Item 25 Staff Report Consider Report on Analysis of Downtown RestaurantTOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 13, 1994
TO: MAYOR AND TO COUNCJL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REPORT ON ANALYSIS OF DOWNTOWN RESTAURANTS
COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 4/18/94
ITEM NO. also'
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Identify the reasons restaurants should be restricted downtown;
2. Determine what categories of restaurants should be restricted;
3. Direct staff to prepare a policy concerning restaurants downtown;
4. Determine that existing legislation is adequate to implement Council policy.
BACKGROUND:
Some Councilmembers have suggested that there are enough restaurants in the downtown and something
should be done to limit them. The reasons expressed by Council for limiting restaurants vary among each
Councilmember including:
Increasing traffic problems
• Creating a "destination" downtown rather than a resident serving downtown.
• Losing a mixture of retail uses
• Late night businesses adjacent to residential
• Restaurants ability to pay higher rents squeeze out other uses.
• Loss of retail frontage to restaurants
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMANV; --'
PLANNING DIRECTOR
LEB: KH:sm
SM06\CNCLRPTS\DOWNTOWN. RES
ATTACHMENTS: (See Page 3 for list of Attachments)
DISTRIBUTION: Chamber of Commerce, PO Box 1820, Los Gatos 95031
4/13/94 3:54 pm
File N
Reviewed by: /Attorney Clerk Finance Treasurer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REPORT ON ANALYSIS OF DOWNTOWN RESTAURANTS
April 13, 1994
DISCUSSION:
The commercial areas of the Downtown are defined by the Downtown Specific Plan to be generally along
Santa Cruz and University Avenues from Main Street to Blossom Hill Road, the length of Main Street, and
along Los Gatos Boulevard from Main Street to Caldwell Avenue (see Attachment 1). Within that geographic
area, there are 67 restaurants, including bars that fall into five categories as defined for traffic generation
purposes. Each category has its own qualities. A break down is as follows:
1. Specialty restaurants would include yogurt, muffin, donut and pastry shops and alike.
While the Town's broad definition of restaurant includes these uses, for traffic reasons they
are treated as specialty retail because they do not serve meals. Examples of these uses
downtown are TCBY Yogurt, Double Rainbow Ice Cream and Suzanne's Muffins, all on N.
Santa Cruz Avenue. Sometimes the line can be blurred as to when a specialty restaurant
moves into another category.
Characteristics Generally occupy small spaces, do not serve alcohol and generally do not
stay open late night; caters to all groups of people.
2. Fast Food restaurants include the fast food chains such as McDonald's, Burger King and
Taco Bell restaurants. Places such as Juicy Burgers or the small Andale' Taqueria may be
similar in make-up but they do not generate nearly the traffic as a chain fast food
establishment because they occupy much smaller spaces than a traditional fast food
operation. There are no fast food restaurants downtown.
Characteristics: Highest traffic generators of any use; do not serve alcohol; can be open
late and occupy average size spaces; caters to all groups of people but
patronized most often by teenagers.
3. High Turnover Sit-down restaurants includes a broad range of eating establishments
including Andale Taqueria, Baker's Square, C.B. Hannegan's, Willow Street Pizza, Swenson's
and Southern Kitchen. Most restaurants downtown fall into either this category or the
specialty category.
Characteristics: The second highest traffic generators after fast food; generally accompanied
by alcoholic beverage service; can have late night hours and can occupy
larger than average spaces; caters to all groups of people; a separate bar
will attract a late night crowd that may require police services occasionally.
4. Quality Sit-down restaurants include Valeriano's Ristorante, PigaIle's, Los Gatos Brewing
Co and the Chart House.
Characteristics: Is the lowest traffic generator among restaurants; generally serves alcohol,
can be open late night and need larger than average spaces; caters to a
more sophisticated group; a separate bar will attract a late night crowd but
generally does not require police services.
5. Bars. This category includes stand alone bars like Carry Nations, Blackwatch and Mt.
Charley's
Characteristics: No food service. Caters to the younger adult. Frequently requires police
service.
