Paul Kermoyan (2018-07-03)1
Daniel Fama
From:Paul Kermoyan
Sent:Tuesday, July 3, 2018 1:07 PM
To:Brian Loventhal; Margarita Mendoza
Cc:Daniel Fama
Subject:Gibbons' Responses
Hi Brian and Margarita – Below are responses to Council Member Gibbons’ many comments. Please let Daniel
and I know if you need greater clarification.
Email Responses
1. Is the intent of the new land use designation to utilize three tables: one from the staff report; another
for definitions and a third to clarify definitions?
The intent is to structure a revised C‐3 Zoning District chapter that incorporates the “Land Use Table
– C‐3 Zoning District” table along with the new definitions for "Incompatible Activities" and
"Pedestrian‐Oriented Activities” land use terms. The colored land use comparison
(existing/proposed) table will not be adopted, as it was produced for illustration purposes.
2. The existing and proposed table is helpful. Going forward it might simply a list "Incompatible" or
Pedestrian Oriented" uses because the Land Use Table for C‐3 identifies location and both as
"Permitted" or requiring a Conditional Use Permit. This might help prevent conflicting information
between the tables.
Since the colored land use comparison (existing/proposed) table will not be a component of the
zoning text amendment, there is no potential for a conflict between the two tables.
3. What happens to existing uses? There appears to be an inconsistency of some existing uses becoming
legal non‐conforming; other become allowed or not allowed? See paragraph L in the C3 zoning
doc. see annotations attached.
They would be restricted as any other non‐conforming use; they could not physically expand or
intensity their activities, but otherwise could remain.
4. Council has discussed allowing and exception for designated historic buildings, particularly from the
requirement to have transparent walls and pedestrian‐oriented businesses on the ground floor. A law
firm had been identified for the 'Gaslighter' but was denied.
Although the Council had discussed this topic, it was discussed on the false premise that the City
would mandate alterations of an historic building to accommodate storefront windows. The
Campbell Municipal Code does not compel such improvements nor would staff encourage the
destruction of an historic building. It should be noted, to the contrary, that there are provisions that
already provide allowance for preservation of historic buildings within the Building Code as well as
the newly adopted Historic Preservation Ordinance. As such, there is no need to provide additional
consideration for historic buildings. As a matter of clarification to the belief that a law firm proposal
2
to occupy the Growers National Bank was denied, that is an incorrect statement. No such denial
occurred.
5. Many uses are limited to ground levels, might many pedestrian orient uses also be viable on the
second level or above?
Perhaps, but many of these businesses rely on passersby, which would necessitate ground‐floor
placement. Also, fundamental and basic urban planning principles and practices strongly encourage
pedestrian oriented uses at the pedestrian level, which typically means on the ground.
6. How address Paragraphs B.2‐3 and C.6 in new approach?
The new approach would not maintain the current placement restriction (50‐feet from the Campbell
Avenue property line) for studios, tutoring centers, spas, offices, and personal services.
7. Why would residential on second level and above require CUP vs simply allowed, but
not as Ministerial approval. Any others might require similar clarification?
Residential is currently a conditional use. The Council could change this to a permitted use, although
the design of the building would still be subject to site and architectural review.
8. Caution may be required when identifying terms differently in several tables 'Pet stores' may be
allowable as just retail, but with live animals or grooming prohibited?
Pet stores, including grooming, would be allowed so long as they do not breed, harbor, raise, or train
the animals, which would constitute an incompatible use.
9. How handle a business after application that is subsequently determined to be undesirable?
As noted in the report, this is a risk. The only recourse would be revocation of the business license.
Pursuant to CMC 5.01.145, the grounds for revocation are a rather high bar:
1. When the continuance of the operations of the licensee under such license shall be contrary
to the public health, safety, peace, welfare and morals;
2. The violation of any of the penal provisions of this title, or any other applicable law;
3. The misrepresentation of a material fact by any applicant in obtaining any license under this
title;
4. The plea, verdict, or judgment of guilty to any public offense involving moral turpitude
charges against the licensee;
5. The conduct of the business constitutes a public nuisance, or is otherwise illegal, improper or
disorderly.
Items not addressed, but may be appropriate to consider rather than revise yet again. The continue utilization
of the Downtown Plan influences this decision.
3
1. Conversion of existing commercial to restaurant
The new approach would no longer draw a distinction between retail and restaurant, since both
would be consider “pedestrian‐oriented” uses. Over the last 5 ½ years it appears that the Council
came to a conclusion to the number of restaurants is not a concern.
2. Parking requirements for new uses
3. Parking for restaurants ‐ new or converted
4. Parking in‐lieu fee
This approach would likely require that “pedestrian‐oriented activities” would not be subject to a
parking standard, in much the same way that retail and restaurant uses today are not subject to a
parking standard. Since new parking cannot be physically be provided, applying a parking standard
would have the effect of prohibiting certain uses.
If the Council wants to address parking in the Downtown, a comprehensive downtown parking
demand study should be funded. This would lay the groundwork for a parking fee or perhaps a
parking assessment.
5. Signage
This had been discussed in previous report. The draft ordinance will include new provisions for A‐
frames, menu signs, larger wall signs, and increased size/number of projecting/blade signs.
6. Applicability/Revisions of the Downtown Plan ‐ clarify boundaries.
As currently contemplated, the C‐3 “land use” changes would apply to the C‐3 Zoning District proper
as well as within the boundaries of the East Campbell Avenue Plan and Winchester Blvd Master Plan.
For example, Section V of the East Campbell Plan states that Permitted and Conditionally Permitted
land uses shall conform to the C‐3 Zone District. Section IV of the Winchester Plan has the same
language. With that said, the ability to distinguish between land uses in the Downtown proper
(consistent with the Downtown Master Plan) and the two outlining Planning Areas is simple to
structure within the C‐3 Zoning Ordinance. All other aspects of the East Campbell and Winchester
Blvd. Plans (i.e., development policies, public improvements, vision concept, pedestrian
improvements, development standards, design guidelines, etc) would remain untouched. The focus
would be on land uses only.
Staff Report Responses
Page 21 ‐ Sale of Vintage Items v Second‐Hand: As currently presented, the sale of all pre‐owned
merchandise would not be allowed. It would take additional research to determine the
legality/constitutionality of creating a distinction between vintage/antique items marketed in terms of
their era/origin versus newer items that have simply been previously owned.
4
Page 22 – Studios (3rd/Orchard): Studios (yoga, Pilates, Barr, etc.) are increasingly common
businesses that Campbell citizens appear to desire, and which would seem appropriate in the
Downtown.
Page 22 – Arcade definition: Arcades are defined in CMC Ch. 5.30. There’s also a limit of three arcades
for the City. We currently only have one (LvLUP).
Page 22 – Historic Buildings. See previous answer on Zoning Exceptions.
Page 23 – Shoes, framing, appliances?. These business types would likely be classified as pedestrian‐
oriented and be allowed.
Page 23 – Pop‐up. Pop‐up uses will be addressed in a Temporary Use Permit Ordinance the PC initiated
last month.
Page 23 – Wine bar and sales. Wine bar are classified as “liquor establishments” which would continue
to be conditionally allowed.
Page 23 ‐ Outdoor retail sales and activities definition. The Zoning Code already includes a definition
for this use.
Page 23 – OPAs/Liquor Establishment. The upper floors of the Opa expansion are already restricted to
office use.
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