Restaurants Parking Requirements - Staff Report & Exhibits 1-4TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 13, 2016
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT :
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
Monica Renn, Economic Vitality Manager
mrenn @losgatosca. gov
Town Code Amendment Application A-15-005
Town Wide
Town of Los Gatos
Consider adoption of amendments to Section 29 .10 .150 of Chapter 29
(Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code to revise the parking
requirements for restaurants.
RECOMMENDATION: Forward to Town Council with a recommendation for adoption.
CEQA:
FINDINGS:
ACTION:
EXHIBITS :
BACKGROUND:
It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project will
have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is
not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act [Section
15061 (b)(3)].
The Planning Commission must make a finding that the Code
amendments are consistent with the General Plan if the
recommendation is for adoption.
Recommendation to Town Council.
1. December 15, 2015 Town Council Meeting Verbatim Minutes
2. December 15 ,2015 Town Council StaffReport
3. December 15 ,2015 Town Council Addendum Report
4. Draft Town Code Amendments
In September 2015, the Council began looking at ways of streamlining and modernizing the
Town 's regulations on businesses in an effort to give them greater opportunities to expand or
modify their business models to adapt to the changing demands in retail, dining, and other
consumer behaviors. By allowing businesses more latitude, Los Gatos may remain a desirable
location to own and operate successful businesses, ultimately increasing the Town 's vitality .
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 2
Restaurant Parking Ordinance I A -15-005
January 13 , 2016
At the December 15, 2015 Town Council meeting, the Council discussed changing the way the
Town regulates seating capacities in restaurants. Currently, the Town Code allows seats in a
restaurant based on the number of parking spaces, type of restaurant, and location. During their
discussion, the Council expressed an interest in exploring options that provide businesses with
the most flexibility to operate their restaurants with a number of seats that is both safe and
operationally feasible. The Council asked staff to present the Planning Commission with
alternative methods of calculating seating capacities and to include a Town Code amendment for
the Commission's consideration and recommendation to the Council. Exhibit 1 includes
verbatim minutes ofthe December 15,2015 Council discussion on seating and Exhibit 2 is the
staff report from that same Council Meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Given the discussion by the Town Council regarding allowing businesses to make decisions on
seating capacities that are safe, flexible, and operationally successful, staff has drafted a Code
amendment (Exhibit 4) for the Planning Commission to consider. This amendment would use
the same parking requirements for restaurants as is used for retail businesses and remain silent on
the maximum number of seats allowed. This would then allow the seats to be determined
pursuant to maximum Fire Code occupancy.
As trends emerge from the food and beverage industry, seating styles often change to meet
these trends. Seats or gathering areas may take many forms, some of those may include:
stand-up counter space without seats; large communal tables seating multiple parties ; couches;
benches; ottomans and lounge chairs; and traditional tables with chairs or fixed booths.
Currently, the number of appr oved seats in Los Gatos restaurants is linked to the number of
parking spaces credited to the commercial space. However, as some patrons use alternate
transportation , ride together, or park once and visit several locations as is the case with
Downtown, the linkage of seats to parking spaces may no longer be an appropriate guideline. In
addition, it often becomes difficult to assign a number of "seats" to seating options that do not
include an individual chair.
Below are considerations for this discussion that were included in the December 15, 2015
Council Discussion:
Commercial Zones:
The Town consists of several residential and commercial zones. Those that currently allow
eating and/or drinking establishments include: C-1, C-2, CH, LM, and CM. The Town code
currently addresses parking requirements in two categories: Downtown and Outside of
Downtown.
Conditional Use Permits:
All eating and drinking establishments in Town require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
operate in Town. The deciding body for the associated CUP depends on the type of
eating/drinking establishment and the location of the proposed establishment; however, all CUPs
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 3
Restaurant Parking Ordinance I A-15-005
January 13, 2016
include a condition that provides for seating capacity based on the number of parking spaces and
credits in the Parking Assessment District associated with the proposed location at the time of
approval.
