tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 28, 2018 11:00pm-12:01am PST
in the community, and use the park as a space together and play. according to the 2011-2015 american community service is home to more than 12,000 seniors , and residents age 60 years old and above. more than 30 1% of the district 16 years and above have income or below the federal poverty level. with 64% of a.p.i. dissent. it provides public benefit for housing units and 50 units are at below market rate. who is this project benefiting? when the people who live in the district, seniors on fixed income, are income ineligible even for the b.m.r. units. so who are you building for? with the proposed project increasing the square footage
hours of shadow by 0.38%, we are setting a precedent of other developments to push us little by little. the park is a cultural asset. not only for off -- for the district stakes of the filipino cultural heritage district, the park is an asset to the city of san francisco. we asked to do not take my sunshine away. thank you. that was from mary. for me, when you are hearing a lot of folks from -- look at the hours of the shadows, the youth in this neighborhood, after they finish middle school, they all go to different high schools because this neighborhood doesn't have a high school. by 3:15 pm when school is out, they have to travel back to soma to get to the park around 4:00 pm. if we take away that shadow, we can complain a lot. don't hang out in the street tweet -- too much. now they have a place to hang out. we will take that away from them
why do we need to take something away that is already great? you saw our footage. if you have nothing to the park, go there, it is really fun. you meet a lot of residence. you meet everybody, dogs included. and then lastly, i just want to say, as an organizer, the eviction is claiming that the landlords don't want to be in business no more. forgiveness and trust are different stories. >> keep going. >> your time is up. >> thank you very much. appreciated. >> i have an overhead.
excuse me, sir, i have an overhead. the last thing is important. forgiveness and trusts -- trust are very different concepts. what i want to focus on is the record before you on the shadow determination which is exhibit 3 page 3 of your staff report is an index of what is prepared for this project, and i just want to flush it down so you know what this is if you go on to the terms. i don't see the analysis of the shadow determination on their, except for the draft motion, which is pages 59 through 63. that resolution in fact says
approve the project. and i was just at the commission and i showed it to them, and i said, this says it is adopting the recommendations of the general manager of the commission in consultation with the recreation and planning commission. and they disputed that. specifically this was drafted before the recreation and park meeting two hours ago. so what do you have to do the analysis of the shadow? what do you have as evidence for the shadow determination? i don't thank you have a record. what is in your file is the environmental document. the page that i have here is page 31.
that is in the record. so we have the record which was certified a week ago, not today, a week ago, and we have this drawing which is in the record before you. what evidence does the planning commission have to make a determination that the staff would have you say, oh, we will agree with the recommendations of recreation and park staff, and general manager, and commission that was drafted a week ago. this was the heart of the thing of having a joint hearing, and having all the evidence come up with you in the room. you are not in the room when they are dealing with shadows. one of the ironies of this is they are creating their own open space project and common area open space in the project for
their residence. that is hugely ironic. especially when they are asking for a very -- for variances for the open space requirements. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i strongly oppose the development on 190 rus. i am an afterschool program for -- coordinator for the mark -- carmichael students. there is not enough open space. it is our only real community park. our kids and teenagers go there to play basketball and enjoy the sunshine. many low income families and individuals live in these areas
and in small housing like s.r.o. it is like their living room. this project will show the children's playground and basketball courts where people lay out. i cannot imagine that it was other parts of the city that this would be allowed. we need housing, but not at the expense of our park. our only park. the park is only named after the joliet -- victoria graves. she was a hero that many of our kids look up to. it is one of our most important cultural assets. our community worked hard for this park. it is an important part of our legacy as a community and this development will shadow that. please vote -- please stand with our community and vote no on this development, and please do not compare our filipino community to your dogs. thank you. [please stand by]
not looking what it would take to complete this. the district with open space in s san francis san francisco. there is no plan ahead. the city is moving to a publicly open space. and we need to make sure the existing part that we do have, we do protect. it speaks volumes to have our community and supervisor come against the project. we don't always agree on things.
it is huge. to say that the-- who are we to say it is not important to the children. who are we to say the park is not important. that is the problem with the kind of development that is coming into our neighbourhood when it is not protecting existing community and listening to what we want to see there. we hope you would listen to our folks and -- be part of the solution to have a neighbourhood. it is important regardless of what you see.
