3060 FILLMORE ST

2018-005694 · 3060 FILLMORE STREET

33comments

5in person

28emails

1hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 1 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Campaign emails (23)

i support 3060 fillmore street — 23 emails (23 / 0)

Tori Perrella · email · 2018-12-06 · support · campaign email · source packet

I Support 3060 Fillmore Street
Dear President Hillis and Planning Commissioners, My name is Tori Perrella and I live at 1999 Green St, San Francisco. I am contacting you to express my support for the proposed Shake Shack and Rumble Fitness at 3060 Fillmore. San Francisco<U+2019>s first Shake Shack and second Rumble will revitalize a long-vacant building and spark new energy in the Union Street corridor. The neighborhood is known for its walk… show more

Jessica Thomason · email · 2018-12-06 · support · campaign email · source packet

I Support 3060 Fillmore Street
Dear President Hillis and Planning Commissioners, My name is Jessica Thomason and I live at 1613 Ora Drive. I am contacting you to express my support for the proposed Shake Shack and Rumble Fitness at 3060 Fillmore. San Francisco<U+2019>s first Shake Shack and second Rumble will revitalize a long-vacant building and spark new energy in the Union Street corridor. The neighborhood is known for its walkability, bu… show more

Trever Eymard · email · 2018-12-06 · support · campaign email · source packet

I Support 3060 Fillmore Street
Dear President Hillis and Planning Commissioners, My name is Trever Eymard and I live at 2825 van ness ave. I am contacting you to express my support for the proposed Shake Shack and Rumble Fitness at 3060 Fillmore. San Francisco<U+2019>s first Shake Shack and second Rumble will revitalize a long-vacant building and spark new energy in the Union Street corridor. The neighborhood is known for its walkability, bu… show more

Kasey Compton · email · 2018-12-06 · support · campaign email · source packet

I Support 3060 Fillmore Street
Dear President Hillis and Planning Commissioners, My name is Kasey Compton and I live at 2950 Laguna St.. I am contacting you to express my support for the proposed Shake Shack and Rumble Fitness at 3060 Fillmore. San Francisco<U+2019>s first Shake Shack and second Rumble will revitalize a long-vacant building and spark new energy in the Union Street corridor. The neighborhood is known for its walkability, but … show more

Brittany Zajic · email · 2018-12-06 · support · campaign email · source packet

I Support 3060 Fillmore Street
Dear President Hillis and Planning Commissioners, My name is Brittany Zajic and I live at 171 Magnolia Street. I am contacting you to express my support for the proposed Shake Shack and Rumble Fitness at 3060 Fillmore. San Francisco<U+2019>s first Shake Shack and second Rumble will revitalize a long-vacant building and spark new energy in the Union Street corridor. The neighborhood is known for its walkability,… show more

Ashlie Tubb · email · 2018-12-06 · support · campaign email · source packet

I Support 3060 Fillmore Street
Dear President Hillis and Planning Commissioners, My name is Ashlie Tubb and I live at 1995 Chestnut Street, San Francisco, CA 94123. I am contacting you to express my support for the proposed Shake Shack and Rumble Fitness at 3060 Fillmore. San Francisco<U+2019>s first Shake Shack and second Rumble will revitalize a long-vacant building and spark new energy in the Union Street corridor. The neighborhood is kno… show more

… and 17 more

Comments by hearing (10)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2018-12-06 · 8 comments · 3 / 5

John Paul · spoken · 2018-12-06 · support

Project presentation

Debbie Cucalon · email · 2018-12-06 · oppose · source packet

Sugar Sick/Rumble Boxing at 3060 Fillmore St
Dear Commissions Dept: I am also respectfully writing to oppose the Sugar Shack/Rumble Boxing space they are proposing to put in at 3060 Fillmore St. I have lived at 2124 Filbert for over 25 years & honestly must express the need in the neighborhood for some type of market. Since Real Food left, we have all been waiting anxiously, with hopes of having a full service grocery store. Instead a boxing place &… show more

Betsy Jasny · email · 2018-12-06 · oppose · source packet

Concerns Regarding Shake Shack on Filbert St--OPPOSED
Good Morning, I live at 2156 Filbert St. I do not want a Shake Shack and Rumble Boxing in the former Real Foods location. Like the rest of my neighbors, we would like to see a full service grocery store. My concerns: Safety: 1. there are 2 Day Care Centers and parents are dropping off and picking up their young children. The traffic congestion caused by Uber Eats, Caviar, etc would threaten the children… show more

Jennifer Robbins · spoken · 2018-12-06 · oppose

Grocery store

Mary Russell · spoken · 2018-12-06 · oppose

Neighborhood service needs

Marie Randall · email · 2018-12-06 · oppose · source packet

PROJECT: 3060 Fillmore Street / HEARING DATE: Thursday, 12-6-2018
To Whom it May Concern: Please know as homeowners on Pixley Street, my husband, Richard Morey, and I are most concerned about the addition of one more burger restaurant and one more gym in the neighborhood. We realize there is a small gourmet specialty grocery space as well, but a true grocery is what we desperately need. We have witnessed the garbage, noise and congestion caused by <U+201C>fast food<U+201… show more

