[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6691025,"mediaKeyId","2218025-3956fe79434e7e99e92b9cdecaf43f91","parentId",2218025,"title","Hearing on Safeway closure at 1355 Webster highlights urgent food, pharmacy and banking gaps; city outlines short‑, medium‑ and long‑term options","audioSeconds",2701,"startMs",4904000,"endMs",7605000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218025-3956fe79434e7e99e92b9cdecaf43f91&start=4904&end=7605","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218025-3956fe79434e7e99e92b9cdecaf43f91/thumbnail_4904000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6691025/San-Francisco-County/California/Hearing-on-Safeway-closure-at-1355-Webster-highlights-urgent-food-pharmacy-and-banking-gaps-city-outlines-short-medium-and-longterm-options","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6691025-dfecd82f47e0d49dae6f3243eebf04c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771056780&Signature=NDYvUYENU6tskHauca~bjDxAXL70OA9g2swLD-~0eg403Z6P376Opa6s0NaxNG1EQ90jppCEH1H6Hj348VecI7KZYj7uX4DWmiZ-LUVUc8XP4MZFxsQBukxqV7AOvlQ9pObDfwTtVf5ZyLcvtpncmqjZpplvlPlOniXiw~j9Tmf0SGYfdfKVRRLAYdlUS9bzC0S6P6CDP26meifcIjGVY9~3Jgurxdlg4gb4BuhGMTjm8N6ScnqqnSsKS3phEG0uGghlTG02r5X6vLtxp9~Xr9kY66iJu4PNeNZzy1nKBifNGnR03A7xbySvMPzuf7NDgigzeKIR3496vFGh45rvMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Francisco County","date","2025-02-03T00:00:00Z","article","A special hearing of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee on Feb. 3 focused on the announced closure of a Safeway grocery store at 1355 Webster Street, in the Fillmore/Western Addition/Japantown area. The store’s closure, announced more than a year earlier and accelerated in recent weeks, removes a full‑service grocery store that community leaders say serves seniors, families, and residents with limited transportation options.

Supervisor Bilal Mahmood opened the hearing saying the closure has been “felt deeply throughout the neighboring communities,” and described the meeting’s goals: “to understand the scope of this closure and its impact on residents; to understand the facts around this site and its history; and to understand what the city has done and plans to do to mitigate impacts.” Committee members heard presentations from the San Francisco Food Security Task Force, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), the Planning Department, the Human Rights Commission (HRC), and the SFPD.

The Food Security Task Force’s chair, Cissy Bonini, described severe neighborhood food insecurity and underscored why the closure matters for public health: “One in four San Franciscans are food insecure,” she said in committee testimony, adding that the Western Addition’s zip code has higher rates of diet‑sensitive hospitalizations and a concentration of residents on fixed incomes. Bonini said the task force has recommended a community‑centered food security body and will continue to advocate restoring city food‑program funding cut in recent budgets.

OEWD staff said Safeway had sold inventory in mid‑January, continued pharmacy operations while prescriptions were transferred, and now intends to cease pharmacy services imminently. Planning Department staff said the parcel is privately owned, that the city has a small easement into the parking area, and that the site is zoned for a range of uses, including a grocery store. Planning did not confirm formal development plans; staff said announcements of a pending sale and a developer option exist but that no plans had yet been submitted to the city.

Officials gave a realistic timeline for replacing a chain grocery in the existing Safeway space: Planning staff explained that a new chain supermarket would likely require a conditional use authorization (formula‑retail/conditional use) and tenant improvements; combined, Planning and Building Department processes plus appeals could take roughly 12–18 months before a new grocer could open, assuming an operator signs an interim lease with the owner. Planning staff said reforms to conditional‑use and formula‑retail rules could shorten that timeline.

City agencies and community groups outlined short‑ and medium‑term mitigation steps already underway or under study: the Human Rights Commission and OEWD have held community outreach sessions, HRC has been coordinating enhanced food giveaways and pharmacy delivery options, OEWD and SFMTA are enrolling seniors and residents for paratransit shuttle and taxi‑voucher programs, and neighborhood nonprofits such as Booker T Washington Community Service Center and Farming Hope said they are expanding client‑choice markets, meal delivery and home‑delivered produce boxes.

Booker T’s executive director Shakira Simley said the center “serves over 1,500 folks every week” through produce markets, home deliveries and hot meals and that demand is rising with the Safeway closure. Farming Hope and other community organizations asked for immediate funding boosts to scale delivery and pantry programs and urged a rapid transition plan to avoid gaps in food access.

