The URL can be used to link to this page

Daniel Fama (2020-07-24)1 Daniel Fama From:Daniel Fama Sent:Friday, July 24, 2020 1:18 PM To:Christine Firstenberg Cc:Paul Kermoyan; Michael Thomas Subject:RE: Expanded Downtown Land Uses Hi Christine – I have provided specific responses to your comments, below. Before that, I wanted to express a couple of “global” thoughts. First, we recognize that what we are proposing is a novel approach to managing land use. By its very nature, the draft ordinance will require a fair amount of interpretation by the Community Development Director. However, when it doubt, the ordinance will be construed as to allow more uses, not fewer, since that is the clear intent of the City Council. However, should a disagreement arise over a specific business proposal, an applicant may appeal any interpretation to the Planning Commission (appeal fee is only $200). This recourse would compel staff to justify a particular determination and allow the Planning Commission to render its own judgment in consideration of both perspectives. Lastly, we do intend to monitor the efficacy of the new ordinance. The City Council has commented that it recognizes should issues arise, the ordinance can be modified or otherwise improved in the future. To some degree, this whole approach may very well prove to be iterative. Only time will tell.  Secondhand Dealer: In Downtown Campbell proper (within the loop streets that encircle Campbell Avenue), the ordinance is intentionally designed to prohibit sale of second‐hand merchandise. This was a logical conclusion of the City’s two‐decade practice of discouraging second‐hand stores in the Downtown. However, I do see the argument that retail is shifting and it may be time to differentiate between businesses whose sole focus is the sale of used merchandise versus those where it is only an ancillary component. This is an example of a change that may be warranted in the future should staff received multiple requests for these types of businesses. However, this prohibition does not apply to the “master plan” areas beyond the Historic Downtown, such Winchester Boulevard and East Campbell Avenue towards the Pruneyard, where “secondhand/thrift stores” would be allowable, as noted in Table 2‐11a. Incidentally, your comment did identify an inconsistency in the draft regarding second‐hand stores that needs to be corrected, so thank you!  Massage Establishment. The City did a comprehensive update to its massage regulations a few years ago. The Council decided to restrict massage establishments by zoning district (C‐2 – General Commercial only) and by geographical location (a limit per identified quadrant). As such, we did not revisit the permissibility of massage establishments as part of this endeavor. However, the ordinance does define “pedestrian‐oriented activity” as including “spa services/health spa”. This use allows massage, but in association with other personal services such as waxing, facials, skin‐care, etc. Therefore, massage is not entirely prohibited.  Assemblage Activity. Although one could make the argument that a retailer assembling items in the back of a shop could be excluded; in context the word “assembly” is contained as part of a larger clause that also prohibits the “…compounding, manufacturing or industrial processing of merchandise 2 or products.” Taken as a whole, this language conveys a principal use of a scale and purpose that exceeds what incidental assembling that a retailer may perform in their shop. As such, we would not prevent a business from performing assembling work in association with a “pedestrian‐oriented activity,” so long as it was clearly related and ancillary to the primary business activity. Paul’s successors would effectively be bound by this practice and precedent unless a change in factual circumstances justified a different determination.  Pet Stores. We believe that the definition of the “pedestrian‐oriented activity” supports an understanding that a pet store would be an allowable use, particularly because the City Council specifically added pet grooming and pet daycare to the allowable land use list. Also, if I recall correctly, I made a comment to the contrary at a City Council meeting, but the City Attorney later corrected me indicating a legal distinction between “harboring” animals and offering them for sale in a pet store. Sorry for the very lengthy response! I hope it was useful. Thank you again for the feedback, Christine. Daniel Daniel Fama Senior Planner City of Campbell | Community Development Department 70 N. First Street | Campbell, CA 95008 www.cityofcampbell.com | 408.866.2193 From: Christine Firstenberg <christine@cfirstenberg.com> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:52 PM To: Daniel Fama <danielf@campbellca.gov> Cc: Michael Thomas <michaelt@campbellca.gov>; Paul Kermoyan <paulk@campbellca.gov> Subject: RE: Expanded Downtown Land Uses Sounds good. Thank you. Christine Firstenberg Lic # 00973135 Metrovation Retail Resources, Principal Lic #02108374 925-381-8666 christine@cfirstenberg.com http://metrovationretailresources.com 3 From: Daniel Fama <danielf@campbellca.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:14 PM To: Christine Firstenberg <christine@cfirstenberg.com> Cc: Michael Thomas <michaelt@campbellca.gov>; Paul Kermoyan <paulk@campbellca.gov> Subject: RE: Expanded Downtown Land Uses Hi Christine – Thank you very much for the detailed feedback. Please give me a little time to review and I’ll follow up. Daniel Daniel Fama Senior Planner City of Campbell | Community Development Department 70 N. First Street | Campbell, CA 95008 www.cityofcampbell.com | 408.866.2193 From: Christine Firstenberg <christine@cfirstenberg.