conditional use findings from the 2003 project, and the justifications for such things as claiming that the comfort inn is typical of this neighborhood, that that would give us this nine-floor building, which will actually be ten or 11 by the time they finish with all the other things, and it is way -- it is just too much of an impact on our neighborhood. the height, particularly, but the bulk, everything. it is a huge lot. there is no reason that 60 units couldn't have been put into 65, which is the conditional use limit. [ bell rings ] >> president hillis: thank you, ms. joseph. >> thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> i'm sorry. i would like to leave copies of the other signatures. is that possible? >> president hillis: yep, please do. leave them right there. [ please stand by ]

>> we have about 30% for the

affordable housing. people are coming in today and they're waiting for somewhere to live. i speak for them and let them know how to -- everybody. 2601. thank you. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dennis bloom. i own 1434-1438 unit street. i'm here to oppose the project. i'm here to oppose the project because the project is too

large, too tall, and too destructive of the neighborhood and community. the project that was approved in 2014. i was here and i opposed some of the aspect of the 2014 project, which was set fourth for a hearing back in march. at that time, this commission cut back many of the features that the building had. especially the things that affected its height. it reduced the amount of private penthouses that were going to be allowed, changing the penthouse structure to some type of a stairway that you could go up to rather than having vigi individl elevator. this is east and west. the reason why we have height

limits because of the the fontana project, which blocked the view, blocked the site view of many people who lived in san francisco. that building was built 17 17-storeys. this building will be 9-storeys and above it is the roof deck. above that are the three banks of elevators which will be two banks of elevators that will block the views even further. the city is a beautiful city. that's one thing why we have people coming here. we don't have people coming to the city, living in the city, wanting to be residents of the city because we have hive buildings destroying th the sigt views as you walk down the street, as you walk down van ness. the tourists want to go down to the bay. instead of just having fontana east and west blocking you as you having down van ness,

they'll now have the 2601 van ness avenue destroying the view and making the city. it's much less livable for the tenants, tourists and owners. i would recommend that we keep to the 40-foot level man and mae give them the ability to have a conditional use to go up to 65. right now they're boot-strapping their requirements and their requests on the condition at use permit that was put in 2003, because of the -- at that time it was decided we needed to have more space. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners. i'm mary russell. i live at 1580 fillbert, the

west-end of the block that this building will occupy. i'm here on behalf -- i was the bother member of golden gate valley neighborhood association. which is our area association. we also, as an association, were not notified of this being on the agenda today. thank you to the architect, mr. costa, who let one of our board members know. i have extra copies here. they were e-mailed to mr. may, unless you need a copy. in case you need a copy. we truly appreciate the outreach the architects have done, as mre different public hearings of which we attended. we especially appreciate their request for adequate on-site parking. higher than the city usually

requires. these days, our area is already over automobiled, as the whole city is. this building remains out of scale for the neighborhood. one of the earlier speakers showed pictures of that. architecturally it's different than what exists in the neighborhood, which is not to say san francisco can't progress in terms of architecture but this is -- a lot of van he is quarter has a boxy look. that's happening. because we were not noticed of this being on the commission's schedule this evening, we respectfully request that it be continued to a later time. after more review. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please.

>> commissioners. my name is julia lo. i am speaking on behalf of supporting the 2601 van ness avenue. i really am here today to emphasize what my generation is experiencing. what type of housing crisis we are in. i lived on 841 stockton street in chinatown for 25 years. after graduating from san francisco state university, i thought i would be able to afford to purchase a home. the inventory in san francisco or bay area is very, very small. please, support yes for more housing in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is rita. i'm a resident of san francisco.

as we all know, the prices of the house in our area are very high today. especially in san francisco bay area. the main reason is the lack of market supply. therefore, i support more housing. i fully support the 2601 van ness project. thank you. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please. >> members of the commission and staff. for the record, my name is gerald green. i am here to echo the comments of the first speaker. i wholeheartedly support home sf and i am here also to support your decision on this project. i believe this is an appropriate spot for additional height, additional density. we see the benefits of this project. i ask that you support it as well. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners.