it is important for any human being. thank you. >> thank you. a comment on the item? being none. we will close the public comment. >> thank you. i wanted to clarify with procedures. there has been some misunderstanding about that. there are 14 downtown parks that have very specific shadow budgets in terms of hours per year. when there is a shadow impact on the parks, the code requires you and the commission to work jointly to change the number. and we call it a shadow budget if you will. for the rest of the city, all the rest of the parks in the entire city, the -- there is a requisition that comes from the general manager or the rec pub commission. so that procedure has been in
place now really since established in the '80s, where the joint hearing. there is a shadow impact on one of the 14 parks that have a very specific numerical shadow budget. thank you. >> thank you. >> anyone else on this? commissioner koppel? >> something we take seriously up here week in and week out is the tenants and the evictions and whatnot. is there an executed documents that guarantees that the existing tenants will be taken care of while they are gone until better conditions? >> absolutely, we do.
on top of the recommendations. it was testified they were happy with the relocation, housing that we are offering them. i have a great relationship with the residential tenants. the commercial tenants. they are supporting the project. we are happy and look forward to it. and all of them are invited to come back as well after the project which will be a year before i get into the documents and we start going adequately. everybody is really supportive of this. thank you. >> commissioner? >> thank you.
for this project in 2015, jointly by the commission -- >> no. >> my second question why is this package not providing details of the shadow analysis? >> so the actual shadow analysis is included in the project in the document. on page, i believe, 31 and going to -- >> there is one diagram in there. when we look at those things, we have all the packages. only one diagram which is the summary diagram being used. there is no study. i am wondering why this is different. >> so the department
commissioned the study with shadow consultants. we review the analysis. and developed, you know, the narrative that has been been provided. >> can you answer the question. >> the shadow analysis itself was not included in the packet. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i will take the rec and parks decision, you know, into consideration when making mine. i am supportive of the project. the sponsor went above and beyond the 25% affordable mark and the 63 units could possibly come into the area. >> commissioner? >> basi am support any -- any
shadow on this project, with 100% affordability. this commission over the years, we look for supporting housing. and we have sent projects back to shape in a manner that they do not cast a shadow upon the public and protect the parks. we recently, i think it was last year, that we had such a project and we all supported the project and its intent. we also supported there would be no additional shadow and the architect came back and shaped the building in such a manner that the project was unanimously approved. this is private development. and i think buildings can be shaped to avoid casting shadow.
in addition to the fact the differential between the building generated with shadow, we need the diagrams to do justice. because that is not done in this particular project, i cannot give properly evaluate of what the issues are. that would be my comment on the absence of the shadow analysis. >> i mean, we do have a project, you know, a similar vein that was casting a shadow. in that case, the folks worked together and came back with a solution to mitigate some of the -- the shadow. it is a bit unfortunate we are in the spot where there wasn't been the willingness to discuss
this or maybe even feasibility. i think it is clear from the diagram that i looked at the rec park item, i have more detail on the shadow impact. at 40 feet, there will be an impact to the park. and we can debate kind of whether that is a public park you know that is an impact. it is an impact. it is not significant. there is an impact to the park. so that is something i think we all have to consider and evaluate as we consider the project. we are at the forefront of negotiating in working out solutions. housing is supported and there is mitigation. i talked with that with the
developer as well as some members of the community about why we couldn't get there. i didn't see a lot of -- on the flip side, clearly i don't like the shadow. the building is big compared to the context which is typical to what we see around the city. we zoned to get more housing. the design worked. it is conceptual. i think it works there. where it is, i think the 25% affordable is above and beyond. we have not seen that in a project before. it is part of a compromise and a mitigation measure we make in order to get a project that is tenable where we can approve it. i think the support from the existing residents as the commissioner said in bringing
them back and we have seen that happen before where the project works with the tenants, we work out a solution where they come back. those are big factors. just because a project has been impact, a shadow impact say no to a project. i think it is part of what we have to weigh heavily, in projects, we look at shadows are some issue to a neighbourhood. whether it is a backyard, shadow on a public park, shadow on other open space. those are impacts we have to weigh. the need for housing, and the need for additional affordable housing. to me -- the people said we don't necessarily do this in the neighbourhood. last week, we had in california, i think it is one of the prime
reasons the neighbourhood opposed it. it is used as open space for the neighbourhood. it was going to be taken away. so we have to balance our support. it is a great space for housing. it is something we have to balance. on balance, we need affordable housing. yes, there is a shadow impact in the park. to me, it doesn't out weigh the other benefits to the project. i would support this project. >> commissioner? >> yes, thank you for that, the analysis. there are some good things about this project. i appreciate the developer, you know, attempting to increase the affordability doing things like the design. to me, the shadow, you know, we have standards. but they are not -- they don't