Should the Code be amended to allow the parking requirements for restaurants to change to
permit seating capacities to be based on a calculation other than parking spaces, then ordinance
language could be included to allow those with previously approved seating capacities to opt for
the new calculation method or whichever method is least restrictive. Moving forward , all new
CUPs would either remain silent, or be given a seating capacity condition based on the approved
amendment.
Calculation Options:
Seating calculation methods most widely used in the State of California include maximum Fire
Code occupancy, seats per parking space, seats per square footage, or some combination of the
three. Many jurisdictions that use a method other than maximum Fire Code occupancy have
different seating allowances for their Downtown establishments and other commercial zones.
The Commission could consider an y of these a s recommendations back to the Council. Based on
the Council discussion on December 15 ,2015 staff prepared the amendments that we believe are
appropriate which are reflected in Exhibit 3 for the Planning Commission to consider.
The language below reflects an excerpt of the proposed amendments to Section 29.1 0.150.
Sec. 29.10.150.-Number of off-street spaces required.
(a) In te nt. Th e regulations contained in this section are intended to ins ure th e
provision of a sufficient number of off-s treet parking spa ces privately and
publicly owned and operated to sa tisfy nee ds g enerated by p ermissible uses.
(b) Parking requirements for downtown . In addition to oth er parking requirements,
one visitor parking space for each residential unit oth er than d eta ch ed s ingle-
family or two-family dwe lling shall be required unless th e Planning
Commission makes a finding that more or less visitor parking is necessary due
to the size or type of housing unit(s). Th e parking requirement for various uses
in th e downtown are as follows :
(1) Retail and commercial stores, etn6 shops, restaurant, bars, ta\·erns, and
nightclubs. On e (I) parking spa ce f or each three hundred (300) square f ee t of
g ross floor ar ea.
(2) Busin ess and professio nal offices, banks, finan cial in stitution s, in surance
companies, social service agencies and s tudio s. On e (1) parking sp ace f or each
two hundred fifty (250) square feet of g ross floor area.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4
Restaurant Parking Ordinance I A-15-005
January 13 , 2016
(3) Restt~w"tlnt (ne sept~rt~le ht~r). One (!) pt~rking spt~ee.fer et~eli.feur (4) set~ts.
(4) Resttlurmlt (sept~rfl,te ht~r). One (1) pRrking spt~ee _/(Jr et~eh three (3) set~ts .
(5) BRrs, ttlverns t~1ui nightclubs. One (1) pRrking spt~eef~r eReh three (3) set~ts.
(&) (3)Theaters. One (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of
gross floor area.
(+} (4) For uses not specifically lis ted in this subsection the requirements shall be as
set forth in subsection (c).
(c) Outside downtown parking require ments. The number of off-street parking
spaces required for areas outside th e downtown is set in this subsection. When
a use is not listed in this subsection, the Planning Director shall d etermin e th e
parking requirements by analogy to th e requirements for the listed uses. In
addition to other parking require m ents, one vi s itor parking space for each
residential unit other than a d etached single-family or two-family dwe lling
shall be required , unless the Planning Commission makes a finding that more
or less visitor parking is necessary du e to the size or type of housing unit(s).
(9) Retail and commercial stores, tmd shops, restaurant, bars, taverns, and
nightclubs. One (1) parking space for each two hundred thirty-five (23 5)
square feet of gross floor area.
Puh!ie et~ting estttblishments, ftlvems, find nightclubs. One (1) pt~rking spt~ee
far et~ch three (3) seflts in such pttb!ie et~ting estt~blishments, tt~verns er
nigh te l ubs .
Separating parking requirements from seats would not change the number of parking spaces
buildings are required to maintain to meet the square footage calculations governed b y Section
29.1 0.150. For those properties .located within the former Parking Assessment Di stricts that
purchased extra spaces within the district, they would still maintain their full parking inventory.
The only difference is that seats would be regulated b y Fire and Building Code.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines under the
General Rule [Section 15061 (b) (3)] because it can be seen with certainty that the proposed
Town Code amendments will have no significant negative effect on the environment.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5
Restaurant Parking Ordinance /A-15-005
January 13, 2016
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Conclusion
Based on their consistency with the General Plan, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission forward the draft Town Code amendments to the Town Council with a
recommendation for adoption as outlined below.