my name is shelly. i'm a san francisco resident. i support 2601 van ness project buzz we need more housing. the housing demand is very high but the housing supply is very limited. thank you. >> next speaker. we have to put you -- sir. we have a seat out there for you. >> you have to step off. commisn regular hearing for thursday, october 4th. if those persons in the back could stop talking. that would be great. >> so where we were before the

attempted coup, we were at public comment. we'll forget. if i want to speak on this item, which is filbert street -- or van ness. i was half right. i'm startled. i forget who was speaking? or we were in between comment. >> so we'll open this up for back for a public comment. if you want to speak, please lineup on the screen side of the room. if there's others. >> good afternoon. >> thank you. >> my name is joan. i live in the adorable little building on van ness right next to the proposed 2601 van ness. sitting here this afternoon, i heard a lot of talk about neighborhood heritage and aesthetic, neighborhood character, community, concerns,

and i ask you not to approve these exceptions. this building is too large, too bulky and certainly not part of the neighborhood caricature. ch. commercial space doesn't do well on this part of van ness. perhaps the project could be rejiggered to have affordable housing. stop at seven-storeys and scholarship the commercial space. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please, if there are any. seeing none. or one? >> hi, all commissioners. i am a resident in san

francisco. as a millennials myself, and i believe it's the case for a lot of millennials, nowadays, we're still living at homes with our parents. in order for us to stay in this beautiful city, i think san francisco needs to provide more housing. we, the millennials need more housing. i fully support the 2601 van ness project. thank you. >> thank you, very much. any additional public comments? seeing none. we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioners. commissioner moore. >> thank you to everybody who came out to speak in support of housing. i think this is a interesting first exercise for us to see the home sf project come to fruition. i find it interesting. almost more interesting than looking at states and city bonus. i have to say that. perhaps it's the nature of the project. perhaps it's a little more tailored to those specific needs

which we can discuss judging on the project in san francisco. in deed the project is large. i support the departments' concerns and restrictions on parking. at the time when the project was originally proposed, there was not even any concrete discussion on the r.t. even in 2014, it was very rudimentary and i think by now, the fact that we have a fully developed multi-vehicle-type transit corridor it should put the parking to a lower parking ratio. in response to parking, i would like to point out that the basement itself shows excessive amounts of parking, the basement does not show the typically required rooms like electrical,

mechanical, trash, laundry, storage, and resident amenities that i think will automatically reduce parking when you look at the refinement of the project. the second point i'd like to make is that -- i'm all over. the roofdeck sits at the building edge both on van ness and on filbert which adds to the perception of height. just like with all other projects, the roof deck has to hold back from both street facades and look towards fulfilling our rooftop guidelines. i would agree that the building is relentless. and i am interested in entertaining the idea of moving

excessively large amount of ground floor retail into potentially housing units. this part of van ness really has hardly any commercial. it's really the residential part of van ness south of union street. on both sides it's a quieter character, we're experiencing a larger vacancy on van ness, this is 6,000 square feet that is ex sis i havexcessive and should be considered in a different situation to relief the massing. the massing relative to the lower buildings, both on filbert and van ness should emulate what we did at 1800 van ness, the building at the corner of van ness and clay, where we took the building in a very, very wonderful way which met both the height transition from lower to

higher in a contemporary manner, respecting the a joining older buildings. i feel everybody knows the building i'm talking about. as a building expression, i'm concerned that the building, despite the changes that i commend the department on on modifying it, is so basically a super ground. while that has its place, i think in the filbert-van ness corner, i feel it's too aggressive. we're really moving into the arena. we're building of lighter color, much softer building expression. i think the high contrast the building expression here should hopefully be worked on further in order to tone down the building and bring it more into a color scheme and material expression that resembled what we all have moving west on filbert and van ness.

[ please stand by ]

. . . . thank you. any other commissioners? >> commissioner richards: the question for staff is if we have residential on the ground floor, would we take a story off of it? >> i believe that is an exception and in excess of 6,000 square feet. the proposed is approximately 6,600 so there is a bit of room there, room to maneuver. >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> commissioner fong: if you don't mind, can i ask a question

on that point, please, mr. may? is there the potential of getting as many units in one floor? >> if they took off a story, is that what you are saying? >> did i understand your question correctly? >> if you eliminate the ground floor retail. >> if you eliminate it all together, i don't know off the on the of my head. >> 6,000 square feet. >> it doesn't occupy the whole floor plate. so no. and i think the project -- >> i understand there is a concern about, you know, height, but respectfully van ness is not a great location for ground floor residential use. in fact, i used to live around the corner from this site. incident tally, i had to move because i couldn't find a place to buy, but the character of the ground floor along van ness here is retail or parking or lobbies.

