Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/19/2004 MINUTES February 19, 2004 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS TAPE 1 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Teglia and Chairperson Ochsenhirt ABSENT: Commissioner Honan STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Kimberly Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Richard Harmon, Development Review Coordinator Sergeant Alan Normandy, Planning Liaison Maurice Dong, Assistant Fire Marshall City Attorney: Engineering Division: Police Department: Fire Prevention. AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2004. None 2. Caravan Restaurant Ergur, Necati/Owner Caspian Builders, Inc./ Applicant 713 Linden Ave. P02-0054/UP04-0001and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities (Recommend continuance to March 4, 2004) Use Permit to allow a full-service restaurant with on-site liquor sales to occupy a portion of an existing building in the Retail Commercial (C-l) Zone within 200 feet of a residential district, and including off-site parking at 311 Aspen Avenue in accordance with the SSFMC 20.22.030, 20.22.070 & 20.74.120. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by majority voice vote. 1 absent. PUBLIC HEARING 3. JT Investment Group-Owner/Applicant Approved 332 Baden Ave. P03-0132/UP03-0024 and Categorical Exemption Class 3 Section 15303 New Construction of Minor Structures (Continued from February 5, 2004) Use Permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a mixed-use development consisting of one single-family dwelling over a 1,800 sq. ft. ground-floor commercial space and 4-car garage in the Downtown Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2004 Commercial (D-C-L) Zoning District, and a 4-space parking exception in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26, 20.74 and 20.81. Associate Planner Kowalski gave the Staff Report. Jack Tsai, applicant, was available for questions. Public Hearing opened. Albert Mosqueda, 334 Baden Avenue, was concerned with the storefront being located too close to the sidewalk and the 13-foot height of the fac;;ade being too tall. He noted that he has been working with Mr. Tsai on resolving this issue and finding a reasonable height so the front of the building would not feel intrusive to the public and his property that is situated next door to the proposed structure. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Sim - what is staff's opinion with the setback question regarding the storefront. Associate Planner Kowalski noted that staff agrees to the storefront should be flush with the front yard setback of Mr. Mosqueda's property. He noted that this could be added as a condition of approval if the commission so desired. The Commission and the applicant discussed setting back the building to accommodate the needs of his neighbor. Mr. Tsai noted that he is working with Mr. Mosqueda and is willing to lower the front fac;ade to 10 feet. The Commission suggested that the front fac;ade elevation can be worked out with Planning staff and will be subject to the Chief Planner's review and approval. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked that staff verify that the setbacks do not come up to the City street in a manner similar to the Giorgi Brothers furniture showroom. Mr. Mosqueda added that he has encouraged the applicant to move back the deck from the second level and only leave a 10-foot elevation at the storefront. Commissioner Sim noted that the setback of the second level would be beneficial from an aesthetic point of view. Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked if the tree at the front of the property would be removed. Associate Planner Kowalski noted that if the tree needs to be removed a condition of approval has been added requiring that the applicant replace the tree. Motion Romero / Second Sim to approve P03-0132 & UP03-0024 with the additional condition that the front fac;ade elevation be worked out with Planning staff subject to the Chief Planner's review and approval. Approved by majority voice vote. 1 absent. 4. AGS Laundry/Elisa Sandoval-Owner/Applicant Denied Appeal 915 Linden Ave. P03-0077/UP03-0013 and Class 1 Section 15301 Minor Alterations of Existing Facilities Appeal of the determination of the Chief Planner that the proposed use is inconsistent with the provisions of the Retail Commercial (C-l) Zoning District and does not conform to the General Plan in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.90.020(b). Associate Planner Kowalski presented the Staff Report. Michael Nilmeyer, Architect, described where the applicant was moving its business to and specified the square footage each function of the business would occupy. John Ward, representing AGS Laundry, passed out his presentation to the Commission and read it into the S:\Minutes\Finalized Minutes\2004\02-19-04 RPC.doc Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2004 record. [A copy is attached, although he did not distribute the pictures noted in the letter.] He also distributed a petition with 70 signatures of City residents and AGS Linens employees. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the zoning code provides the opportunity to expand a non-conforming use with a use permit. However, to grant a use permit the Commission must make a General Plan consistency finding. She added that Chief Planner Sparks has made the determination that it is a laundry service rather than a personal service that would qualify in the C-l district, and therefore is an expansion of a non-conforming use. Hence, unless a General Plan conformity finding is made, a Use Permit cannot be issued. She pointed out that under the zoning code, the C-l district allows for civic uses, food and beverages, retail sales and other commercial services are covered but large scale laundering is not permitted in the C-l district. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the owner was looking at expanding throughout the whole building. He noted that the current proposal couldn't be interpreted as retail because it is an industrial laundry as defined in the zoning ordinance. He added that the parking the trucks on the street is illegal. He noted that the Hoem-Schurba decision was a distinction between wholesale and retail commercial uses versus commercial and industrial uses. He pointed out if the desire of the Commission is to approve the use, then a General Plan Amendment should be initiated for the whole area to allow for industrial uses. Commissioner Romero noted that the vision of the City for that area is to have a retail strip that would serve the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Ward if the applicant asked for the City's input before or after they purchased the property. Mr. Ward noted that the project involved several meetings with the Assistant City Mgr and there was not a clear idea of what the direction of the City was at the time. Chief Planner Sparks added that the applicant had discussions with the owner but staff was not informed when the property was purchased. Mr. Greco added that he was led to believe by the Assistant City Manager's positive reaction that the laundry could expand into the other building. Had he known that this would not be approved, they wouldn't have purchased the building. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked if the laundering is for in-house or out of house linens. Mr. Ward noted that the laundering portion of the building would be only for their linens and any that they have rented out. There are no out of house linens accepted. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked if the smaller section was going to be used for laundering and the other areas were going to serve as the showroom, warehouse and rented areas. Mr. Ward replied affirmatively. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that the site could become a bustling retail facility. He added that the industrial factor is being reduced and he did not see any difference between this application and Hoem-Schurba. Commissioner Zemke and Commissioner Sim noted that they did not want to overturn staff's decision and that the City does not want to move backward but continue forward with the vision of the General Plan. Recess called at 8:49 pm / Recalled to order at 8:53 pm Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the Zoning Code defines laundry service to include linen supply services. She noted that the word supply means to furnish or provide and does not distinguish between sales or rentals. Linen supply services falls within laundry services, which is identified as an industrial use in the Zoning Code. She added that the applicant can request a Zoning Amendment to change the definition of laundry services to distinguish between linen supply services and linen services that are focused predominately on rental and retail transactions. She added that the Commission is not reviewing an application, but the interpretation of this narrow section in the Zoning Code. Motion Romero / Second Teglia to uphold the interpretation of the Chief Planner. Ayes: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Teglia, Chairperson Ochsenhirt Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Approved by majority roll call vote. S:\Minutes\Finalized Minutes\2004\02-19-04 RPC.doc Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2004 5. Warach Associates/Ezio Raste-Owner Approved Joshua & Diane Krishna/Applicant 925 Linden Ave. P04-0007/UP04-0002 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Leasing of Existing Facility. Use Permit to locate a church in a multi-tenant building in the Retail Commercial (C-l) Zoning District within 200 feet of a residential district in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 and 20.81. Associate Planner Kowalski presented the Staff Report. Joshua Krishna, Pastor, was available to answer questions from the commission. Commissioners concerns: · Will signage be needed for the site? Associate Planner Kowalski noted the signage is not part of the application and if there were plans for a sign, a separate application would be required. · Will donations be dropped off at the site? Pastor Krishna noted that this program occurs once a month on a Saturday. They work with Bell Market on Chestnut and EI Camino Real to allow donations to be dropped off at the store; no donations drop-off would occur at the site Motion Teglia / Second Giusti to approve P04-0007 and UP04-0002. Approved by majority voice vote. 1 absent. 