B. Recommendation
For the reasons discussed in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward
the draft Town Code amendments to the Town Council with a recommendation for adoption.
The Commission should also include any comments or recommended changes to the draft Town
Code amendments in taking the following actions:
1. Find that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the
environment; therefore the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act [Section 15061 (b) (3).].
2. Make the required finding that the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) Amendments are
consistent with the General Plan; and
3. Forward a recommendation to Town Council for adoption of the amendments to the
Town Code (Exhibit 4).
Alternatively, the Planning Commission may:
1. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for adoption of the Town Code
amendments with modifications; or
2. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for denial of the Town Code
amendments; or
3. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction.
Pr~ pproved by:
MonicaRenn Joel Paulson, AICP
Economic Vitality Manager Interim Community Development Director
N :\DEV\PC REPORTS\20 16\Restaurant Prking Ord [ A-15-00S].docx
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Town Council:
Town Manager:
Interim Community
Development Director:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Barbara Spector, Mayor
Marico Sayoc, Vice Mayor
Marcia Jensen, Council Member
Steven Leonardis, Council Mem.
Rob Rennie, Council Member
Laurel Prevetti
Joel Paulson
Robert Schultz
Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
EXHIBIT 1
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12/15/2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R 0 C E E D I N G S:
MAYOR SPECTOR : Agenda Item 10, Potential
Separation of Parking Requirements and Seating Capacities,
and I see we have someone all ready to make the Staff
Report.
MONICA RENN: Good evening, Monica Renn, Economic
Vitality Manager.
Before you tonight is a report discussing the
potential separation of parking requirements to seating
capacities. Currently in Town the seats are regulated based
on the number of parking spaces that an establishment has.
At a study session in November the Council had talked about
bringing this back to Council for discussion and asked that
the Parking Assessment Distric t owners were notified and
surveyed. Staff did do that, and o f the 23 0 property owners
we received responses from 14 .
Staff would note that even if the seats are
decoupled from the parking, it would in no way change the
number of parking credits that anybody has for their
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15/2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
2
1 building or their property in the former Assessment
2 District.
3 We 're looking tonight for you r di r ection . If you
4 are interested in decoupling the seats from the parking
5
requirements, then Staff would do a little more work on
6
getting some specifics for you, drafting an ordinance
7
amendment and then putting that through the full process of
8
the Planning Commission, then back to the Council for the
9
final rev iew .
10
11
In our haste to get the addendum out, Joel and I
12 just realized that there was an error on the chart that we
1 3 gave you, and this illustrates the difficulty to do all the
14 work ahead of learning what your preferences are.
15 When you look at maximum fire code occupancy it
16 is one person per 15 square feet in the dining area, so
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that doesn 't ta ke i n to account the kitchen space and all of
that; that's calculated differently . That doesn 't mean that
a business would necessarily run their business at that
rate, but that is potentially the number of people in that
space the fire marshal would allow, and so we wanted to
clarify that that is dining area and not gross square
footage .
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2 015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Both Joel and I are here if y ou have any
questions on the remaining report.
MAYOR SPECTOR: Questions of Staff? Ms. Sayoc.
VICE MAYOR SAYOC : I do have a question , and it 's
more process related.
I under s ta n d that based on tonight 's discussion
if there are certain agreements that we come up with, Staff
could go back to draft an ordinance that would then go
through the process of Planning Commission and then back to
Council.
I want to follow a lot of the other things that
we 've d o n e with e co nom i c v i ta l it y. What if we wanted to do
a test pilot of some sort , six months of l et 's see what
happens if we decouple? Does that still have to go through
the same process, or can we create a test policy , get it
going, and then actually see what happens, what are the
consequences?
MONICA RENN : The Town Code restricts this, so
i t 's my u n derstand ing tha t the only thing we could do would
be a code amendment . I f it didn 't work we could obviously
go back and do another code amendment, we could take it out
of the code and then do a policy on top of that so that y o u
had t h e ability ... Is that in correct? Okay. Or we coul d g o
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
25
back and then do a policy if you wanted to hav e the
fluidity to change it .