and we actually think that retail would enliven this areaened i understand the comment there isn't a lot here. maybe we should add three spaces between 1.8 and 2.2 and see if we can get three tenants. i would say that the building across the street has a very, very lively and popular gym that's in there right now. we're not in support of accepting a modified project that has ground floor retail. and the architect the -- >> that has ground floor residential. >> sorry. ground floor residential. thank you. >> sorry, if i may add, if ground floor residential was added, the second floor rear yard would have to be lowered all the way to grade for those units. >> okay. >> a commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: the residential could focus on philbert street and not necessarily van ness, but in response to the comment, we already have modern buildings on van ness, quite a few of them, which started with retail and

after years of occupancy, there is still ground floor papered up. it is very clear that moving through the south of union makes it even harder to get residential -- to get retail in. i understand his comment regarding van ness and residential. i believe once you look at adding on the philbert street side one or two units and potentially starting to spring that particularly as it comes down to philbert. i think it requires that extra exercise. i am prepared to support the project, but i am expecting to make a motion to support the project with the provision that staff, who has done a great job, continue to work diligently with the applicant and their architect to achieve a slightly better configured massing in addition to the parking that we already mentioned. >> an it includes the roof deck setback. >> a softer color schemes, all

the things i said earlier. >> commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: given your emotion, commissioner moore -- given your motion, commissioner moore, i don't know that i was going to add that. i support this project. i support the height. i think it's appropriate. it's empty right now on a major transit corridor. i understand the side street is smaller, but if i'm thinking about what i think needs to happen in san francisco to solve our housing crisis, this is exactly the type of building that i want to see built. so i think that the design is an improvement about what was proposed at first, and i like it. i like the retail along van ness. i wish it had less parking, but

since it's the first home project, i want to make way for it. i want this to happen. i support this project. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i, too, am supportive of this project. this is a corridor i pass pretty often. i am really excited to see not only a lot of housing go up on this site, but i think something that can anchor and kind of activate this area. i am supportive of the height. i think experiential retail, which is a growing sector, could do well in this site. i think it is in good context in the neighborhood. i would also -- i do support the planning department's recommendations around parking just given the transit improvements that are coming to this corridor and the future of transportation as we know it.

so i would support this project as is. i would like to hear a little bit about just how commissioner moore, if you could share a little bit about the massing that you want want the staff to work on changing. >> commissioner moore: do you by any chance know the building at the corner of van ness and clay? it is a modern building that was probably approved three and a half years ago and exactly the same thing and it turned out to be a wonderful example of how not taking any height off the building, but taking the -- taking basically a corner that steps down to the lower buildings on philbert, which is important to respect off and transition to the lower neighborhood. it is not a big deal. it makes it more interesting and a more softer and transitional building. the building by itself, i don't

have any problems with it for openers, as i said. it is just how it meets the adjoining neighbors. no reduction in units. no reduction in overall height. no nothing, except be a little bit more creative about that transitional piece. >> we might have to be specific about it. i would be supportive of this project as is. i get what you are saying. i think we have done that at other places. i don't want to lose units. as a matter of fact, when -- >> that is not what i said. >> u a when i first moved here in 1991, i lived adjacent to this building and my lightwell looked out on the b.p. station. i lived with my girlfriend sheila. i don't know where she is now. but it can take heighth. van ness is wide. as you go walk up to union, a 1930's buildings that is nine

stories or more. i think you can do it here. i would not want to lose any units. i like the retail because i think some large format retail would work there like a gym on van ness and activate that space. i would support pushing that -- i think the roof deck does add some massing and can be kind of off the street frontage in the corner there. i agree that the changes were good. it has this vertical element that enhances the height and overall the design works. and putting this into the hand of the planning department. and enough talent to modify the building and if there is room to creatively pursue it and i believe there is interest in doing so -- i see some people nod. >> and kind of no loss of units. >> commissioner moore: absolutely. we can't do that any way. >> a commissioner, if i may, my understanding is that it's not

both sides, but the philbert street side. >> primarily the philbert side and a change in color and materials to better reflect. >> sheila and i would have been fine with the massing as it is -- >> yes. >> and i am supportive. and i think this is pretty momentous, too, that we're having our first home-sf project, and i hope it gets built and i agree with commissioner melgar. a great site for this incareened density in height -- for this increased density in height. to reduce the amount of parking. and the roof deck off the property line. and work with planning staff on the design to soften the massing and transition to philbert street. >> what about the ground floor residential? >> we'll leave that up to the department to figure out if that can be done on philbert treat if

