and we will a year from now see a building that's under construction and well on its way to come out of the ground. so, i would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i think the [speaker not understood] presentation of this particular project, although i always like to take a second look indeed, answer all the questions for improving those elements which i think jointly the department as well as the commission had raised before, i think it's a responsive -- good response to those issues and i am in support given that the february presentation was thorough and

indeed convinced me this was [inaudible]. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval of the extension. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commoditier has stepped away. commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that is a unanimous vote for approval. commissioners, you are now on item number 9. case no. 2011.075 2c for 1830 ocean avenue. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. i'm rick crawford of department staff. this case is -- excuse me. this case is to establish a 17,300 square foot formula retail grocery store doing business as fresh and easy neighborhood market in a space formerly occupied by rite aid pharmacy, a formula retail drugstore at 1830 ocean avenue

within the ocean ave. nct district. the project will involve some modest interior modification to the exterior entries and windows of the building and new signage for the proposed store. the project would retain 130 existing off-street parking spaces at the property of which 46 are allocated to the grocery store. the store would seek to create a new on street loading zone along ocean avenue and will seek approval of the small curb cut similar in scale to a disabled access ramp to assess this loading corridor fronting on ocean ave.. this area was used for the former rite aid. it does not include off-street loading and it is not required to provide such as the retail space would not be expanded by this project. currently neighborhoodes are debts have nearby optionses for this grocery needs. a new whole foods grocery store opened a couple months ago.

seven blocks to the east. fresh and easy would be the second grocery store in this neighborhood and it serves a different demographic than whole foods. the projects would provide a wider choice of grocery goods for neighborhood residents. the existing concentration of formula retail uses in this area is relatively low compared to other neighborhood commercial districts with only 10 formula retail uses in the approximately eight-foot 10 mile long district. in addition two formula retail uses, rite aid that this will take the place of, and a block buster video have closed in recent years so the establishing -- establishment of a fresh and easy will not increase the number of formula retail uses in this neighborhood district above the historic level. the ocean avenue nct currently contains nine vacant store fronts so the life of available retail space was not an issue. lack of it will revise the appearance of property and provide a new

tenant. the department has received one letter of support from a neighbor and one letter of support from the ocean avenue association. the department recommends approval of the use with conditions as the proposal complies with the planning code. the advances and objectives and policies of the general plan and provides new neighborhood serving grocery store in the area. i'm available if you have any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. good afternoon, members of the commission, director ram, commission secretary avery. my name is larry badiner of badiner urban planning and i am here representing fresh and easy. i do is a representative of fresh and ease knit audience if you have any questions. not much i have to add to rick's excellent presentation. i think he covered it pretty well. this is a simple project. tenant improvement actually

essentially occupying a vacant store with fresh and easy grocery. it requires a conditional use for formula retail and occupies a former rite aid site. so, we are a formula retail replacing a formula retail and it will not increase the overall number of formula retail uses in the area. grocery stores are recognized by the city as highly desirable uses. they are declared priority projects by the director of planning, the city actually requires a conditional use to eliminate a grocery store. so, you need a conditional use to do a new grocery store and you need a conditional use to eliminate one. kind of a planning conundrum, damned if you do, damned if you don't in planning terms. the grocery store's anchor neighborhood districts. they promote other retail to bring shoppers to a district regularly and repeatedly. with fresh and easy at one end, whole foods at the other end, ocean avenue will have two knew anchors which should reduce vacancies and encourage other necessary services to

surrounding residents. the benefits of the property would be to eliminate a vacant store front, to provide 25 to 30 direct current jobs and numerous construction jobs, to provide a needed food service and to include the physical appearance of the building and the surrounding area. we have done extensive outreach. we have contacted over 15 neighborhood groups and other resident groups and city college. we have met with the ocean avenue association in west wood park, both of whom support the project. we have two letters of support. one which starts with yes, yes, yes. you can't get much better than that, yes, yes, yes. there is no neighborhood opposition that we're aware of. the neighborhood strongly supports this. we would ask your support also. a couple of minor points. in reviewing the motion for a

