The city of Campbell’s planning staff has started their homework on what zoning districts should allow tutoring centers.

At its May 22 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners voted unanimously to initiate a zoning code text amendment to establish large and small tutoring centers as a conditional use in the professional office zoning district, and to prohibit tutoring centers in the C-2, or general commercial zoning district.

Associate Planner Stephen Rose, who brought the issue to the commission, said that Campbell hasn’t reviewed the definitions, parking standards or land-use designations for tutoring centers since the council adopted the ordinance in 2011. Campbell’s municipal code currently allows tutoring centers as a conditional use in the C-2 zoning district, which is the city’s main sales tax generating district.

“We have general plan policy that requires the city to really think about the economic consequences when we’re establishing land uses,” Community Development Director Paul Kermoyan told the commission. “Why wouldn’t it be allowed in professional offices, but it’s allowed in an area where we’re really trying to realize sales tax revenue?”

Rose said one of the sparks for bringing the issue to the commission was that a tutoring center had contacted the Planning Department about leasing office space at 100 E. Hamilton Ave.. However, the location is zoned planned development and has a professional office land use designation.

“What staff found particularly interesting in this case was that while the use (was) prohibited at 100 E. Hamilton Ave, it could have been supported or allowed through a conditional use permit process on any one of the adjoining properties in the central commercial zoning district,” Rose said. “The general commercial zoning district is really intended for these types of land uses which focus or need a little bit of a higher traffic volume.”

While planning staff was looking toward the commissioners to initiate the amendment – since they’re the only other body besides council that can do so – staff also wanted to gather feedback on the scope of the future review. The staff report documented that part of the review would include the study of the impact the amendment would have on existing land uses and the analysis of the definitions of tutoring centers and its parking requirements.

Commissioner Cynthia Dodd asked staff to broaden the review slightly and record how many tutoring centers are currently in each zoning district along with their size and the amount of space they occupy.

Commissioner Andrew Rivlin said he was particularly concerned about the definitions and overlap between a tutoring center and a school.

“We’ve had things brought before the commission that dealt with private tutoring and schools and not that we can get exactly black and white, but (I’d like) that the grey area is minimized,” Rivlin said.

Rose responded that there was in fact some overlap between the definitions of a school and a tutoring center and that it would be taken into account as staff tightened up the definitions. But it was Commissioner Maggie Ostrowski who asked staff to come back with the pros and cons of leaving the commercial zoning district open for tutoring centers.

Kermoyan said that if desired, they could structure the ordinance to allow tutoring centers in the commercial zoning district as long as it existed in an office building.

If the commission decided to bar tutoring centers in the commercial zoning district, Rose said that it would not affect existing centers unless the business was looking at expansion.

“Our focus is on the intensification of the non-conforming land use,” he said. “Those are usually related to hours or faculty or kids.”

Staff will conduct the review, as directed by the commission, and will return at a later date with the textual changes.