VICE MAYOR SAYOC : Let me see if I can
restructure that . If I wanted fluidity and something that
we can try sooner rather than through a longer process,
what would you recommend?
LAUREL PREVETTI: One option would be to suspend
certain provisions of the Town Code. That in itself would
take into account Town Code amendment, and then you would
need to articulate specifically what you are trying to do
during the suspension and the replacement rules, if any,
that would be in place . That would essentially be a Town
Code process, Planning Commi s sion hearing, and Council
action.
MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen.
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN : I just want to follow up
on that a little bit, if I may.
The suspension of an ordinance wo uld still
require that it go through the Planning Co mmission, et
cetera? So we wouldn 't save any time if we did that? We
wouldn 't be able to do t h e test process that the Vice Mayor
has in mind essentially?
LOS GAT OS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Po tential Separ atio n of Parking Require ments
a nd Seat i n g Cap acities
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ : That 's correct. Because it 's
your Zoning Code, state law even mandates that zoning
changes go through your Planning Commissio n. The idea of
maybe just doing a suspension though was good, because you
could put pa rameters on t h ere t hat it 's good for six
months , or it 's 12 months , so it 's more like a pilot
program, as opposed to changing all the code amendment s and
General Plan.
You do have to have the two readings though, and
I don 't see any way we could say this was some type of
urgency ordinance that you can do in one time by four -
fifths vote ; I don 't see how we would make those findings
that there 's some urgency that 's needed , so you do have to
have both your readings .
But by doing a type of s us pension, I think it 's
easier to word, for us to come up with those code
amendmen ts, because it 's just short-term what you 're trying
to accomplish, so it might be easier from a Staff lev el to
come up with those changes.
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN : Follow up?
MAYOR SPECTOR : Ms. Jensen.
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN : You anticipated my
question regarding the urgency ordinance, however, one of
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the things that were mentioned was a policy on top of an
ordinance . Could the Town write a policy that was somehow
superseding or on top of the ordinance that said okay,
we 've got this ordinance , except that here's our brand new
policy , and then get around to suspending it or changing it
at some point? I 'm just trying to figure out how we ca n
have the most flexibility.
ROBERT SCHULTZ : Instead of changing an
ordinance, I believe we could come back with just an
ordinance from Council declaring that we would not enforce
certain provisions of our ordinance for a period of time,
and therefore they would not be enforceable from a code
enforcement standpoint .
I don't li k e that way of going abou t i t , because
you 're not giving the public the abi lity ... One of the
reasons why you have ordinances is because you do go
through that public progress so that the community knows
and hears about it, and has the ability both at the
Planning and the Commission , but I 've seen where we have
had an o rd inance and ...
Well, a perfect example is an ordinance that ...
Marijuana, when it was first coming out there were actually
ordinances that was passed by the Council telling the
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2 015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
police department to give it the lowest priority possible
to enforce the marijuana arrests in their towns, because
they were promoting the medical marijuana, so it would be
the same. We wo uld come back with a policy saying the
enforcement of seating is the lowest priority possible,
meaning that we weren 't going to enforce tho se provisions
of the ordinance . I have seen that done , b ut I don 't think
it 's the best solution. I think it would be better to go
thro ugh the process.
MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen.
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN : Sorry, just one final
follow up on that . The businesses that are operating now
under a CUP that has parking linked t o seats, their
conditions of operation would not change at all pending
this process, and then the Council would give you direction
on whether we wanted to go towards you bringing us back
proposed language or we wanted you to go towards a possible
suspension of certain of the sections relating to that, and
that would go through the process and we 'd f igure that out?
Is that how it would work?
MONICA RENN : Yes, and we do have a placeholder.
In January we have the Formula Retail Ordinance going to
Planning Commission. We could potentially put this on that
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
2 4
25
same agenda . If you wanted to make an ordinance change, it
could go to Planning Commission as early as January 13 th and
then come back to you as early as February 2 nd .