we modify the massing. it is a play between those two forces. we'll leave it up to them. let's make it not part of the motion because i am hearing some pushback on this. >> very good. a motion seconded to reduce the roof deck -- excuse me to approve this project with conditions as amended to reduce the roof deck, soften the massing by tapering do unto the adjacent structures along philbert without any loss of housing. right? on that motion, commissioner jonson. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> a commissioner moore? >> aye. >> a commissioner melgar? >> aye. >> commissioner richards. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> item 18, 2016-00378cua at 1600 jackson street. i'm going to wait for the room

to clear. >> okay, yeah. for the remainder of the people leaving the room, if you could do so quietly, please, we would really appreciate that. commissioners, item 18, 2016-00378cua, 1600 jackson street, conditional use authorization. please note on april 26, 2018 --

>> hold on. >> [gavel] >> can we have quiet as we do this? thank you. >> after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this mat july 26, 2018. commissioners moore and richards were against. commissioner melgar, you were absent on that day. for you to participate today, you have to go on record as having reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> i have, thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. it was subsequently continued again as this will be the second hearing. the project sponsor will have a three-minute presentation and public comment -- >> five-minute presentation. >> five-minute presentation and public comment will be limited to one minute per person. >> i think we're in the evening hour. good evening, president hillis and planning commission. the item before you is a reason for conditional use authorization to allow a general

grocery store which is the form of the retail business at 365 by whole foods market at the subject property at 1600 jackson street. you first heard this project on april 26, where you directed the project sponsor to explore a modified project which included housing. the project sponsor has explored the feasibility of addinghouse housing to the project site including adding additional residential floors and analysis of a partial conversion of the second floor to residential uses. in the letter dated september 21 of this year, the project sponsor has reported that the additional floors on top of the ground floor has proven infeasible and the partial conversion is netting five dwelling units while feasible would not be undertaken unless deemed absolutely necessary due to numerous construction and economic challenges. the sponsor seeks the approval of the original use authorization without the addition of the dwelling units and only for the retail

proposal. a quick recap of the project, the project would involve both interior and exterior tenant improvements and two-story overgarage extending 4400 gross square feet with no expansion of the building envelope. the project does not constitute a change of use as the previous doing sports which ceased operations in december 2014 and the proposed grocery store are both considered retail sales and services under the planning code. they are listed as principlely permitted uses when the polk street ncd. and one distinction to point out is while the existing use greatly exceeds the polk city ncd which is 4,000 square feet, this is permitted to carry forward with a new tenant because the last use and the legal use is both permitted. they are not deemed to be abandoned if they are left

vacant for more than three years. only when they are removed or otherwise eliminated. the proposed general grocery store would occupy the entirety of the existing structure and accessories on the second floor. the project would retain the existing below grade parking with 70 spaces with one conversion to a car share space providing class one and class two bicycle spaces as rain showered per code. the existing building con tainted an off-street loading air off jackson street. and thereby, basically extending the 20-feet commercial loading zone on jackson to 100 feet. that proposal does require sfmta approve. in considering of the loading issues, there is a transportation management plan or tmp that includes information on the store's operations, truckloading, loading operations, schedules, monitoring activities, as well as the transportation demand management plan.

the t.m.p. was informed by a loading analysis prepared for the project and the project sponsor is responsible for actually implementing the t.m.p. as it is listed with the approval in the draft motion. and to date it's received 201 letters in support of the proposal and 75 in opposition with one neutral letter. letters received since the april hearing date have been forwarded to the commission. i do have hard copies if any of you would like those. overall the feedback is mixed with numerous area residents commented a bts the strong desire -- about the strong desire to introduce a general grocery store to the property site because it's been vacant. numerous community organizations have commented about the desire to keep formal retail out of the neighborhood with a strong preference for a mixed use project which includes housing on the project site. and on the whole the department to be necessary and desirable. and the vacant, light front and

which is considered a daily need serving retail use which is generally supported by the commerce and industry element plan. and the project includes streetscape improvements including class one and two bike spark and the bulb out at the northwest corner of polk and jackson streets. the project site is well served by transit and the proposed former retail use. and with 2.3% as measured in the number of actual commercial store fronts. the compliance with the conditional use authorization is described in the draft motion including the packets and the t.m.p. is included as condition number 14. and the project sponsor has agreed to a one-year report back as condition number 22 and just

