October 18, 2012

A Fresh & Easy Start On Ocean Avenue?

1830 Ocean Avenue

Empty since 2010 when Rite Aid vacated the 17,000 square foot site, this afternoon San Francisco’s Planning Commission is set to vote on whether or not Fresh & Easy will be allowed to convert the retail space at 1830 Ocean Avenue into a grocery store.

1830 Ocean Avenue Rendering

The Planning Department recommends the Commission approve Fresh & Easy's request.

1830 Ocean Avenue: Fresh & Easy Request [sfplanning.org]

First Published: October 18, 2012 9:15 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

This is fantastic for the neighborhood. With the addition of the CVS, Whole foods, Chase I see this being the next hot spot in SF given the relative affordable housing, public / freeway access & proximity.

Posted by: Local at October 18, 2012 9:45 AM

Don't know where "1830" Ocean Avenue is. The street is miles long. Map please? Separately, love the suburban feel of parts of Ocean - and the ability to hop the Muni and be downtown fast. Best of both worlds. Would like to see MUNI connect to SFSU from Mission and SF College area. Connect the city.

Posted by: Invented at October 18, 2012 9:50 AM

Wouldn't count on this actually getting built. I LOVE F&E but they just announced last week that they're stalling almost all of their US store openings due to the chain's inability to gain traction and likely won't open more than a couple more in the next year. I think the proposed ones (such as this and the South Van Ness location, which they still haven't begun work on) are unlikely to ever open.

Source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/story/2012-04-18/tesco-fresh-and-easy-stores/54398260/1

Posted by: Jason at October 18, 2012 9:53 AM

Jason, can you post a recent link to back up your statements-- the one you posted is 6 months old, and states that they do plan to continue opening new stores.
In August, Fresh & Easy stated stated that construction on S. Van Ness will start early next year. http://missionlocal.org/2012/08/new-fresh-easy-still-in-permit-process/

Posted by: Dan at October 18, 2012 10:09 AM

Dan -- You're right, I'm sorry about that. This is what I get for posting a comment when I'm running off to do something else!

Here's the real updated story (click from the blog post through to the later story and you'll get all the details). This is all from two weeks ago:


It doesn't mean they're opening ZERO stores, so these SF ones may well be ones they're going to go through with anyway (and I sure hope they do; I am a regular and loyal F&E shopper).

Posted by: Jason at October 18, 2012 11:01 AM

re: south van ness... dunno if Tesco slowed it down or not, but this is what Mission Local says


In other Mission neighborhood grocery news, it looks like Local Mission Eatery is proceeding with the grocery store on Harrison @ 23rd. Demolition started this week.

Posted by: curmudgeon at October 18, 2012 11:25 AM

This building is next to the 24 hour fitness. There is underground parking. Not a bad location at all.

I was curious why 24 hour fitness didn't take the space, but it seems that there were bigger plans for it. A good addition to the neighborhood.

Posted by: Nelson at October 18, 2012 11:53 AM

Wife and I are looking for houses now and were just driving around Westwood park

There is lots of nice bungalows seemingly owned by older white people and a few seem to be in our price range

Downsides to me are the bad weather and ugly Ocean Ave.

Posted by: Zig at October 18, 2012 1:57 PM

What bad weather we are having, you are so right.

Posted by: sparly*b at October 18, 2012 2:08 PM

^yes it is nice in Oct sometimes

We all know this

Posted by: Zig at October 18, 2012 2:41 PM

Off topic probably, but:

What an absolutely hideous, crude building this is. the architect, if there was one should be sent to prison.

Posted by: futurist at October 18, 2012 3:11 PM

Yeah that was my first impression of the building too. Since it has external fire escapes it is probably a reskinned older building but still, that's no excuse !

What is the story on external fire escapes? I've only noticed them as retrofits to older buildings. Newer buildings seem to have fire escape routes designed into their floorplans. Are external fire escapes not allowed in modern code or are they just universally avoided because of their uglieness?

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at October 18, 2012 5:09 PM

From my experience, fire escapes are no longer permitted in SF in multiple occupancy buildings.

And yes, they are very ugly and not that safe.

Posted by: futurist at October 18, 2012 7:45 PM

This chunk of hillside was the old Jewish Orphanage. http://www.outsidelands.org/homewood-terrace.php Ugly building dates from '85.

F&E will be a great improvement.

Posted by: TEJ at October 19, 2012 8:43 AM

Posted by: SocketSite at December 5, 2012 4:58 PM

Posted by: SocketSite at April 17, 2013 11:26 AM

Post a comment

(required - will be published)

(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)

(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Bumps All Around | HOME | Plans To Raze Market Street "Home" And Build 64 Apartments »