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:39 PM To: Daniel Fama <danielf@campbellca.gov> Cc: Michael Thomas <michaelt@campbellca.gov>; Paul Kermoyan <paulk@campbellca.gov> Subject: Expanded Downtown Land Uses Hi Daniel: Thank you again being available to answer some questions for me. After reading thru the document, I want to compliment the writers. It was a very complete and well done report. If I were a council person, I would have appreciated the in‐depth look at the other cities and the technical comparisons. A few words in the section where you talk about “Incompatible Uses” gave me pause though, and I thought I would ask about the thinking behind those words. I realize you started this process a few years ago, and the world has certainly changed since then. So my questions/comments are different now than they would have been a few years back. My questions/comments today are focused on what all our cities will be dealing with over the next few years‐ after a Covid devastated retail environment and possibly more downtown vacancy. Under “Incompatible Activities” 5th Section‐ “secondhand dealer”‐ currently, this is one of the fastest growing sections of the apparel industry. Nordstrom and Macy’s have begun divisions for “consignment” clothing. You may want to tighten this up to 4 disallow uses like Salvation Army or Goodwill. But I would certainly try and find a way to allow “consignment” stores. 7th Section‐ does Massage Envy require a “massage establishment” permit? Massage Envy (and other competitors) is a service that many people love and is growing in popularity in all cities around the Bay Area. If indeed this section disallows a reputable massage store like Massage Envy, and that was not the Council’s intent, let me know and we can find some words that will be more specific and do what the Council want. 11th Section‐As you probably know, especially during and after Covid, everyone is more comfortable ordering goods and services online. Many small retailers have to “assemble” product in the back of their stores to send them out. This word is very open to interpretation. I doubt you would want a great tenant to be turned away from your downtown just because they assemble some of their product within their store for mail out. Again, simply re‐defining what you don’t want more clearly will help avoid a possible misunderstanding in the future. 12th Section‐ Would the word “harboring” disallow a Pet store? Otherwise, I am very impressed at your work. And believe it is a wonderful example for other cities to learn from. Thank you for sharing it with me and allowing me to share it with the ICSC Public/Private Partnership. Christine Firstenberg Lic # 00973135 Metrovation Retail Resources, Principal Lic #02108374 925-381-8666 christine@cfirstenberg.com http://metrovationretailresources.com From: Daniel Fama <danielf@campbellca.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 4:22 PM To: Christine Firstenberg <christine@cfirstenberg.com> Cc: Michael Thomas <michaelt@campbellca.gov>; Paul Kermoyan <paulk@campbellca.gov> Subject: RE: Yesterdays SVEDA Webinar Hi Christine – You may call me if you have questions. Daniel 5 Daniel Fama Senior Planner City of Campbell | Community Development Department 70 N. First Street | Campbell, CA 95008 www.cityofcampbell.com | 408.866.2193 From: Christine Firstenberg <christine@cfirstenberg.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:19 PM To: Paul Kermoyan <paulk@campbellca.gov> Cc: Daniel Fama <danielf@campbellca.gov>; Michael Thomas <michaelt@campbellca.gov> Subject: RE: Yesterdays SVEDA Webinar Thanks Paul. I will review. If I have questions or need some clarification, may I call you? Christine Firstenberg Lic # 00973135 Metrovation Retail Resources, Principal Lic #02108374 925-381-8666 christine@cfirstenberg.com http://metrovationretailresources.com From: Paul Kermoyan <paulk@campbellca.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:24 AM To: Christine Firstenberg <christine@cfirstenberg.com> Cc: Daniel Fama <danielf@campbellca.gov>; Michael Thomas <michaelt@campbellca.gov> Subject: RE: Yesterdays SVEDA Webinar Hi Christine – Thank you for your comments and I appreciated the conversation as well. Staff has been working on this topic for several years so I’ve compiled a list of meeting agendas (see links below) that include many of the previously prepared staff reports and background information. The next meeting is August 18 where the Council should make their final decision of adding more land uses in the Downtown as a way to allow the market to control land use. Staff certainly would not mind you sharing this idea with others. Of course, it hasn’t been tested yet but the thought process has value for others to consider. Thanks again and take care. https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08152017‐1597 – August 15, 2017 Council Meeting Item 12 6 https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05152018‐1737 – May 15, 2018 Council Meeting Item 18 https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07032018‐1755 – July 3, 2018 Council Meeting Item 5 https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02182020‐2049 – February 18, 2020 Council Meeting Item 11 Paul Kermoyan, AICP Community Development Director City of Campbell | Community Development Department 70 N. First Street | Campbell, CA 95008 www.cityofcampbell.com | 408.866.2141 From: Christine Firstenberg <christine@cfirstenberg.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:51 AM To: Paul Kermoyan <paulk@campbellca.gov> Subject: Yesterdays SVEDA Webinar Hi Paul: It was really great to hear some of your ideas on yesterdays SVEDA call. You mentioned that the City had actually added permitted uses for their downtown as a way to discourage so many restaurants from locating there. Can you tell me what document that change is in so I can look at it? And would you mind me suggesting this technique to other cities I speak to, via ICSC P3, if other cities in the Western States are experiencing similar issues? Christine Firstenberg Lic # 00973135 Metrovation Retail Resources, Principal Lic #02108374 925-381-8666 christine@cfirstenberg.com http://metrovationretailresources.com