for your reference, a similar condition was added to the whole foods project on delores street in 2010. based on those findings and the case report, the department does recommend approval with conditions. that concludes the presentation. i will be available for questions. thank you. >> all right. thank you. project sponsor. >> and commissioners and to work with, i guess the project sponsor at this point. the building owner. and last time it was to remind you about the formula retail use. and we continue to look at the housing and that is an issue for the owner. rob isaacson will address what he's done in response to your desire that we look at the housing option. >> thank you, jim. >> and i am the owner of the building and that is the subject

of the hearing. and after a two-year process and here with the whole foods seeking a conditional use permit for formula retail. and over the course of the long hearing, the focus seemed to shift to housing. although housing was not part of the original project, most of the commission members voted to continue the hearing and asked i.c. if the addition of a residential component would be feasible. i admit to being surprised by the request, but i continue to think that a whole foods proposal was the right use of the location, so i an i degreed to see -- i agreed to see what could reasonably be accomplished. i do want to re-emphasize that the initial proposal was after a target store and it was met with significant resistance amongst the immediate neighborhood. what was clear from the outreach is that the neighbors wanted a building, the building to become a grocery store. that request is what i was trying to fulfill by bringing the whole foods to you last april. so if you fast forward to today, there is a letter in your packet

addressed to nick foster which reviews our work in evaluating the housing options. there are three options to be considered regarding the inclusion of residential. the first is demolition of the entire 60,000 square foot building and parking lot and replacement with a new project similar to the whole foods market. we were able to rather quickly eliminate that option because under recent rezoning legislation approved by the board f the building were demolished, no store over 3,000 and whatever would be allowed. so if the present building is demolished, the neighborhood will never have a grocery store at this location. additionally, due to the grade of polk street, it is severe and at this site it is virtually impossible on a new project to include much more than a shop or two. we also looked at keeping the existing fully functioning building to add floors on top of the structure.

a review was determined that the building could not accept any additional load. in order to add any number of floor, we would have to build a new support-bearing structure inside the existing building which for all intensive purposes would be more expensive. and it would interfere with the orderly programming with the lower floors, so this option was taken off the table. it is not workable. a hard look at converting the 365 store to have the second floor incorporated in the programming. by working with whole foods to reduce the needs, we have designed a scheme that includes five units which could be incorporated on the second floor. going in this direction would require variances and present several logistical and construction challenges, which

adds substantial additional cost to the project, which are detailed in the letter in your package. nevertheless, if required for approval, i would in good faith proceed with this option. u know that whole foods would work with us to make this work. and i realize the commission would like to see more housing. however, it is not feasible given the constraints we are under. i am aware from letters that there is continued opposition, but mostly from people that are not immediate neighbors. i know this process includes an opportunity for anyone to express their views on potential projects, but i have to say i think the opposition is misplaced. a vibrant grocery store at this location will revitalize the immediate area and will be a substantial benefit even to those who are now in opposition. including the emergence, i believe. whole foods 365 has agreed to make a concession such as eliminating spirits in response to the drug shop concern and have reached out to other

merchants to bring them into the fold. this cooperation is something that no nonchain store are capable of and shows 365's commitment to the neighborhood. they have been pan fantastic partners and huge 73% favorable polling has given us faith to keep at this. lastly, i want you to know i have been involved in san francisco development for 30 years and never experienced the outpouring of support from the immediate residents that i have with this project both whole foods and i thank them for that. u apologize if any neighborhood speakers come off disrespectful, but know many of them are frustrated and not being heard. >> thank you and i am available for questions. >> all right. we may have some. we are going to open up this up for public comment. we have heard this once before, so we're going to limit public testimony to one minute. you will hear kind of a faint beep which tells you you have 30 seconds left. try to be concise in your

testimony. [calling of speakers] if your name has been called, you can approach. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john. thank you very much for listening to me. i support the 365 store at 1600 jackson street. i live at 1650 jackson street which is right next door and i have been there for 26 years. i am interested in what happens right next door to my home. and the whole foods thing and with the bags back and forth to the store just doesn't work for us. we have seen an awful lot of development in the neighborhood in the last 26 years with many, many new units and many more --

