03-10-04 Minutes - GPCTOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, MARCH 10, 2004 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm by Chair Michael Burke.
ATTENDANCE
Members present:, Barry Bakken, Michael Burke, Steve Glickman, Diane McNutt, Phil
Micciche, Mark Sgarlato, Morris Trevithick, Mark Weiner
Members absent: Josh Bacigalupi (excused)
Staff present: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Jennifer Castillo, Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ITEM 1 PERSONAL SERVICE BUSINESSES
Jennifer Castillo presented results of a community survey and alternatives for the Committee to
consider for regulation personal service businesses.
Bud Lortz answered a question about a written policy regarding protection of retail. Restaurant
regulations include a finding by Council that existing restaurants should remain where they are
and the number should stay about the same. New restaurants are looked at on a case by case
basis. Replacement of retail by other uses is discouraged. Office space on the ground floor
was also prohibited for the same reason (protection of retail). He reviewed the areas within the
Central Business District where offices on the ground floor can remain and where they are not
allowed.
Diane McNutt asked about converting office to retail. It is allowed.
Mike Burke asked about changing zoning rules and grandfathering of existing uses and allowing
nonconforming businesses to remain for specified time. Bud Lortz answered that amortization
periods set in 1976 allowed nonconforming businesses to remain for 20 years. The Town has
taken a conservative approach to doing this. In recent years when dealing with restaurants and
offices in the Downtown, the Town has not taken that approach. A secondary approach of not
allowing new businesses, or requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) so proposals can be
evaluated has been used more recently.
Mike Burke asked if an office leaving can be occupied by a new office (yes). He asked if a
personal service business goes out, can a new one be prohibited. Bud Lortz explained business
licenses and certificates of use and occupancy. If a personal service business is sold, the new
owner may continue to operate. Certificate of use and occupancy is a zoning approval and is
used to regulate new businesses, not business licenses.
Mike Burke asked if new PSB’s are regulated by CUP, if a new business will be required to get a
CUP even if replacing a PSB that has left the building or space. Bud Lortz explained that if a
business is sold, a CUP would not be required. If a business closes and a new one wants to
occupy the space, a CUP would be required so the operation can be evaluated and appropriate
conditions attached. Can usually turn a use permit around in 45-60 days.
Diane McNutt commented that the maps are very helpful, but they need to be accurate. She
requested that the discussion be structured.
Mike Burke agreed. He said there are two issues. One is how PSB’s should be regulated,
Moratorium, CUP or other, and what area should be covered by it.
Diane McNutt commented that personal service businesses need to be defined. Also need to
review why there is concern about them. From Council’s perspective, PSB’s do not generate
sales tax. If there are too many of them it interferes with the flow of retail as you go down the
street. PSB’s bring a lot of people into Town from all over the County, so that may result in
money being spent elsewhere. PSB’s also provide a service to residents.
Steve Glickman noted that a moratorium was put in place because there was a concern and time
was needed to allow staff and this Committee to study the issue. We haven’t come to the
conclusion that there is a problem, we just gave ourselves time and some breathing space.
Mike Burke asked if there was consensus that there is an issue. Steve Glickman said there are a
couple of issues. One is the total number of PSB’s in the Downtown area. Steve Glickman said
concentration is part of the issue.
Mark Weiner asked if the issue is traffic impact or is in perception and percentage o f business
type.
Diane McNutt said in terms of traffic there is no data that says PSB’s produce more, the same, or
less traffic.
Mike Burke said perhaps it could be framed that the number of PSB’s in the Downtown has
reached the point where they need to be regulated.
Morris Trevithick said if there isn’t sufficient concentration to support other buisnesses in Town.
Barry Bakken said in Los Altos PSB’s are required to be consistent with the village atmosphere.
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of March 10, 2004
Page 3 of 5
What is the mix we are looking for that makes Los Gatos a special place.
Steve Glickman said the concern was that the number of PSB’s may discourage people from
visiting certain areas or a particular street. He sees an issue with the Village Lane area and the
south end of Downtown. PSB’s attract people who come Downtown and spend money. He
suggested focusing on the areas of high concentration.
Diane McNutt said in terms of Village Lane, from a marketing point of view, that is where they
should be clustered. It is not a place where people naturally wander and might not support
retail. The little nooks and crannies that don’t lend themselves to viable retail are where they
should go.
Mike Burke commented on compatibility versus concentration. The CUP may be an appropriate
way to regulate. The number of PSB’s may be detracting from a full service Downtown.