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN : Okay, thank you .
MAYOR SPECTOR: Further questions of Staff?
Seeing none, thank you . I have no cards. Is there anybody
who wants to address the Council on this agenda item?
Seeing no one , I will close the public testimony part of
our hearing and look to the Council for discussion or a
motion? Well , I 'll d i scus s then.
I think that what the Council could do this
evening, based upon the information it has, is make a
decision as to whether or not it wants to consider the
decoupling seats from parking, o r seats from some other
methodology such as the fire requirements, and we could
send that issue to the Planning Commission; it could get to
the Pl ann ing Commission in Ja n uary . So that 's wh e r e I see
the core of what the Council could do this evening.
Mr . Leonardis.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS : Thank you, May or
Spector . It sounds like a good idea in principle; I just
have reservations about it. I know that a lot of the
business owners have already done their own decoupling by
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adding more seats beyond what their CUP requirements may
allow, but without a firm commitment on a future parking
garage I 'm kind of he sit ant a bout moving f o rwa r d wi t h
anything in this regard .
MAY OR SPECTOR: I 'll r e c o gn i ze myself aga in. I
thought it was a really good Staff Report. I thought the
information was very helpful. I thought that the data we
got with regard to other jurisdictions and whether or not
they had one parking space for three seats, one parking
space for four seats, the fact that the fire code was used
in several jurisdictions, many which were outside of Santa
Clara County, but I just thought the comparison of what we
do here versus what they do in other locations was helpful.
I also think that how many seats you allow and
whether you take parking into consideration or not is very
much a local issue. You might have some place like Lompoc
that wants to have tons of cars come in , but they don 't
have tons of cars coming, so they based their seating on
the Fire Code, which might have someplace else like Los
Altos that does n 't ha v e tha t s ame o b jective . I s e e the
seating/parking issue as a very, very local issue, which is
why if this council wants to consider the decoupling that
it be vetted by the Planning Commission.
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirement s
and Seating Capacities
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
1 3
1 4
15
1 6
17
1 8
19
2 0
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
Ms. Jensen .
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: I 'll just weigh in. I
think the Council should expl ore decoupling it . There are
many other jurisdictions that do it that way .
Sort of in response, or not really in response ,
to wh a t Councilman Leonardis said , we 've had speakers from
the downtown tell us that what is important to them is that
we have very clear rules , that they are enforceable , and
that they apply across the board, so that e v ery body knows
what to do.
If the CUPs are being observed more in the breach
than in the obedience, then there is something wrong and we
need to fix that. If the way to do that is this council to
say we would like to consider decoupling it, and we would
like e v erybody to do the research necessarily and present
the ideas that I think Ms . Renn was talking about, to do
the extra work that needs to be done.
For example, I know the count on the comparison
jurisdiction chart said Campbell has a rule of one seat
per ... What is it ? I don • t know, four seats per one parking,
except that it 's all enmeshed in a code section that
requires shared parking, and it gives credit if y ou hav e
shared parking and it requires agreement , so i t 's not qu i te
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capac ities
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right that it 's one to four in Campbell , because they 're
requiring other creative ideas.
I would like to see it get vetted . I 'd like to
see this being taken up . I disagree with the Mayor in that
we'll just send it back and say that the Council says think
about decoupling it . I think it makes sense, if Staff is
say ing they 're prepa red to p ropose ordinance l anguage , to
say and here are some ideas for how it might work if it
were decoupled, so that at least they can be on the floor
and be discussed . That would be the kind of thing that I
would be hopeful that we would do.
MAYOR SPECTOR: Further discussion? Ms. Sayoc .
VICE MAYOR SAYOC : I absolutely believe that we
should decouple parking from seats. I t hink tha t we've
heard enough testimony from many of our merchants downtown
that the CUPs that we 've been setting haven 't even bee n
f ollowed , and what we 've also heard is that the merchants
want some flexibility in how they can adopt to the changing
economies , changing marketplace, and changing desires of
the merchants.