6. Nationwide Limousine Svc. Sam M. Lavasani-Owner/ Applicant 34 So. Linden Ave. P03-0111/UP0019 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities Approvec Use Permit allowing a limousine business with outdoor storage of limousines and a use generating in excess of 100 ADT in the Industrial (M-l) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.30.030(c), 20.30.040(a), 20.030.0400) and 20.81. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Antonio Brandi, Designer, and Sam Lavasani, Owner, were available for questions. Public hearing opened. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the site could be subject to flooding pending the completion of improvements that local agencies are undertaking. She noted that a Condition of Approval requiring the owner to take reasonable efforts to protect the property on site including any vehicles be added. This would avoid creating a nuisance in the event of flooding. Mr. Lavasani noted that there was flooding last year and 2 weeks ago. He pointed out that he wants to elevate above the flood plain of the site to eliminate the flooding. Commissioners concerns.' · Will Phase II have Conditions of Approval and what is the timeline to start work on it? Senior Planner Carlson noted there would be Conditions of Approval affecting both Phases I & II. Mr. Lavasani added that he plans to complete Phase I immediately and to begin no later than 2 to 3 years because the economy is not doing good at this time. · How will the limousine parking lot be screened from the public view on the street? Senior Planner Carlson pointed out that it will be a challenge to screen views from the intersection of Linden and Canal, but most views will be screened. The applicant is proposing to elevate the site by putting a block wall with a fence on top of it and dense planting to screen most views from Canal and the lower part of Linden. Mr. Lavasani added that during the day, most cars will be out serving customers and only at night will the whole fleet be parked on the site. · There needs to be a Condition of Approval for a 6-month review and starting at Phase II or in 2 years if S:\Minutes\Finalized Minutes\2004\02-19-04 RPC.doc Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2004 Phase II has not started in 2 years the Use Permit may be revoked. Senior Planner Carlson noted that a 2-year review is reasonable. Assistant City Attorney Johnson added that the condition needs to specify a possible revocation if the Commission wishes to do so, otherwise, it is just a 2 year review. · Why are there two driveways along Canal? Senior Planner Carlson stated that the two driveways facilitate the access into the future buildings. It is being required with Phase I because it is part of an elevation pad improvements and not having to put in another driveway with Phase II. · What is the future sign on the corner? Senior Planner Carlson noted that the applicant needs to return with a sign program. · The Commission felt that there needs to be a 6 month review, including a review of the final landscaping plan and a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to park the vehicles on-site and not on the street. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to approve P03-0111 and UP03-0019 with the Condition of Approval for a 6 month review, a 2 year review, not allowing parking on the street, and the flooding protection requirement. Approved by majority voice vote. 1 Absent. 7. Krieger, Clarence/Owner Approved Double Day Office Services, Inc./ Applicant 340 Shaw Rd. P03-0137/UP03-0026 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities Use Permit to allow outdoor storage of trucks and extended hours of operation from 6 AM to 2 AM in the Industrial (M-l) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.30.040 (a) and 20.30.040 (b). Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Sheryl Ringleman, Double Day office services, noted that this is their fourth move within the City. She noted that they will comply with the Conditions of Approval. Ken Ibarra, Designer, noted that the building has not changed regarding square footage. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner's concerns: · The outside of the building needs to be aesthetically pleasing. They suggested adding a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to paint the building. Mrs. Ringleman noted that the property owner has not agreed to paint the building as of yet. Motion Giusti to approve P03-0137 and UP03-0013 with the condition that the applicant paint the building. Assistant City Attorney Johnson pointed out that the tenant cannot take action on painting the building without the consent of the property owner. The Condition of Approval can encourage that the applicant to work with the property owner to paint the building. She also pointed out that the Commission can require a 6-month review to ensure that it gets done. Amended Motion Giusti / Second Zemke to approve P03-0137 and UP03-0013 with the conditions as amended by Assistant City Attorney Johnson. Approved by majority voice vote. 1 Absent. 8. A T & T Wireless/Howard Yee-Applicant Cal Water Service Co.