Once Council has determined the kinds of establishments it wants to restrict, it needs to determine what
method to employee to restrict them. On February 16, 1994 the Town Attorney issued a memo to Council
identifying alternative methods for restricting restaurants (see Attachment 2). The Town currently has in
place policies and regulations addressing restaurant and bar uses.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REPORT ON ANALYSIS OF DOWNTOWN RESTAURANTS
April 13, 1994
Commercial Plan Report
In May, 1991 Council accepted a report from the Commercial Specific Plan Committee that included
recommendations for restaurants downtown. The recommendations were based on a market study that
said the downtown could support six to 10 new full service restaurants. Section I.2.(e) of the Commercial
Plan Report states that quality restaurants downtown should be encouraged. The report also recommends
easing standards to make it easier for restaurants to be allowed. While standards have not been modified
to make it easier for restaurants, the number of restaurants have increased due to market demand.
Conditional Use Permits
In 1977, the Town amended the Zoning Ordinance to require Conditional Use Permits for all restaurants.
By making the approval of restaurants a discretionary action, it gave the Town the authority to either deny
an application if it was not in the best interest of the community, or conditionally approve an application to
ensure the operation was compatible with the area. With each application, findings are required to show
that the proposed use is not detrimental to the public health, safety and public welfare.
Traffic Policy
Any change in use that generates a net increase of five peak hour trips, can only be approved under a
finding of community benefit. Because restaurants are high traffic generators, most restaurants can not
be approved without this finding. The exception to this rule is the specialty restaurant because this category
is treated like a retail use for traffic purposes. The specialty restaurants generally fall under a Minor
Restaurant Permit (less than 25 seats, no alcohol and no traffic increase) and can be approved by the
Development Review Committee.
Parking
The Parking Assessment District has in effect restricted land uses downtown. Parking credits for each
property are fixed. Many of the parking credits were based on a retail use of the building. When the
parking requirements are converted from a retail use to restaurant use, the number of seats that can be used
are not nearly enough to financially support the restaurant. Example: When Wolf Computers went out of
business, the Town received inquiries about opening a restaurant. The building is approximately 5,000
square feet, with a parking credit of 17 spaces (one parking space for each 300 square feet). A restaurant
occupying all 5,000 square feet could only have 68 seats (four seats for each parking space). It is not
profitable to have 68 seats in 5,000 square feet. The exception to this rule is for the smaller restaurants
(generally under 1,000 square feet) that depend more heavily on take out than on sit down business.
Alcoholic Beverage Policy
The newly adopted Alcoholic Beverage Policy makes it very difficult for any new restaurants proposing
alcoholic beverage service. Also, it is not likely that there will be any new bars downtown.
CONCLUSION:
If Council would like to limit the number of downtown restaurants, it should identify the reasons restaurants
should be restricted downtown and what categories of restaurants should be restricted. A policy similar to
the Alcoholic Beverage Policy that clearly states the Town's position will give the public adequate notice of
the kinds of restaurants that are and are not encouraged. The policy should include the goals to be
achieved by discouraging a particular use and the reasons those uses are not in the best interest of the
public health, safety and welfare.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REPORT ON ANALYSIS OF DOWNTOWN RESTAURANTS
April 13, 1994
FISCAL IMPACT:
Restricting the number of restaurants downtown will likely decrease the sales tax revenue an unknown
amount.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map of Downtown
2. Copy of Memo from Town Attorney to Council dated February 16, 1994.
3. Restaurant list in Downtown
NTRIDUCTII
a)
q)
CD
ca
M
N
•rl
V)
a)
4.)
4.)
0,
b0
O
r-4
ATTACHMENT
MEMORANDUM
COPY
DATE: February 16, 1994
TO: Mayor and Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, Town Attorney
SUBJECT: Regulation of Restaurant Uses in Downtown Area
This memorandum is intended to provide a brief introduction to possible approaches
for regulating the number or other occupancy measurements of restaurants in the
Downtown area.
Generally, the Town has the authority to regulate uses through both the General
Plan and its Zoning Code. Restaurants do not implicate First Amendment rights, and
therefore, regulation can be quite expansive.
Before considering a specific approach, the Town must identify the reasons for
regulation. The pending application for adjustment of the retail requirement to allow office
use on certain sidestreets in the Downtown is an example of a thoughtful study of a similar
issue.
Among concerns that I have heard articulated regarding restaurants uses in the
Downtown are:
-- Proximity of residential areas to business districts
-- Increasing traffic problems
-- Late night business and commensurate crime and disturbance
-- Creating an arcade atmosphere
-- Creating a destination
-- Ensuring a full range of businesses to serve local needs
-- Shifting from a focus on the local community to more tourist orientation
-- Increasing property values that excludes other uses
-- Fiscal implications (costs vs. revenues) of businesses on Town/government services
-- Losing a mixed retail base
ATTACHMENT
The following approaches are among those possible:
A. Limiting the percent or length of street frontage that can be devoted to
restaurant use on an identifiable basis. This might be by parcel, block or other geographic
area.