Public testimony was extensive: dozens of residents, business owners and community leaders described reliance on the store’s groceries, pharmacy and onsite banking; multiple speakers tied the closure to past redevelopment disinvestment in Fillmore and asked the city to prioritize community benefit, community ownership or a nonprofit cooperative market on the site. The community also pressed for the city to preserve Certificate of Preference (COP) protections for displaced families and to consider community right‑to‑purchase options.

SFPD Captain Jason Sawyer described enforcement work while the store remained open: the department had conducted repeated theft operations and said arrests showed “there was absolutely no pattern” confined to a single neighborhood; people arrested came from a wide area, Sawyer told the committee. He also said police work with property owners is constrained on private property and that owner cooperation is necessary to abate parking‑lot crimes and abandoned vehicles. HRC said Safeway had agreed to interim security and fencing for the site but that arrangements were limited in time and details remained unclear.

Several residents asked whether the city could use eminent domain to acquire the site. Deputy City Attorney Bridal Russi explained the eminent domain process: government must propose a public project, conduct environmental review, negotiate in good faith, and, if necessary, seek a resolution of necessity from the legislative body; if the owner refuses, court litigation over fair market value and public purpose can take years. Russi said eminent domain is possible but time‑consuming and would not produce an immediate grocery replacement.

Community members and nonprofit leaders proposed alternatives: (1) short‑term activation of the large parking lot for a temporary grocery or a farmer’s market; (2) rapid expansion of existing community grocery models such as the HSA Community Market pilot (a client‑choice market model used elsewhere in the city); (3) use of the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA/COPPA) or community acquisition tools to enable nonprofit or cooperative ownership; and (4) legislative reform to expedite conditional uses for full‑service grocers.

Outcome and next steps

Supervisor Mahmood moved to file the hearing; the committee voted to file the hearing with three ayes. Committee leaders said the meeting was a first step and committed to continuing coordinated work across OEWD, HRC, MOHCD, Planning, SFPD and community groups to pursue short‑term food access, explore interim leases or pop‑up grocery options, expand senior shuttle enrollment, and examine longer‑term land‑use and acquisition tools. Several community groups demanded continued public hearings and more direct engagement with Safeway, the property owner and any prospective developer. The committee did not adopt binding actions to acquire the property or compel interim leases during this hearing.

—Clarifying details from the hearing: the site is nearly 3.7 acres; community estimates cited the Fillmore/Western Addition zip code population at approximately 34,000 residents with several thousand households under severe economic strain; planning staff estimated a 12–18 month timeline for a new chain grocer to occupy the existing Safeway space absent reforms or an interim lease; the Deputy City Attorney described eminent domain as a multi‑stage legal path that can take years to complete.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Francisco County - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Feb 03, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Land Use and Transportation Committee held a hearing Feb. 3 to examine the closure of the Safeway at 1355 Webster Street in Fillmore and to collect short‑term and long‑term options to restore grocery, pharmacy and banking services to the neighborhood.","taxTitle","San Francisco County, California","taxId",2862,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6691028,"Committee delays ordinance to let mixed‑income projects use state tax credits; changes would exempt some projects from nonpotable water rule",5224,121000,5345000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2218025-3956fe79434e7e99e92b9cdecaf43f91&start=121&end=5345","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2218025-3956fe79434e7e99e92b9cdecaf43f91/thumbnail_121000.jpg","/articles/6691028/San-Francisco-County/California/Committee-delays-ordinance-to-let-mixedincome-projects-use-state-tax-credits-changes-would-exempt-some-projects-from-nonpotable-water-rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6691028-22f4c9542fe5a01885ff561f24396eed/orig.mp4?Expires=1771056780&Signature=DcI~XhyHU4B25WuvoO3r6~byWeMAXmqYwbdzN~ZRcbgO6VIBVW-mA1ftB1UTx6nlnf~v-30R5-~HTlGGqWgpTKQBjZfjhqgs7h~k0viVD73VQ-NLsLoRX7sotlAtpqqSGmM2tUdzzjWXnyujK54tLyxsutEqq5cPLHLcFHCKXzet74vJ0A2hW~LbH-s8D3eFvrwn7SLuFFqQicMnClJWfjxXlwDkqhiAa6R1P7e5M7u0--w~8X5Abx1W7dGNOU7kGaQihN0Nz4KsmLq1X~A3Mp9Sykwyb4q79sIZ9M4F4qBCT5TJhIjwTXILEvZvsix7fcoW0hPt-PT4SZBsJ3Q3zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee on Feb. 3 delayed consideration of an ordinance that would allow private market developers to use California debt limit allocation committee (CDLAC) tax‑exempt multifamily revenue bonds and tax credits allocated by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) when a project provides additional on‑site affordable units beyond the current inclusionary requirement.