-owner Avalon Water Tank/ corner Avalon Drive & Canyon Ct. UP-00-025/MODl Continuec Use Permit Modification of a wireless communication facility consisting of the addition of 2 panel antennas bringing the site total to 4 panel antennas, 8 new amplifiers, mounted to an existing 14 foot tall monopole, increasing the tower height to 16 feet, and relocating the above ground equipment into an underground vault, S:\Minutes\Finalized Minutes\2004\02-19-04 RPC.doc Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2004 situated at a California Water Service Company storage tank on Avalon Drive near Canyon Court in a Single Family Residential (R-l-C-P) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report and noted that the City prefers Alternative 2 and does not replace them with larger antennas. Harold Yee, AT&T representative, noted that they propose to remove the two existing antennas and 4 antennas. He added that the antennas will be mounted 2 feet above the 14-foot pole, and ask that Condition of Approval #4 be modified to allow the antenna to project above the existing pole. He added that at the Community meetings they were not able to reach a solution that was acceptable to the neighbors. He felt that both alternatives are consistent with City policies. Public Hearing opened. Those speaking in opposition were: Romonie Rahjboy 63 Waverly Ct Edwina Wong 60 Waverly Ct John Chan 64 Waverly Ct Marge Sieux 11 Canyon Ct Weito Jaime 59 Waverly Ct Their comments were: · The neighborhood has opposed cellular antennas on site since they first became aware of them a couple of years ago. · In December 2002, a large cabinet was installed without City permits; · They noted that AT&T is responsible for an illegal addition to the site and they should be fined and denied per previously denied permits. If someone installs an illegal room, they are required by the City to either bring it up to code or tear down the illegal addition. AT&T should be fined for each day they have violated City requirements. AT&T should not be rewarded with enhancements. There may be health hazards for the elderly and others in the area being exposed to GMF emission on a daily basis. AT&T violated City requirements and if the Commission approves the Use Permit, they will set a precedent and other wireless companies may install antennas illegally. Public Hearing closed. Commissioners concerns: · The Commission cannot discuss health effects because it is pre-empted by federal law. · Alternative 2 is entirely consistent with the telecommunications ordinance and is aesthetically pleasing. · They were offended that the best in stealthing has not been adhered to. · How many cell sites are in the City? Senior Planner Carlson stated 20-30 sites. · The above ground equipment cabinets in Alternative 1 does not add anything to the environment and a redesign of the antenna's needed. · This application is not only to correct unauthorized installation of the cabinets, but to get additional panels. · The applicant is asking for more than what the Use Permit and the Conditions of Approval authorize. The Commission recommended that the proposal be worked on with staff and expedited to return to the Commission with a resolution or removal of the tank. Chief Planner Sparks stated that the Commission can start the Use Permit revocation process. He suggested continuing the item to April 15, 2004 to allow AT&T to work with staff. Commissioner Sim asked for a list of cell sites in the City. Senior Planner Carlson asked if the Commission would like to have another community meeting. They felt that a neighborhood meeting was not needed. Motion Teglia / Second Romero to refer the proposal to staff and have them work on option 2 with the applicant. They recommended a redesign of the antenna in keeping with telecommunicate ordinance. The item was continued to April 15, 2004. Approved by majority voice vote. 1 Absent. S:\Minutes\Finalized Minutes\2004\02-19-04 RPC.doc Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Items from Staff · Chief Planner Sparks noted that World Cup Soccer did not submit a sign program by the deadline and has opted to remove all signs rather than to provide a sign program. · Chief Planner Sparks suggested the following the City Clerk's approach to requiring names and addresses on speaker cards. He added that State law indicates that the Commission can't require these. He also noted that the Council has a 3-minute limit on speakers and asked if Commission would like to adopt these changes. The Commission agreed to the 3-minute speaker limit and changing the speaker cards. 10. Items from Commission Commissioner Romero asked that the Commission be notified when there are Community meetings. Assistant City Attorney Johnson asked that it all 7 members want to attend these meetings that the Chief Planner be notified. She explained that a special meeting would need to be noticed 24 hours before the meeting. This would prevent violation of the Brown Act. 11. Items from the Public None 12. Adjournment Motion Zemke / Second Giusti to adjourn the meeting. 10:54 P.M. mas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco << ' ~J () r {jAL(L~~i Rick Ochsenhirt, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting March 4, 2004, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA TCSjpc S:\Minutes\Finalized Minutes\2004\02-19-04 RPC.doc Page 7 of 7 JOHN M. WARD AND ASSOCIATES A Consulting Group 792 WILLBOROUGH PLACE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 342-0683 (FAX) 342-0977 Presentation to Planning Commission public bearing (appeal oftbe determination by tbe CbiefPlanner in denying tbe request by AGS Quality Linens for expansion) on February 19, 2004. Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission: I will now ask Michael Nilmeyer, the project architect, to present the proposed plans, after which I will provide the Commission with our case for appealing the determination of the Chief Planner. First and on behalf of the applicant, I want to thank the Planning staff for its assistance in processing this application, and although we respectfully disagree with the conclusions it reached, let me say that in my many years of having dealt with the department on various projects, the city is in deed fortunate to have a staff which operates with such a high degree of professionalism and integrity. In your packet you will find two pieces of correspondence from my firm (dated August 21 and October 17, 2003) outlining some of the history of this property, including its purchase by the applicant, the vacating of leased space by Chang Enterprises, a light industrial use, and how AGS proposes to utilize that vacant space under a proposed expansion plan. In the background statement, the staffreport states: "In July 2003, the applicant approached the Planning Staff with plans to expand her laundry business into a vacant tenant space adjacent to her current facility. . ." The impression is left that this business is a laundry that serves the general public, i. e. washes and dry cleans as its primary enterprise, when in fact that is not the case as I will attempt to demonstrate this evening. At the outset it becomes critical for us to establish a factual foundation which we believe is built upon the clear understanding that the laundry portion of this business operates solely for the purpose of cleaning linen table cloths, napkins and accessory items which are rented to the public, including local hotels, catering companies and other entities, plus individuals on a drop-in basis. The linens are generally delivered and picked up by AGS vehicles. As the photos will demonstrate (distributed at this time), the current operations are constrained in extremely tight quarters, making it very difficult to serve existing clientele, let alone an expanded retail operation for which there is clearly a market, even in this uncertain economy. Turning to page 2 of the staff report, a definition of "laundry services" under the current zoning ordinance is provided as follows: "establishments primarily engaged in the provision of laundering, dry cleaning, or dyeing services..." Again, this is not a fair or -2- accurate definition as applied to AGS, which is engaged in the rental and sale of quality linens, not laundering, dry cleaning or dyeing services. As mentioned above, due to severe limitations on space, it is virtually impossible to expand the sales side of the business with no showroom or even a table large enough to display the goods to a visiting public. Michael Nilmeyer has shown you the plans which propose a showroom and connected warehouse sales area. He also pointed out that contrary to the staff report, the laundry portion is not being expanded but that the square footage would essentially be relocated to a now vacant portion of the building and in closer proximity to other operations for purposes of efficiency. As Michael has pointed out, the square footages presented on page two of the staff report do not accurately reflect the proposed uses, particularly the 7,849 square feet of warehouse area for linen sales and rentals, which is not specifically mentioned, and would become integral to the showroom at the entrance to the building. In the final analysis, what we have here is virtually a chicken and egg situation as the current zoning district calls for retail commercial, yet if the staff's determination is upheld, AGS will not be allowed to expand its retail operation. We would contend that to deny AGS the opportunity to grow its retail business and simply lock in the status quo is contrary to the public interest and adverse to a private enterprise trying to expand in this most challenging economy. Under the no-expansion scenario, one must ask, "what happens to the currently vacant space within this 45,560 square foot building. Staff's determination is based on an interpretation of the zoning ordinance as applied to the applicant's request. In our view that determination is inappropriate because it assumes that AGS is running an industrial laundry plant similar to those which service linen and bedding from hotels and other visitor-serving facilities. AGS is operating a commercial enterprise not dissimilar to a furniture rental store or even a strictly retail appliance business, both of which require sufficient square footage within a building for storage or display of merchandise. The fact is the laundry portion does not produce income for the business, but is required to support the linen service which is what generates income. I would ask the Commission this question: why would the city not want to encourage a successful business enterprise in an area which is marginally retail at best, a business that would improve the environment on a landmark site at the corner of Linden and Hillside, on a well-traveled gateway to the downtown from Airport