Keith Howell · spoken · 2018-12-06 · support

Union St needs traffic

Kelly Sterling · spoken · 2018-12-06 · support

Vacant retail spaces

2018-12-13 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Alison Rowe · email · 2018-12-13 · oppose · source packet

Against CUP for Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 0533 (District 2) for Shake Shack
and a Gym to Replace Real Foods in Cow Hollow Dear SF Planning Commission, Please confirm receipt of this email. I hope it can be added to the points to consider for the CUP for Shake Shack. I write to express that I am against the Shake Shack proposal. Here are my thoughts, in no particular order. - I have lived here in Cow Hollow since 1991 and have an office on Union Street. I am knowledgeable about t… and a Gym to Replace Real Foods in Cow Hollow Dear SF Planning Commission, Please confirm receipt of this email. I hope it can be added to the points to consider for the CUP for Shake Shack. I write to express that I am against the Shake Shack proposal. Here are my thoughts, in no particular order. - I have lived here in Cow Hollow since 1991 and have an office on Union Street. I am knowledgeable about the retail evolution on the street on which I shop, both Chestnut and Union, by nature of having lived here for so long. Shake Shack or any chain restaurant does not belong anywhere except, perhaps, Lombard Street in a now dark restaurant building that has parking (was it Mel<U+2019>s or IHOP?). There is no parking at the Real Foods. - I realize that the Shake Shack has a snappy name and national fervor. It does not belong in our charming and traditional neighborhoods that purport to favor local retailers and restaurateurs over chains, particularly publicly traded restaurants. The only non-chain food operator on the whole of Union Street is a Starbucks. The idea is absurd in a local<U+2019>s only shopping district. - San Francisco wants to play developer and rezone? The proposal appears to be a blatant manipulation of the current zoning for a General Grocery store. The Real Foods was 11,133 square feet. Now the city is considering reducing the food portion of the space to 900 square feet, or 8% of it<U+2019>s zoned use. 8%. That implies that the food will only be prepared food because there is no space for a general grocer in 900 square feet, a little shoebox for a retailer. - The arguments that the failure of Real Foods means that a grocer will fail is false. The failure of an old concept retailer is conflated with business success of a fresh food retailer. Real Foods had a good run for a long time. Maybe they failed because their lease was up and the new rent was unsustainable for them? Who knows. But don<U+2019>t conflate superficial arguments to make superficially considered conclusions. - Allow formula retail to replace local operators? The space can be clearly demised, so give local business operators the chance to rent one of the smaller spaces. - Formula retail - would you put McDonald<U+2019>s there? Why another chain burger joint? Why not put out a RFP to every burger operator for that location and take the highest price which would purportedly pay the highest real estate taxes to the city? - San Francisco bans straws and promotes healthy eatingand will allow a national chain to sell heart-unhealthy hamburgers and deep-fried potatoes? Do you think having a for-profit gum balances out the menu next door? How many gyms do we want on Union Street? There is the Equinox and SoulCycle and some yoga. The places are healthy, but not bursting over with customers who can not find a place to work out. - The space for the burger joint is for <U+201C>community<U+201D>. How many tables will they have inside? How many are community tables? - The neighborhood has the Balboa Cafe for their famous burgers, and a decades long repletion for being a place to meet and eat or drink. The only people who win on this proposal are the real estate owner and the agent who gets a cut of the lease value. The neighborhood could use the space as a parking garage again. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that private businesses with money can influence the City of San Francisco to do the wrong thing and break the zoning. This zoning has been in place for a lot longer than those who are making these decisions, which will hurt the neighbors for a long time. Residents may have moved to the neighborhood just because there was a regular grocer there. Prepared foods at high mark-ups are a different model. We need a place to buying eggs and milk and fresh vegetables without driving. Some residents do not have cars. The current owner bought the building knowing the grocery zoning. Their business model clearly worked for many years. Their crying over spilt milk now is like a buyer of a rent-controlled building complaining after the fact that he/she can<U+2019>t make as much money as non-rent controlled buildings. No one forced the buyers of these limited- zoned building to invest in them. Presumably, they were sophisticated enough to buy the building at market price and can sell at market price now, with the limitations on zoning that were always in place. It<U+2019>s not an entitlement to re-zone prior to selling. Entitlement and money unfortunately seem to influence SF governance and hurt its local constituents, the residents. Sincerely, Alison Rowe San Francisco, CA 94123show more

Alison Rowe · email · 2018-12-13 · oppose · source packet

Re: Against CUP for Lot 040 in Assessor"s Block 0533 (District 2) for Shake Shack and a Gym to Replace Real Foods in Cow Hollow
How did the city get around the formula retail restrictions? On Dec 11, 2018, at 11:52 AM, CPC-Commissions Secretary [email removed]> wrote: Ms. Rowe, This matter was approved on Dec. 6th. Jonas P. Ionin, Director of Commission Affairs Planning DepartmentCity & County of San Francisco 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 Direct: [phone removed]Fax: [phone removed] [email removed] www.sfplanning.org