AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

09/2'3/2002 14:49 FAX ~]007/012 I0'~''~'' ~ Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Malloz~ LLP Mayor Richard S. Claire Vice Mayor Jeff Ira September 23, 2002 Page 6 The StaffReport admits that Innovations received instruction from the Planning Department prior to issuance of the Building Permit. Planning Staff told Innovations that the location must be "primary retail sales." Based upon this insm~ction and the language of the CBR Zoning Disu'iet "Retail" definition, Innovations had no way to know that its CosmoProf use would not meet the Planning Department insu-uctlon or the zoning code de£mition. Thus, contacting the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the building permit did not prevent this unfair situation; it created it. ConU'ary to the implication in the Staff Report, it was not CosmoProf that misled the City; it was the City that misled CosmoProf--p~rhaps unintentionally. (b) CusmoProf Promotes Pedestrian Activity. The Staff Report erroneously concludes that because CosmoProf customers must be licensed cosmetologLsts or salon representatives, that CosmoProf's 300 to $00 weekly customers are not pedestrians. Pedestrian activity is foot traffic along downtown Redwood City streets, patronizing downtown Redwood City businesses. That is the very activity CosmoProf will bring to downtown Redwood City--pedestrian customers that currently do not come to downtown Redwood City. It is not the policy of the City that an off-duty police officer or Sheriffs deputy who buys a uniform shirt and patches from the downtown uniform store is not a pedestrian. The general public caunot buy such items, nor can unlicensed security officer by certain uniform equipment. To distinguish between police and security credentials and cosmetologist's credentials, allowing a store serving the former group but prohibiting a store serving the latter group, is arbitrary and even discriminatory. ' (c) CosmoProf is Consistent with' the PurPose of the CBR District. The Staff Report concludes without any supporting evidence that CosmoProf is inconsistent with the purpose of the CBR Zoning District. Yet, there is ample evidence to the contrary. As previously stated, CosmoProf will contribute directly to the "retail vitality and economic base of the downtown area" by drawing 300 to 500 pedestrian customers to the area every week. CosmoProf will "ser~e the needs of Redwood City residents, businesses, and workers" by providing an essential line of produets to all the cosmetologists and salons in Redwood City, i.e., businesses and workers in Redwood City. Furthermore. ~'ecause CosmoProfs out-of-town customers typically shop in the area o~ se Costa ' fstc-~-z, they will have a synergistic and beneficial effect on many downtown area ztauram she (d) The Vast Majority of CusmoProf's Customers Are End-Users.