Correspondence about site - 2017November 1, 2017
The City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: 920 S. McGlincy Lane
Dear Bill
I'd like to set up a meeting with. you and appropriate members of
the City's building. and planning departments to discuss the above- '
referenced property in the. M-1 zone, which my.client, Blue Arc Electric,
recently purchased. Here's a brief chronology, as best as I can put
one together with incomplete documentation:
• ~ Quite _a long. time ago: a residential structure was built on this
" site.
• Pre-2004: the house and property are being used for industrial
. purposes. I don't know how far before 2004 this occurred.
There are Google.Earth images from 2003 clearing showing
industrial use of the property, but no clear images before that
. time. I haven't yet researched Polk directories, phone books
etc. to'see how far back businesses are listing this address as -
fheirlocation. ~ ' -
• -2008 --City adopts Chapter 21.'10 of zoning code. There are a
number of amendments between then and 2017. Section
21.10.080.0:14 of current code requires a CUP to convert
William Seligmann, City Attorney
November 1, 2017
Page 2
• residential to industrial use. I don't yet know when that requirement first
appeared in the zoning code. • •
• Oy 2009 -City is .aware that the property is. being used for industrial purposes
and has delivered to the then owner an Intent to Record a Notice of Violation.
• 2009 -Owner appeals (Michael Stone was representing the owner), but then
agrees to hold the appeal while they try to ~^rork out a resolution with the City. .
• .7/2010 - Ovaner submits a development application for a use permit to ~.
legalize the change in use (this appears to be the- path to resolution agreed to
. by the City and owner).. - _. - _ __ ~ _... ._._ _._ _..
• 8/2011 -Owner does not carry through with the, application, and it expires.
• Post 8/2011 -City does not complete the process it started with the Intent to
Record a Notice of Violation, by. recording a Notice of Violation.
• 2017 - My client meets with a Campbell planner (a woman whom they would
. recognize (she had .straight, dark hair), but did not write down her name) as
~~ part of their due diligence of the potential purchase of,this property. She
looked up the site on the City computer, confirmed the M-1 zoning, confirmed
-the allowable industrial uses, discussed their particular intended use of the
_ house as an office and construction of a new warehouse building, and told
them regarding the latter that no plumbing would be required so long as the
warehouse was not occupied. The planner did not disclo_ se anything about .
the alleged violation issues described above.
• Later. in 2017 - In reliance on that meeting, my clients'purchased the
property, ignorant of any potential violations. Recently, they Carrie to the City
offices to start the process for the warehouse permit: They met~with Stephen
Rose, who, in looking at the property information on the City computer, saw
the 2009 activity described above and disclosed it to my client. It now
appears that it may cost hundreds of thousands®f dollars to bring the•
property into compliance,. including the cost of plumbing to.the warehouse,
which my client is now being told, it would need.
My client is not looking for a fight, but needs a reasonable resolution -the
costs associated with these requirements being described by the City would be far
more than the business can bear and as a result, they would lose the small business
that for~the last 15 years has sustained them and their families.
William Seligmann, City Attorney ~ - ~ November 1, 2017. .
Page 3
There are a couple of issues that I believe will play a role in our discussion.
First, is the industrial use of this property grandfathered in?~ If the conversion
occurred before City code required a use permit for. such conversions, then it'is, in
which case, we'd need Ito discuss what if any city approvals are needed for a-new
owner. Second, what is the effect of the City not_ recording the Notice of Violation, '
and not disclosing. the alleged violation known to the City when my client met with
the City planner prior to purchasing the property? Here, I'm not looking to engage
. you. in a debate about' legal liability. Rather, I'm hoping to focus on an .equitable
.resolution in light-of these facts, and in particular a resolution that would focus on
. • real health and safety issues (if there are any) associated with my client's intended
use of the property.
• I realize this is a bit to digest, and you'll need to do a bit of research. What 1'd
• ask is that we set up a meeting now for the end of the week of November 13, so you
- ,have the time you need to work on this internally, but we have.the meeting on •
calendar before everyone's schedules get booked.
- ~ I'll~look forward to hearing back from you with a suggested time and date for
• the meeting soon. ~ - .
' Very,truly yours, ~ ,
BARYON HECHTMAN ~ ~ ~ ~ '
ca .Chet Barraclough
Jared Kroner
.. ~.
• `f:lCllentslBlue Arc Elect»clCorrespondencelSeligman 90.31.17.doc