all hit the same in all neighbourhoods. you know, it reminds me of the debate that we had with the preschool with the project. you know, when a neighbourhood has very little access to sunshine and parks. it is not the same. and when kids have playgrounds in their schools. so carmichael does that not have access. and where the shadow falls, even though it is later during the summer, it is actually precisely when the teenagers use that basketball court. so in the summertime, when you are out of school, they are playing basketball, that's when the shadow is most impactful. so i do wish that there had been
more consensus with the community. i don't think that this is something that i can currently support. i hope that -- if we do have more time, i would encourage that there be more communication with the neighbourhood. we do not see the community united in the position. i do not support the project until that is worked out. >> commissioner johnson? >> i am thanking the community members that came out to share your perspective on this. i know that this is personal. it is a personal and important issue because the park is a cultural jewel. and it is a park that has been
fought for by a community that has to fight for all of the assets. i am really sensitive to the experience of the community and the comments that have been brought up. and i think that this issue is tied up in actually quite a few larger policy issues. i heard things like talking about making sure that these -- the rules around shadow are applied equatability across the city, not just in their neighbourhood and that development happen equitably across the city. not just in low income communities. i heard issues around, affordable housing units are being put, they are necessarily affordable to the community. and i am really look at the process. and making sure that it is truly equitable. i heard folks really bring up,
you know, it was said that the process itself of how we talk about and negotiate community agreements still needs to be worked on so that communities don't feel like they are fighting for a crumb. i hear you and i want to voice that. there is impact here. and any development that happens, it is going to have an impact shadow on the park. it has impact on your day-to-day life. i understand that, why you have come out and expressed opposition to that. i think as commissioners said, we are put in a difficult position in i wish that we were having a conversation about how we could mitigate some of the impacts of the shadow for the residents that are already
there. i know that efforts have been made with the developer that there have been conversations between the developer and the community and here we are. you know, i just -- i want to say that i think as a commissioner, there are many things we have to weigh. we have to think -- we have to weigh, you know, the regulations that were set up specifically for instances like this to make determinations about what the impact is. and whether a development can happen around the park. we have to take into consideration the rulings of our colleagues. and thoughtful analysis on the impact of shadow. we ultimately have to take into consideration the city at large. and those objectives. you know, for those reasons, this has been a really difficult
project for me. i have weighed a lot of different voices. ultimately when i look at the project overall, i think that it is ultimately a good project. and for those reasons, i am in support. >> thank you. commissioner? >> a very eloquent explanation of the process we have to go through. i am supportive of the project. i think it is well done in black and white. what is sad and difficult and this is not the first time we have been here is watching the slow deterioration of the neighbourhood and the culture in san francisco. this is not the only neighbourhood this is happening. this is happening all over. each time you guys come, it is sadder and sadder for me, because i know it is getting closer and closer to dwindling
down. we are all feeling the same pressure of being squeezed out. which is very, very frightening and, you know, it is happening. you know, we need more housing to accommodate more people. and the prices to come down a bit. i don't necessarily see that happening in the near future but maybe. anyway, i am torn. this to me, it looks like it needs to be approved. i feel for the pressure of san francisco being squeezed out. >> commissioner richards? >> nothing with the concerns are with the family's history with the properties you mentioned in your presentation. i don't want anybody to infer that i don't believe it has been
rectified. i guess the remarkable for me is the public comment that was thrown up and is being thrown up a lot. racism. the communities are concerned. people of colour. what is remarkable for me was sitting up here listening to the community of colour come up and say if you approve this project, it is racist to us. and then we have the european american folks and there were folks from the real estate industry here speaking saying if you don't approve this project, it is racist. how do you get above race? where do i get off sitting up here saying, you know community of colour, i know what is best for you? that shadow doesn't mean... you should listen to me. that's what i have trouble with.
we have a vote. all fine and dandy. i want the commissioners to internalize this. it is wrong. forget the project. it is about equity. now we have a shadows. it doesn't seem like much. to the community it is a lot. i won't be supporting the project. i have issues with the project. first of which is the project sponsor, what is lost under rent control, i see the layouts of the flat units. i don't see footage of the replacing unit square footage. are they same? >> they are smaller. they are 850 square feet. >> how many square feet are they?