B. Limiting, by number, restaurants within an identified geographic area, such as
a square block. Both Berkeley and Burlingame have adopted this approach, with Berkeley
identifying specific types of restaurants for restricted number.
C. Limiting by distance separation, or limiting the number of restaurants within a
specific distance.
D. Limiting by restaurant -type or intensity. The Town already has a conditional use
permit process in place, as well as policies against drive -through service. During
environmental and use reviews, actual traffic impacts can be evaluated and mitigated.
Certain restaurant types may not be compatible with certain areas. In other instances, a
maximum seating or square footage may be appropriate.
In addition, the Town continues to study the actual impact of traffic on circulation
and safety. Ensuring that a particular use actually pays for its impact on the community is
a market -based means of controlling land use; however, this may leave the decision to
economics only.
Another way of moving restaurants to a different area in the Town is to adopt
legislation or goals that make their location in that other area easier. Clear standards that
are less subject to site specific conditions would be one approach.
The Council has also placed a high value on clearly articulating community goals and
directions, and it has been noted that such a statement on Downtown uses may be as
effective as actual regulation.
Current plans, such as the Commercial Specific Plan, provide a baseline of
information and policies. If additional limitations are desired with regard to number,
frontage, or distance, I strongly recommend study of an amendment to the relevant general
or specific plan sections, so that policy goals can be clearly set out; this also provides an
opportunity to make a comprehensive design, economic, and social study to the issues.
cc: David Knapp
Lee Bowman
0 - No Liquor 3-- Bar
1 - Restaurant w/liquor
2 - Restaurant w/Separate Bar
DOWNTOWN.XLS
DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT AND BAR LIST
NAME OF BUSINESS
ALCOHOL
ZONING
BUSINESS
SERVICE
ADDRESS
T-BIRD PIZZA
0
C-1
444A N. SANTA CRUZ AV
LA STRADA
1
C-1
210 E. MAIN ST
EDNARAY RESTAURANT
1
C-1
406 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
MT. EVEREST
1
C-1
412 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
MOUNTAIN MIKE'S PIZZA
1
C-1
430 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
VERTOGO
1
C-1
453 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
LAST CALL
3
C-1
408 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
JOHNNY'S NORTHSIDE GRILL
3
C-1
532 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
SUSHI ON THE RUN
0
C-2
114 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
YOGURT CREATIONZ
0
C-2
151 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
LOS GATOS ROASTING CO.
0
C-2
101 W. MAIN ST
TCBY YOGURT
0
C-2
13 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
DELIZIOSO DELI
0
C-2
133 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
DOUBLE RAINBOW
0
C-2
137 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
BAKER'S SQUARE
0
C-2
165 SARATOGA AV
DANIEL'S DELI
0
C-2
20 S. SANTA CRUZ AV
SWENSON'S
0
C-2
20 S. SANTA CRUZ AV
JASMINE
0
C-2
20 S. SANTA CRUZ AV
JUICY BURGERS
0
C-2
217A N.SANTA CRUZ AV
DOLCE SPAZIO
0
C-2
221 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
SOUTHERN KITCHEN
0
C-2
27 E. MAIN ST
LA MAISON DU CROISSANT
0
C-2
303 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
HUG -A -BERRY
0
C-2
336 N. SANTA CRUZ
MARY'S PATIO CAFE
0
C-2
337 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
LOS GATOS CAFE
0
C-2
340 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
NECTOR'S
0
C-2
35 E. MAIN
SWEET BASIL
0
C-2
35 E. MAIN ST
YOGURT DELITE
0
C-2
464 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
GILLEY'S COFFEE SHOPPE
0
C-2
47 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
A MATTER OF TASTE
0
C-2
81 W. MAIN ST
SUZANNE'S MUFFINS
0
C-2
9 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
LOS GATOS BREWING COMPANY
1
C-2
130 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
DRAGON BISTRO
1
C-2
133 N. SANTA CRUZ
GREAT BEAR COFFEE
1
C-2
19 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
WILLOW STREET PIZZA
1
C-2
20 S.SANTA CRUZ AV
GOOD EARTH RESTAURANT
1
C-2
206 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
ANDELE TAQUARIA
1
C-2