The committee approved two substantive amendments to the ordinance and voted to continue the item to the Feb. 10 meeting so the changes can be circulated and re‑noticed. The measure, as introduced, would update the Planning Code to permit the use of CDLAC/TCAC financing for certain projects that add affordable units or provide deeper affordability than required by the inclusionary housing ordinance.

The changes were brought forward to allow a mixed‑income project on Sutter Street — described repeatedly in testimony as a 303‑unit project at 1101–1123 Sutter that would include 101 affordable units — to move forward under state financing that requires documentation showing readiness to start construction by a hard state deadline. Supervisor Souder (District 3) said the project “would bring 300 new homes … a hundred of these units would be affordable; it represents a 33% affordable project” and called the opportunity “rare” and urgent because the development faces a March 17 deadline under its state financing.

Vice Chair Cheyenne Chen introduced a set of amendments intended to protect prioritization of public subsidy for fully affordable projects while allowing some market developments to access state programs. Chen’s amendments would: (1) add a legislative finding affirming city policy to prioritize CDLAC/TCAC allocations for 100% affordable projects; (2) require developers who use the new exception to provide an additional amount of on‑site affordable housing equal to 25% of the baseline inclusionary obligation (described in committee as roughly an additional 4 percentage points above the 15% baseline in many cases); and (3) require the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) to monitor TCAC and CDLAC awards and report back to the Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Committee if conditions change.

Supervisor Mahmood and Supervisor Souder summarized a separate amendment to the city’s nonpotable water ordinance (NPO) that would create a narrow, targeted exemption from on‑site water reuse requirements for projects that use CDLAC and TCAC financing and provide at least 100 on‑site affordable units and that can demonstrate readiness to pull permits by the state financing deadline. Souder said the NPO requirement was not flagged to the project team until after plans and financing were largely in place and that imposing retrofit costs at that stage could prevent the project from moving forward.

Planning Department staff Veronica Flores told the committee the Planning Commission had already recommended a technical clarification: the ordinance should reference both sections 4.15 and 4.15(a)/(b) of the planning code so that pipeline and interim inclusionary rates are covered by the proposed exception. Flores said staff and the planning commission’s recommended technical change have been circulated to the committee.

Developers and community stakeholders testified in favor of the amendments. Patrick McNerney, president of Martin Building Company and project sponsor, described the financing structure and said the Sutter development is “a 303 unit project … a hundred and 1 of those units are affordable. 202 are market rate.” He said the state Mixed Income Program (CalHFA) award is competitive and that the project was the only San Francisco applicant to win an award in that round. Labor and construction stakeholders, including the NorCal Carpenters Local 22 and the San Francisco Electrical Construction industry, urged the committee to approve the amendments, citing job creation and union labor commitments.

Housing‑advocacy groups at the hearing — including SF YIMBY, Housing Action Coalition and community groups working in the Fillmore and Sutter corridors — generally supported the targeted exceptions and emphasized the need to seize state funding opportunities to build more homes. Several public commenters urged care to preserve prioritization of fully subsidized affordable housing and asked for clearer metrics and an accountability plan tied to MOHCD reporting.

Committee members voted to introduce the amendments on the record, recorded three ayes on the amendment motions, and then voted unanimously (three ayes) to continue the ordinance, twice amended, to the Feb. 10 meeting so the substantive amendments can be posted and reviewed. City Attorney staff confirmed to the committee that the substantive amendments require the ordinance to be re‑heard next week but do not require a second referral to the Planning Commission.

What happens next

Because the committee treated the changes as substantive, the ordinance will return to the Land Use and Transportation Committee for a public hearing on Feb. 10. If the amended ordinance advances, it will be scheduled for full Board consideration; committee members and several public speakers flagged MOHCD reporting and monitoring requirements as a priority for committee follow‑up.

—Clarifying details from the hearing: the Sutter project was described in committee as a 303‑unit building with 101 affordable units and 202 market units; the developer reported the project must demonstrate readiness to start construction by March 17 to comply with state financing requirements; the proposed NPO exemption would apply only to projects using CDLAC and TCAC financing and providing at least 100 on‑site affordable units. —","The Land Use and Transportation Committee on Feb. 3 approved substantive amendments but continued consideration of a Planning Code change that would let certain private mixed‑income developers use California tax‑exempt multifamily bond financing and tax credits in exchange for deeper on‑site affordability.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hearing on Safeway closure at 1355 Webster highlights urgent food, pharmacy and banking gaps; city outlines short‑, medium‑ and long‑term options

Committee delays ordinance to let mixed‑income projects use state tax credits; changes would exempt some projects from nonpotable water rule