>> the square footage of the flats is [indiscernible] when you look at the square footage you can see -- >> we went through the floor plans of the two units which is 5 by 5. the unit that is 201, 301, 401 and 501 are the rent control units. they are on top of each other. and the 1,000 square foot unit is in the back. the unit in the back, one of the bedroom -- there are three large windows. it has two bedrooms.
the location of the kitchen, and as we went through the floor plan, they know the difference in the square footage. and we looked at it and they decided they would rather have the unit that is 301, 302 because it is easier for them and they get more light. >> so the replacement units in the agreement i see here on page -- section 2, cities, concessions and return for subject -- subjecting the -- replacement to the rent coordinates. the developers is performing concessions for the production of replacement units on site. we ha they have to be replaced.
that is interesting. are you replacing the units subject to the variance? what designate units are the replacing units, the numbers? >> recathe variance has to be oe bottom floor. the square footage is under requirement. we have three residential units on the ground floor. to continue the residential character, we needed a variance on the location.
>> excuse me. are the replacement units subject to the variance? >> yes. >> which ones? >> all the rent control are in the d district. they are not subject to the variance. the >> i want to make sure, we are not replacing on the 192, 194. the flats with the exposure with the small units with exposure to variance because they do not
have the open space in the back. >> subject the variance because the [indiscernible] is on the third floor. >> the reason the variance is required there is because it was the culmination of multiple properties. it was zoned as neighbourhood commercial. the neighbourhood commercial district. the interior lot in red, there is a district. instead of providing variances for modifications, there are exceptions taken to the planning commission, they are doing this here. in the commercial district, that is not available.
. >> and they have also indicated that they would like to discuss coming back, and they have been told that there will be ongoing discussions with all the tenants. >> commissioner richards: okay. do you feel that it would being something that these -- it would be something that these restaurants would be something that they can afford and not put them out of business? >> in fact, i was discussing the floor plan, and what happened was the new retail space -- because they have a 20-foot-high ceiling, they will actually have a parlor second floor, so that means oh, they can have some additional seating up on top, on the second floor, so they were very happy with the way it was laid
o out. >> commissioner richards: what about the dolce lodged in back. >> no, dolce italian cookies actually sold to deli board. deli board took over the space. >> commissioner richards: thank you. i saw the people in the back, and i thought oh, there's four businesses here, not three. okay. the other issue is historic preservation. i didn't see a blanket peir. >> i can address that. >> commissioner richards: could you, please? >> so it is surveyed as part of, and they were determined to not be historic resources, and so what we did with this project is we looked at the
subject property and completed the remainder of the survey to determine if these buildings were historic as it relates to specific individuals that lived on the property or significant events, and based on that analysis, we determined that those buildings were not determined to be related to any historic beings. >> commissioner richards: the reason being, yesterday, i went on the website, and they were rated b. the other thing is the height in the residential enclave district, it kind of sales the enclave into -- it's too height, and i think you're getting a good exception for that. we talked about the unit exposure. there's no real shadow study in
our packet and there's no real alternatives as well that said at 5 feet less, it casts less of a shadow at this time of year. i didn't get -- i don't understand that, so there are -- there's no alternative, can we shift the massing around that would -- if you would like to say something, please. there's no -- nothing in there for me. the other thing is, the interesting thing -- yeah, i guess there's no displacement, and i applaud you for that. if you look at the 11th district federal reserve survey of san francisco, the three lowest median areas are western addition, chinatown, and soma, so the units that are there -- and i don't even -- this probably applies to the b.m.r. units -- probably can't be afforded to the person that averages neighborhood a.m.i.