21 N.SANTA CRUZ AV
THE DINER
1
C-2
235 SARATOGA AV
PIGALLE
1
C-2
27 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
29 E.MAIN
1
C-2
29 E. MAIN ST
VILLAGE HOUSE
1
C-2
320 VILLAGE LN
CAFE MARCELLA
1
C-2
368 VILLAGE LN
LANTERN HOUSE
1
C-2
39 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
AND CHILI OF LOS GATOS
1
C-2
49 E. MAIN ST
THE WINE CELLAR
1
C-2
50 UNIVERSITY AV •
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 3
DOWNTOWN.XLS
IDA'S
1
C-2
50 UNIVERSITY AV
FRESH GARDEN
1
C-2
51 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
ANDELE TAQUARIA •
1
C-2
6 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
LISA'S TEA TREASURES
1
C-2
N. SANTA CRUZ AV
CHART HOUSE RESTAURANT
2
C-2
115 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
OPERA HOUSE
2
C-2
140 E.MAIN ST
TOLL HOUSE RESTAURANT
2
C-2
140 S. SANTA CRUZ AV
ALLIGATOR GRILL
2
C-2
151/2 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
VALERIANO'S RESTAURANT
2
C-2
170 W. MAIN ST
C.B. HANNEGAN'S
2
C-2
208 BACHMAN AV
PEDRO'S
2
C-2
316 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
FIORILLO'S
2
C-2
354 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
CALIFORNIA CAFE
2
C-2
50 UNIVERSITY AV
STEAMERS RESTAURANT
2
C-2
50 UNIVERSITY AV
UNIVERSITY CLUB
2
C-2
50 UNIVERSITY AV
JALISCO
2
C-2
50 UNIVERSITY AV
THE WAVE
2
C-2
50 UNIVERSITY AV
ROUND TABLE PIZZA PARLOR
2
C-2
57 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
NUMBER ONE BROADWAY
3
C-2
102 S. SANTA CRUZ AV
MOUNTAIN CHARLEY'S
3
C-2
15 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
CARRY NATION'S
3
C-2
8 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
BLACK WATCH
3
C-2
41 1 /2 N. SANTA CRUZ AV
Page 2
April 18, 1994
Los Gatos, California
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY/POLLARD RD/ROUTE 85/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (23.46)
Eileen Goodwin, representing SCC Traffic Authority, thanked Town for its cooperation and
requested a General Plan Amendment for property located on Pollard Road adjacent to Route
85 to be zoned high density from single family since it is bordered by other multi -family
developments.
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council direct the Planning
Department to initiate a General Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential for the Traffic Authority property located on Pollard Road adjacent to Route
85. No work shall begin until the Traffic Authority pays the fees required for preparing the
environmental assessment. Carried unanimously.
MASSAGE STUDIOS/LICENSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS/ORDINANCE IN': 10 (25.05)
The Town Clerk read the title of the Draft Ordinance.
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mrs. Lubeck, that Council waive the reading of the Draft
Ordinance. Carried unanimously.
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mrs. Lubeck, that Council introduce Draft Ordinance
entitled, ORDINANCE OF TOWN OF LDS GATOS AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF
SEX STUDIO CONTAINED IN TOWN CODE SECTION 29.10.020 TO CLARIFY EXCEPTION
FOR MASSAGE PRACTICE LICENSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND ATHLETIC
TRAINERS, Carried unanimously.
DOWNTOWN RESTAURANTS/TOWN POLICY (25.47)
Council consensus that Council direct staff to consider the following issues raised and discussed:
That staff make a strong recommendation to all restaurant applicants of 25 seats or more to go
before the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee; The projects contribute to the overall
benefit of the community; That projects make a significant contribution to the area; That
projects contribute to the pedestrian orientated downtown; That proliferation of nail boutiques
and fast food take out should be reviewed and controlled; That mixed retail should be
encouraged. Carried unanimously.
VOLUNTEERS/WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE/RESOLUTION 1994-62 (15.10)
Motion by Mr. O'Laughlin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 1994-62
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AFFIRMING THAT PERSONS
WHO PERFORM VOLUNTARY SERVICE WITHOUT PAY FOR THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
SHALL BE DEEMED AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TOWN FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAWS, Carried unanimously.
TC: De: MM041894
6