Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grocery Supermarket topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission advances 555 Fulton package while directing more work on grocery affordability
Summary
After hours of public comment split between merchants and low‑income neighborhood advocates, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the 555 Fulton project and its SUD extension with conditions and asked staff and Supervisor Breed's office to craft affordability language for any formula‑retail grocery. The project and SUD related motions passed on separate votes.
The Planning Commission on Oct. 3 debated and advanced entitlements for a mixed‑use project at 555 Fulton Street that includes about 136 dwelling units and a 30,400‑square‑foot grocery space. The package before the commission combined a planned unit development, an extension of the Fulton Street grocery special‑use district (SUD) and a proposed SUD text amendment to allow, by conditional use, a formula‑retail grocery store.
Staff framed the case as a continuation of prior entitlements and said the SUD originally enabled a full‑service grocer; the sponsor is seeking an extension of the SUD and permission for a formula‑retail grocery to be considered by conditional use. The sponsor—s representative, Patrice Bambrini, told the commission the amendment would “allow for a much needed affordable supermarket to locate in the Western Addition,” noting staff would retain review when an operator is proposed.
Valerie Brown, representing Supervisor London Breed, asked the commission to continue only the formula‑retail portion for several weeks while the supervisor consults with the City Attorney to develop assurances or criteria for affordability. Brown said Breed—s office is “conferring with the city attorney to determine what type of formal assurances we can create” so any formula retailer can be held to affordability expectations.
Amy Cohen of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development cautioned that the city has relatively few mid‑size independent grocery operators and that chain (formula) operators have been the more active option for larger footprints; she said flexibility helps the city attract a viable tenant.
Public testimony was lengthy and divided. Hayes Valley merchants urged the commission to preserve formula‑retail protections; other neighborhood groups, church leaders and many low‑income residents argued a formula‑retail operator would be likelier to offer affordable prices and local jobs. Supporters suggested the commission require enforceable affordability or local‑hire measures; opponents warned that lifting the ban would set a precedent for future formula‑retail requests.
After debate, the commission split its actions. On the SUD text amendment (8B) the commission adopted a recommendation — with direction to staff to work with Supervisor Breed and the City Attorney on affordability language, to hold an informational hearing before the Land Use Committee on any proposed language, and to strike the SUD—s absolute 3,000‑square‑foot cap so that larger non‑grocery retail would require a conditional use authorization. That motion passed 4–2. The project/conditional‑use package (8A) was adopted in a separate vote 5–1, with conditions including the signage controls and the extension of prior entitlements.
The commission recorded the mixed public sentiment and asked staff and the sponsor to continue outreach and to pursue design subtleties in the retail relationship to the surrounding neighborhoods. The supervisor's office said it will continue negotiating possible legal mechanisms for affordability and return proposed language to the commission and Land Use Committee.