that's an issue. if i wanted to get an a.m.i. of the existing neighborhood residents, 40% -- you have your set a.m.i., but the a.m.i. in the neighborhood doesn't reach that a.m.i. that doesn't reach the dollar threshold. that's an issue for me, and i think that's enough. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: thank you to the community for everybody who came out to speak for or against it. in principle, i am interested in seeing a building on the site, i am interested in seeing a residential building on the site, but one that is responsive to circumstance and context, and this particular project today is not quite there. i've voiced my concerns about the shadow and how i generally vote on that matter. since the project is not exceptional or extraordinary in its design and since it is not 100% affordable project, the fact that does not cast a shadow is enough reason for me
to not support it in its current configurati configurat. i am supportive and agree with commissioner richards' summary in it displaces small businesses. they'll rarely ever find their home again in new spaces which are too expensive, not exactly the right space, right height, and most notably, not the right atmosphere. i am concerned about the demolition of a functioning sound building and losing four affordable units, despite the fact that they will be recaptured in this building. aggregating, too many lots in this case is a problem. it is accentuated here because
we are restructuring two different districts, and i think the transition of this building dealing with that transition in a smaller sensitive small scale way is completely lost. what is interesting to me is that this project is asking for a lot of variances and exceptions in contrast to what it's really offering, and what's most -- what really struck me as an mush comment was that this project is trying to provide quality open space on-site, which i think is a great idea, and it dedicates a large amount of square footage to that effort. however, when i look at the drawing, that is drawing a-3.8, all i see is an excessively large roof deck with no attempt to design an open space environment which i have seen
many projects these days do very, very convincingly, such as the panorama up the street, etc., etc. this is basically just -- basically, there's nothing to it. i'm questioning that. again, i am interested in the project here, but what concerns me is also the quality of units this project is bringing to the market. and you have heard me two months ago, four months ago, a year ago, two years ago, this project deals with the hotel-like open corridors where individual units take the access of those corridors which for me does not create of type of liveability that i believe we need to do when we are designing sound, liveable units and quality housing in san francisco. it just doesn't do it. the exposure of the three town house units does not allow much
privacy. and then, i'd like to talk to the architect, i'd like to ask the architect, any building in san francisco which has more than five units needs to provide universal accessibility in the bathrooms. i doing see that in your drawing submittal, and what concerns me, when you go next week -- if the project is approved today, if you go to d.b.i., this project will greatly change because all of your dimensions will change and impact your design in a noticeable way. so i'm kind of wondering if you have designed enough housing, you have been challenged in front of us a number of times, you have done good stuff. but sometimes, we have asked the same kinds of questions. we want more liveability in the units, and we want certain kinds of design sensitivity in order to complete the healthy, safe, complete neighborhoods that we are all asking for. i think you can do it.
i've seen you do it, but this project today is not quite there for me, so i can ask for a continuance so that you work on it more, and i know you can. and again, i am not opposed to the project, but i just need a little bit more to speak to these basic elements that are just not there. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: thanks to everyone for showing up today. thanks to jane kim's office for giving us their input. i also want to say a few words in relation to late mayor ed lee who couldn't see this project to fruition, but who put the wheels in motion to get us where we're at today. i'm going to make a motion to approve item 13 a and 13 b and adopt the shadow findings for
13 c. >> commissioner richards: okay. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's been a motion and second to approve a large authorization with conditions, a conditional use authorization with conditions and adopt thehood shadow findings. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-3, with commissioners johnson, melgar, and moore voting against. senior inspector, what say you? >> i am going to close the hearing and i am going to take the item under additional consideration. >> before we clear the room go onto the next item, i just want to let you know that this is doug vu's last hearing at the planning commission. doug is leaving the department and -- to move onto sunnier
pastures in southern california. he's taken a senior planning position in north hollywood. [applause] >> president hillis: jonas, item 14. >> clerk: indeed, 14. [agenda item read] >> good evening. >> president hillis: good evening. >> -- president hillis and commissioners. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to establish a formula retail grocery use doing business as whole foods market. the project site is located at
1169 market street in the trinity plaza development within the downtown general zoning district. whole foods market is headquartered in austin, texas and maintains seven locations here in san francisco. the project would occupy approximately 63,000 square feet of retail space at the basement and the ground floor. the project sponsor conducted a formula retail survey, and within a quarter mile of the vicinity, there are 179 businesses subject to formula retail controls, and 28 of those businesses qualify as formula retail, so an 18.8 formerly retail concentration. this will increase the formula retail concentration in the formula by 0.8%. to date, the petition has received 148 letters of
support. since publication, the department has also received an additional letter of support from the district six community planners. the project sponsors have done extensive out reach to neighborhood groups and organizations, and today, the department is not aware of any opposition to the project. the department finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: the subject tenant place would not displace an existing tenant, it would activate a ground floor retail, the project meets the requirements of the planning commission's performance-based design guidelines, the project site is well served by public transit, and the project complies with planning code and is consistent with the general plan. with that said, the department recommends approval with conditions of the project, and i'm here to answer any questions, but first, i'd like to invite the project sponsor to speak on behalf of the