Diane McNutt said her philosophy is the market will regulate PSB’s and the situation might
correct itself. There is a natural limit to the amount of business that can be supported.
Morris Trevithivk agreed with Diane’s comments.
Steve Glickman said if a number that is appropriate from the Town can be determined, the
number beyond that requires some special processing.
Diane McNutt commented that big spas are counted as one business but have a number of
components within them.
Mark Weiner commented on percentage and competiveness of businesses and
location/perception of visitors.
Diane McNutt said little places blend in better whereas a large businesses such as The Spa is
very visible and make a statement.
Mark Weiner suggested a focus on visibility and concentration. Areas such as Village Lane are
ok given the location.
Steve Glickman supports establishing an appropriate number of businesses where special process
kicks in.
Mark Sgarlato said he tends to walk in areas where there are stores he can shop in.
Phil Micciche discussed percentages for various types of businesses to provide the best mix for
the Downtown.
Mike Burke asked about costs of CUP’s and staff time. Bud Lortz said a CUP is about $3,500
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of March 10, 2004
Page 4 of 5
and there is no distinction between DRC or Planning Commission because they both require a
public hearing and public notice. He estimated that staff spends 20 hours on an application.
This discussion is so analogous to conversation we had for restaurants
Bud Lortz responded to a comment from Morris Trevithick that he has received comments from
business owners in the Downtown that hair salons can pay more per square foot than retail.
When rents are raised, PSB’s are more able to pay the higher rent.
Mike Burke said his opinion is the Council agreed to a moratorium because there was a concern.
He would rather be proactive than reactive and he doesn’t think proactive is a moratorium. He
would like to see controls in place proactively that say we want to have some input on where
PSB’s go and how they operate. Retail is so important to the Downtown that we need to be
cautious.
Diane McNutt asked if there is any way of generating fees from PSB’s. Bud Lortz said fees are
typically collected one time. He doesn’t see an ability to do it, but can consul t the Town
Attorney.
A CUP allows the Town to review and regulate a new business. Through that process we refine
our approach and it helps staff to guide people through the process.
Phil Micciche commented that the hair and nail salons seen to be the biggest problem.
Diane McNutt said she is not opposed to requiring a CUP on the main streets.
Barry Bakken said it is a good idea to limit PSB’s as it benefits the ones that are here. It allows
them to get the most from the services they provide and it maintains some structure to the
Downtown fabric.
Steve Glickman said we need to be sensitive to serving the needs of the people who live here.
He supported the moratorium because he thought there was a risk of impacting pedestrian traffic.
Is there some method that can be used to determine the appropriate number for the Downtown.
Bud Lortz said that if the approach is to use the CUP, that allows evaluation of a business based
on its locations and surrounding uses. Findings need to be made and one could be added
requiring that a business will not detract from the shopping/pedestrian experience.
Phil Micciche asked about the best method of setting up an ordinance. Bud Lortz said that
restaurant ordinance is probably the best model.
Mike Burke said the $3,500 fee for a CUP is reasonable compared to the cost to gain approval
and build a home in the Town. Properly applied, good zoning laws positively affect people’s
property value.
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of March 10, 2004
Page 5 of 5
In response to a question from Steve Glickman, Bud Lortz said that a CUP is required for a
restaurant all over Town. In addition, there is this uncodified language from the Council on
restaurants in the Downtown. He noted that the moratorium extends to August 1 and that
impacts new businesses trying to come into Town. Staff is trying to stay on track to beat that
deadline.
Mike Burke said the recommendation on the table is to follow the guideline of the restaurant
policy. There was Committee consensus.
Mike Burke asked for comments on areas to be regulated. Bud Lortz noted that businesses on
the second floor have not been a problem. He suggested using the map that shows ground floor
areas where a CUP is required for offices. There was Committee consensus on using the map.
Mike Burke said the remaining item is developing a definition. Bud Lortz said he is concerned
about differentiating between types of personal service businesses. The Los Altos example is
good other than that aspect and can be used as a model. The Committee agreed with this
approach.
ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Phil Micciche made a motion to approve the minutes of February 25, 2004 as submitted. The
motion was seconded by Mark Sgarlato and passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 pm by Chair Mike Burke. The next meeting of the General
Plan Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 5:00 pm.
Prepared By:
___________________________
Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\GENPLAN\GPC\2004minutes\GPC-3-10-04.wpd