AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

, , lO.E-12 2. The proposed use must serve the stated purpose of Article 26;' and 3. The proposed use must be one identified as a permitted, accessory or conditional use under Article 26. Thus, even assuming that a business was a retail use as defined by section 2.17 of the Municipal Code, and assuming further that it would "serve the needs of Redwood City residents, businesses, and workers," if said business has not been listed or cannot meet any of the other requirements set forth in Article 26, said business may not be located within the CBR district. With respect to the question of whether the definition of "retail business" means a business which collects sales tax, no such reference is contained within section 2.17. Said section focuses upon land uses which sell "directly to the cc'~suc~er" and not the act of collecting a tax; thus, under section 2.17, a "retail business" could include businesses that do not collect sales tax on all of its consumer transactions. Further support for this position can be found in that the ordinance has specifically excluded a particular land use (sellers of lumber) from being a retail business despite such businesses having a duty to collect sales tax on its consumer transactions. Analysis Initially, it is emphasized that this office offers no opinion as to what may be in the best interest of downtown Redwood City; or what land use planning policies are in the City's best interest; or whether locating appeilant's business in the CBR district would be in the City's best interest. Such issues lie outside the confines of this opinion. Therefore, the following is limited to the legal issues raised and addresses each of the topical headings of appellant's September 23, 2002 correspondence in the order they appear. For purposes of simplicity, the term "appellant" is being used herein to refer to both Innovations--Successful Salon Services, Inc. (correspondence of September 23, 2002) and Cosmoprof Professional Salon Center (business license application). 1. Appellant's proposed use is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Redwood City General Plan Appellant's arguments are offered to demonstrate compliance with the City's General Plan but do not address the legal standing of appellant as a permitted use in the CBR district. Whether appellant does or does not meet the policies, goals, and objectives of the City's General Plan is not the issue before the City Council. Rather, the appropriate question is whether the proposed land use is permitted within the CBR district as set forth in Article 26 of the Municipal Code. Appellant's arguments are not responsive to this question. 2. Appellant will contribute to the revitalization of Downtown and the goals of the Downtown Area Plan PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Council.lnnova§ons 2