we really need a full service store like 365 and especially since the big apple closed. and this will be like an anchor store to bring new people to the neighborhood to pick up the grab and go meals and help seniors get good, quality food at lower prices. this is a winner. as someone who will be most impacted by the presence, i totally support 365. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening. i am diane carol. i also live at 1650 jackson right next door to this proposed project. now we all know famous saying when public speaking, be brief and be gone. well, i'll be brief. i have talked to many people and everyone that i have talked to has been in favor of a 365 whole

foods. and i certainly am. our neighborhood wants it and we need it. thank you very much for listening. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> i am pamela. i am a former business owner and resident for 43 years in the middle polk neighborhood. i strongly oppose the proposed approval action that would allow 365 by whole foods to occupy the former lombardi's location, which was not in competition with other specialty and other businesses including real food market on polk street. i feel strongly that approval would severely impact the existing local businesses and many specialty shops which make our neighborhood vibrant and unique. i have gratefully given my daily business to the neighborhood merchants and do not want to see amazon and whole foods disrupt, roll over, and destroy our

unique mix of merchants. i do not want to see this. please consider saying no. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i am an attorney, and i am appearing before you on behalf of the client tony vargas. in april 2018 we laid out the challenges related to the new project. and more particularly regarding the lack of adequate studies related to environment, traffic, loading, parking and safety issues. and since the last hearing in april, none of the other comments regarding the issues have been addressed by the project sponsor. therefore, considering the project unresolved deficiencies and shortcomings as well as the lack of technical studies and in support, we ask the commission reject the project as it stands before us today.

thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> good evening. first, i would like to really thank you for all of your strong support for housing on the last item. that really is one of the jugular issues that we are looking at here. housing really is important in prime, dense transit supporting areas. and you hopefully will have an interesting proposal from the jug shop to eliminate their parking lot, build a new building, have the jug shop return, and have housing. courtesy that mr. isaacson was extending of a possible five unit option, which he is really not too enthused about s not really the best he can do. please do the right thing. we'll have housing, a new building, and if you can find a way to incorporate a grocery store into it, that's great.

this is a prime location. we need housing. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening, commissioners. i am here to speak on behalf of the polk district merchants foundation and live three blocks away and i am acutely aware. could we use another grocery store? maybe so, but we are by no means a food desert and not desperate for one. while all uses will meet pushback, this proposed use would be devastating to the fabric of the community and many of the local owned businesses. and that said, the pdma will support a true housing that brings more neighbors and vibrancy. the original proposal was housing. it is great that amazon has i an announced $15 minimum wages, but we have been paying that here since july. and also they're planning to fully automate the stores by 2021. whol foods may provide the past of least resistance, but it

takes foresight and leadership to move san francisco forward. it is not just about convenience for those of us here now and it's about the legacy of our kids. steer towards a more equitable future by voting no. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. and the owner of cheese plus and you know i am opposed to this and i write really long letters to you guys. >> and in april and i heard what you said and everybody said we need housing, we need housing, and talking about it all day today. heard you say you didn't want the legacy to be there is a single use with a parking structure there. you were very clear you were disappointed that has happened in so many other whole foods stores, safeways and others like that around. i even heard you offer tremendous comprise. commissioner richards said, you could leave a stick of the facade and we would work with you and expedite and work with

everyone to make this happen so we could get a win-win. so i heard what you said. i heard what they said. they know that they could potentially lose this because of the housing. lastly, i want to say five units, studios, it is really an insult. i couldn't live there with my family. it is not about community but to make you happy to pass this. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> go ahead. your time is running. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am chris and i am the current chair of the middle polk neighborhood association. we expressed our concerns effect on the small business owners, bicycle safety, be u this location with the perfect walk and transit score is ideal not for urban grocery store with daily deliveries and loading and unloading, but for housing.

with proposal with five units is almost laughable added to appease you, the commissioner, not to benefit the community. over the last three years the organization is advocating for some kind of grosse we are housing above. in fact, the original proposal septembered in september 2014 was a mixed use project with 62 units of retail. the project sponsor is indicate nothing willingness to do that. the study done by santos and i mention because i have been reading about them in the newspaper recently have been telling us that housing is not feasible and not cost effective. that is not the case. the perfect example and the jug shop -- >> thank you. >> we hope you teny the cu and making a -- deny the cu and make a lasting legacy. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> and the union representative