1245 south van ness which is another fresh and easy the commission approved, we recognized there were two conditions that are not in this motion. we felt they would be good conditions to add to this. related to local hiring and the women infant and children program, w-i-c. i have draft condition of the approval i will hand up to linda avery. i have given them to rick crawford and he has reviewed them also. they are essentially the same conditions of approval that were in 1245 south van ness adjusted to reflect this property. i'm happy to answer any questions. also representatives are of fresh and easy are here to answer any questions if you have them. >> thank you. opening it up for public comment on this item. i'm not sure if these names are for this, but i'll call them anyway if they're for this particular item. edward gani, if this is for this item. yes.

>> and red rand -- i'm sorry, the last name is ben. if your comment or question or comments are about this item, please approach. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is edward alganai. i bring you greetings from local [speaker not understood]. michael sharp is the president. welcome [speaker not understood], welcome san francisco community. >> can you address the commission, please? thank you. but at the same time, fresh and easy has a record in this city of trying to comply with certain commissional things that we brought up in the other meetings. and one of the reasons that i'm supporting them in the sense that they did have an infant and wic program that was established in 3rd street.

so, they are to be commended on that. but what we are concerned about is the consumption of alcohol and sale of alcohol in this city. on ocean street, a lot of skills, city college is there and they have self-check out stands, so, we are concerned about that. * schools as a result of that i can conclude and say welcome, fresh and easy, but please comply to the standards that san francisco and this commission have set forward. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, reverend carol ben. i'm with the justice tach ka is with lutheran evangelical church of america. i've done a lot of work around alcohol and food justice. i'd say yes to fresh and easy, but there is a problem with

their definition of and their business model in terms of how they sell alcohol, which ends up being dangerous for our community. and i stand here, i wish i had the many, many clergy on letters that we've done in the past to you to say we want a restriction on fresh and easy's ability to sell alcohol, if at all, since we know that even the uc store -- the store down in southern california doesn't sell any alcohol. this is near san francisco state. i know you have a planning staff recommendation. unfortunately fresh and easy is really slippery around language, it seems like, and, so, the language in that recommendation is weak and allows for loopholes. and what we really want to make sure is that stores are required to have a fully staffed, fully serviced sale for alcohol, a check-out stand devoted to that. recently the commission, you know, i applaud them imposing a stronger standard on south van

ness store which clearly restricts self-check out for alcohol. the state law is clear on this already. i urge you to impose a condition on this permit that allows the spirit and the letter of the state law to be applied. and that for those of us who are with families and members who suffer with kids getting access to alcohol, young people and knowing how easily they can break systems, we need you to help protect our children and our community from all of the side effects of alcohol abuse and easy access to alcohol in an illegal way. and i really thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioners?

commissioner wu. >> lied like to ask staff a question. so, three topics. the first topic is the one about alcohol sales. is the language in these conditions the same as the south van ness store? >> yes, the condition that relates to alcohol sales is the same condition that you imposed on that project. >> that condition is that any alcohol that's sold must be sold at a register that's staffed? >> that is correct, commissioner. >> the other comment i wanted to make, i'm happy to see the addition of the local hiring goal and the wic goal. i see in particular, i think this is also pulled from the south van ness location, the commitment to work with the local hiring goal, i think that may be different depending on the neighborhood. i'm wondering if that's [speaker not understood] in my neighborhood, but i think there may be other work force representatives in that neighborhood. otherwise, i am supportive of bringing more food to places

where there are not as many groceries, but i do think it is important for us to consider these neighborhood by neighborhood and look at what's appropriate. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think it's a very good project. i don't live too far away from this in lakeside village and often remember the history. and i remember when the project was originally built, the housing and the retail at that site, el dorado court, and there was a safeway there that did not succeed originally. and after that a variety of other things, most recently, i think it was the rite aid pharmacy. so, i welcome the addition of another grocery store and very encouraged by the whole foods which has been pointed out, first of all, geographically is at the eastern end of the corridor, number two, different price point. so, it will be good to have a fresh and easy. and i think that they have addressed the issues that were is