project. >> president hillis: okay. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, president hillis, commissioners. >> president hillis: good afternoon. >> i'm ryan kroll, and i'm here on behalf of the applicant, whole foods. the application before this commission is for the retail approval. all other rights are permitted as a matter of right at this project. the overwhelming support from the community is to support this project. we have letters from residents and small businesses, community groups such as united playas, la cocina, and asian, inc. we're also -- have the support of supervisor kim and oewd, and so throughout this whole process, all we've heard is positive things, and ultimately, what the community is telling us that they not
only want a grocery store at this location, specifically, they want the whole foods that's going to be there because whole foods has a commitment to healthy food because whole foods has a commitment to treating their employees the way they should be treated. what i'm going to now is turn this over to adam smith, the executive director of whole foods. >> thank you. good afternoon, president hillis, commissioners, and staff. my name is adam smith. i oversee store design and development for whole foods market here in northern california. i started working for whole foods market in 1999, making sandwiches in the mil valley store, and since that time, i've had the opportunity to be involved in the opening of 50 whole foods markets in the united states, canada, and the u.k. each one of its stores has its own unique character which is by design to respond and serve the unique needs of the community. the whole foods in trinity
would provide the neighborhood with a grocery store, providing much needed resource to an under served part of the city. we've heard consistently during our outreach that health is wealth and that healthy food is a key factor in supporting a healthy lifestyle. whole foods quality has made us the industry leader in the grocery community. the store will also create over 200 new job opportunities. whole foods market currently employs 1400 team members at our seven existing san francisco locations, 75% of whom are san francisco residents. 80% of these are full-time jobs with benefits, which is the opposite of the grocery retail industry, which is traditionally only 20 to 30% full-time employment.
we've met with the office of oewd and committed to continuing and providi continuing focus and providing jobs for san francisco residents. in addition, whole foods market trinity project will allow us to continue to build upon and create new partnerships for local businesses. our full-time local forager seeks out unique, high fault items to put in our stores. our local producer loan program has distributed $22 million in loans to help small businesses grow. our whole planet foundation has distributed $53 million
worldwide to microentrepreneurs to support communities where our products are sourced. the whole kids foundation provides grants and support for school gardens and salad bars in bay area and across the country while our 5% and nickels a day provide donations to small nonprofits that support the community in which we operate. most recently, we partnered with the west bay and la playas. whole foods market has been a strong community partner in san francisco for 25 years. i thank the commission for your consideration and ask that you approve this project so that we may continue to build strong ties to san francisco communities. i'm here to answer any questions as is our regional president, rob twyman. i thank you for your time. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. we'll open this item up for public comment. i've got a couple speaker
cards. kelly armstrong, john michael todd barbour, rudy ascencion, barbara. >> commissioner hayon: -- barba barbara -- you want to come up and speak? >> this is a letter that was sent to the commission by michael chan. dear commission president hillis and commissioners, as a decades long equity advocate, asian, inc, has reviewed the conditional use authorization submitted for the project referenced above. as part of this, asian inc has participated in the publicly noticed sponsor meeting which took september 5 and followed up with the project sponsor's
representatives to engage in more direct conversation regarding the project as it relates to our diverse constituencies and supporters which include the u.s. department of housing and urban development, u.s. department of commerce minority business development agency, and state of california governor's office of business and economic development. recently, we had the opportuni opportunity to meet with the leaders of whole foods and our conversations with whole foods have been how whole foods can work with asian, inc -- [inaudible] >> -- current supplier vendor eco system. based on the for going, we believe that whole foods and asian inc will be able to forge
a long lasting partnership to the benefit of the community. towards this epd, we look forward to working with whole foods to help ensure their grocery store concept at 1149 market street honors the existing businesses in our neighborhood in the central market community benefit district. in closing, we are pleased to inform the planning commission and planning staff that asian inc supports the above referenced application which is before you tonight for your review. please vote in favor. sincerely, michael chan. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is kelly armstrong. i am the founder of the primed and prepped culinary program. and i'm here in support of whole foods. whole foods has supported our program for the last three
years, helping our program to grow. they spend thousands of dollars buying kitchen supplies for our program. then, we were actually the recipients of their nickels for angels -- i didn't know nickels -- you could raise so much with nickels, but they raised a lot of money for us with nickels. and then lastly, the most important thing that i wanted, that rob and i had been working on for the last three years was a donation of a catering van, and i just got that catering van in november , so primed and prepped now has the ability to be more entrepreneurial where we can actually have a better sustaining -- you know, always seeking for funding, so we can start making our own money, and it's because of whole foods that did that. more importantly, they are in the program where they actually come and visit us on-site. you know, they come to our events, they -- they help out in the ts