Boulevard? Witness the lack of progress with the private redevelopment across the street at Hillside Plaza, a commercial strip center, which until recently had been vacant more than two and a half years, prior to which a super market failed at that location. Further, in placing this request by AGS in a broader context, it is important to recognize that the current neighborhood reflects a diverse mix of light industrial, retail and residential uses as the attached Neighborhood Profile exhibit will demonstrate. -3- As a reference point in this discussion I would remind the Commission of its action in June of 1999 when the Chief Planner recommended denial of an appeal by Hoem- Schurba carpets for expansion of its building at 951 Linden just down the street from the subject property. The denial was overturned by the Commission which did not accept the argument advanced by staff, the same argument presented in the AGS case, that the predominant use of the site and proposed expansion was non-conforming in the C-l Retail Commercial Zone District. Hoem-Schurba is successful today because it was able to expand by adding new square footage to its remodeled building which stands out as one of the nicest, if not the nicest building along this gateway into the downtown business district. The staff report suggests that "if the subject business is allowed to expand the City may lose one of its final opportunities to realize" a General Plan policy related to encouraging the development of a new mixed-use neighborhood center with a supermarket at the corner of Hillside and Linden for the residents of Paradise Valley/Terrabay Planning Sub-Area. The Commission will want to assess whether it is realistic to assume that such a General Plan policy can be fulfilled on this site or the surrounding area in the next five to 10 years, even with the help of the redevelopment agency. If the city is serious about redevelopment of this site, the landowner is willing to negotiate the sale of the property to the city immediately. Of course, the city maintains the ability to acquire the property in the future when the time is right. In the meantime, why not allow AGS to upgrade the property, giving the rundown building a face lift with new landscaping and parking area to the rear to screen its vehicles from public view? It would seem to be in the public interest for the city to partner in that effort, at no cost to the taxpayers, with no use of limited redevelopment dollars now earmarked for other important projects in the community. The staff report points out that "much of the site is dilapidated and unkempt," but then asserts that allowing industrial uses to expand there could result in further neglect and hinder development." On the contrary, AGS, as owners of the building since early last year, desires to upgrade the property and correct the deficiencies noted above, while expanding its commercial operations and not, as the staff report suggests, expanding an industrial use. It would seem fair to ask the question, "where is the incentive for AGS to invest significant dollars in upgrading the building and grounds if its request to expand is denied by the city?" Further, how can the retail portion of its business be elevated without a showroom and adequate warehouse sales area for customers to view the wide range of goods available for sale or rental, without new signage to attract customers to a business which functions today with no signage and limited street presence on Hillside Boulevard, save for parked company vehicles. As you know from observing the building (referring again to the photo exhibit) the only access to AGS Linens is through metal rollup doors on Hillsdale. While acknowledging the applicant's new business plan incorporates a retail sales element, the staff report concludes that the business will continue as an industrial laundry -4- service as defined by the zoning ordinance. We would conclude by reiterating the point that to portray AGS Quality Linens as primarily an industrial laundry service is neither an accurate representation of the nature of its present business operations nor its intent to expand the retail component in the future. 248 Airport Blvd - comer of Linden Ave. 985 Linden Ave. 975 Linden Ave. 951 Linden Ave. 950 Linden Ave. 942 Linden Ave. 938 Linden Ave. 935 Linden Ave. 930 Linden Ave. 925 Linden Ave. 915 Linden Ave. 910-912 Linden Ave. 900 Linden Ave. Hillside Blvd. near Linden 244 Hillside Blvd. 250 Hillside Blvd. Hillside Plaza center 100 Arden on corner of Hillside Blvd. Comer of School and Hillside Blvd. Neighborhood Profile Johnny's Shell Service Station 2 single family homes (1 vacant and uninhabitable) Genesis Warehousing & Distribution Hoem-Schurba & Associates (Carpet Company) Corporate Care Midas Express Inc. Trucking Service (now vacant) Arts and Construction business now relocated to Forbes Avenue. Conexo Realty Services Bay Area Bus Repairs Standard Electric & Engineering Co. A and B are empty C - North Area/Mainland News D - Bayanihan Cargo International (Freight Services) Bay City Boiler and Engineering Bookbindery Company Drapery Company Single family residences Chavarria's Market Clear Water Car Wash AGS Quality Linens Gimbal's Candies SSF Wash & Dry Cafe Du Jour (vacant) New Hope Community Church Paradise Valley Recreation Center