and with the labor unit that represents 4,000 members in san francisco in the grocery and drug industry. and we are in opposition to the whole foods coming to this location at polk and jackson streets. we have a small family business that has been in operation since 1965 and that would be heavily impacted if the whole foods is allowed to go to that location. it would be better for the other small businesses in the neighborhood like the jug shop, cheese plus and real foods to benefit from the smaller store footprint to pay good wages and benefits to workers full time and part time. further more this, location is ideal for housing and we believe that this use will benefit the neighborhood and san francisco. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> an i am in support of 1600 jackson street. i live at 15991 kitty corner to

the development. and the full service grocery store and we walk and patronize the stores on polk street and don't want any of them to go out of business because there are so many empty store fronts. we would be very adversely affected if this project did not go through. and so we were very gratified when whole foods came back with a proposal to put five units with the grocery store. please, please pass this. thank you very much. >> next speaker please. >> and now a san francisco legacy business, the jug shop, and i am here in opposition. whole foods will compete directly with local merchants and jug shop, cheese plus, and will cripple the flow of traffic

and that is a huge concern that's not been addressed. and the opportunity to add a sizable amount of housing and with the existing retail and businesses. the former location of the jug shop at 1590 pacific is a good example of 43 units above and the cafe below. that was successful. i thank you for your time and please vote against. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, commissioners. i own real foods market. i believe this property should be converted to housing to help alleviate the acute housing crisis instead of having amazon move in and marginalize the local businesses. we don't want the small businesses just to survive. we actually want them to thrive. i hope the planning commission will prioritize the need for housing while evaluating this

application. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. hello. my name is kevin gleason and i work in the neighborhood and wish i could live in it. due to lack of housing in the area and even more so, lack of affordable housing, myself and many people i work with, my coworker rs and also people that i serve in the community, have a hard time working and also living in that area at the same time. prices for renting in san francisco are among the highest in the country as we are all aware. the property should be developed to affordable housing to alleviate the housing and rising living costs in the area. and from the other street and to venture a few blocks away. and thank you. next speaker. i will call more. [calling of speakers]

>> may name is kathy and i have been a resident of the polk street area for 36 years and seen a lot of changes but you have to understand there are small businesses that go around in the areas. i am very much opposed to whole foods 365 because it will change the whole feel of the area. to keep the small businesses and feeling the way it will be. and taking over. >> next speaker please. >> and i love the wonderful character of the neighborhood and the selection of independent, local retailers. this property should be redeveloped to housing and if this is the ideal property, it will cause minimal disruption

and the big amazon store is not good for the community as it only damaged the local businesses in the long term. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is mitch and i am a small business owner and lived and been involved in the polk area for close to 30 years. and the cup should be denied unless the project includes housing. whole foods and amazon and the property owner have the resources to contribute something positive to the community to be approved. what we need is housing. it is not a food desert. the community is going to take the risk posed by letting formula retail store and meant for small business and bring something to the table to justify the grid lock on the streets and more danger to cyclists and pedestrians. it is a two-lane street and the impact of traffic flow will be severe. we also risk losing multiple small businesses in the area. we don't know how amazon will

utilize the space, but it will includes lockers and other aspects to drive the customers to amazon and represents a threat to all businesses in the area. too many risks in approving whole foods to the polk corridor without providing the housing so desperately needed, it should be denied. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> a my name is joseph and i represent the market. and listening to the hearing this evening, i have heard nothing but housing is the primary focus for what the planning department is up and this project fails on all aspects of providing housing for such a large piece of property. food options have been also discussed. i see plenty of great food options on polk street. el campo foods, jug shop, and revitalization happening -- not the big apple, but --

real food company. these provide community to that part of the city. that is where small businesses fit in. and threaten the kind of community we enjoy now. i would hate to see it go away because we bend to a company like amazon. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. and thank you for letting us speak to u yo again. i live in the neighborhood and i walk past that site at least three times a week. i would like to be able to get groceries there. there are mostly mom and pops in our neighborhood. there is a selective cheese store which has wonderful things, and a selective jug shop which has wonderful things, but i need grosse ris. i need wide variety of groceries, and i'm sorry, i can't get to it unless i get in

my car. there is no large grocery store anywhere close by. there are a lot of new housing and no grocery store for them, no big grocery store. there are the mom and pops, and some beautiful things, but it's way up the hill. i walk past there three times a week. and i really need to have access to groceries and you have to realize that if they tore it done and made it into a new building with housing, no big grocery store could go in there because the zoning restricts all -- >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. and i am stephanie chang. i work with my husband and we have had an office on polk street for 30 years now. and a lot of changes on polk.

the stt