The reason why I brought up the process issue is
if we realize that retail, restaurant, everything, is
changing, I 'm con c erned that an ordinance with such
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
specificity will just constantly keep us in a reactive
mode, whereas if you have something as broad as a policy
that can be fluid and changed depending on what we 're
actually seeing with our downtown and our commercial
centers, we can be more adaptable.
What I've also heard from testimony is t hat if we
do something as wild and say let 's go with the Fire Code ,
we really aren't going to be getting restaurant owners that
will maximize the seats, because they also want an ambiance
and an environment that 's comfort able , and most like ly they
won 't get restaurant patrons who want to sit shoulder-to -
shoulder to each other.
What I 'm looking for is I'm looking for an
opportunity to allow the restaurant owners to figure out
what exactly is the ideal seat count for them to maximize
their revenue, which is a high priority f o r them, but for
us also to see what works best for our downtown . I 'm
concerned that if we limit it , whether it 's square footage
or seating allowance or parking spaces , we 're just creating
this artificial b o undary of what a restaurant should
actually be, and the patrons are the ones who actually
decide for themselves based on what 's provided.
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNC IL 12 /15/20 15
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
1 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So I 'm looking for Staff to give me t h is opti o n
that gives me the most flexibility, and right now all I can
say is I want to decouple it. I don 't know which of these
boxes is the right one, but I want us to move forward. I
don 't know if that helps, but that 's where I'm at .
MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr . Leonardis.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you, Mayor
Spector . With respect to the Vice Mayor's comments , yes ,
restaurants are one type of business downtown, but you also
have shopkeepers, and you have a finite amount of parking
places, and you also have a lot of employees that work
downtown.
So yes, right now we are de facto decoup l ed. That
means there 's an issue with the ordinance, but really, I
think it comes down to we need a bigger bucket to hold
more . We can decouple. I don 't think t ha t will so l ve t h e
problem. It could make things worse b y allowing people to
add seats.
I agree with free markets and letting restaurant
owners decide and having the flexibility and changing
business models and such, but it could hav e an unknown
effect on the shop keepers and the other business owners if
too many restaurant owners or bars or whatever decide
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15/20 15
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
t h ey 're going to add capacity , and other fol k s won't h ave
places to park for shopping.
I realize that restaurants operate mostly in the
evening, and bars and such, but that could be an unwanted
side effect . If I had my druthers, I would say Campbell has
got a 300 parking place garage right behind a key
restaurant . We should find out who built it, how much it
cost, and then start the discussion.
MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Rennie.
COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE : Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I'm also I think pretty far on the side of decoupling. I
guess I want to be a little bit careful.
But when I think about the problem, right now
we 're designed to try to have a good parking exper ience ,
and is that really what we want? I think we want our
businesses to be vibrant, and to be able to survive and
maybe make a little money or maybe get past break even, so
it seems to me it makes more sense to decouple it and let
businesses set up the seating that makes sense for them,
and if there isn 't good enough parking , then it limits
who 's going to g o to the stores .
The oth er way aroun d we 're limiting it , but not
really knowing whe ther there could be more people there,
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /1 5 /20 15
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Re quire me nts
a nd Seating Capacities
1 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
2 2
2 3
2 4
25
because we don 't r eally know if the parking is filled up ,
for certain times of day whether it 's filled up or not .
Also, as our community changes with more people,
hopefully we 're going to have more transportation options .
The downtown is a large area that you c an park and you do
many things. I think we need to decouple , but I don 't want
to take the pressure off of us also t r ying to, as Mr .
Leo nar dis said, make the bucket larger. I think that
originally it seems like we had this coupling to keep the
pressure on gett i ng more parking spaces , so I don 't want to
take the pressure off of solving getting more parking
spaces, but I am in fav or of exploring decoupling.
MAYOR SPECTOR : Ms . Jensen .
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: A comment, and then a
question .
Just to follow up on we need t o make sure that we
have X number of seats and X number of parking , I've seen
around the country lots of restaurants, or eating
establishments I 'm going to call them , where there are no
seats, and they 're very successful . S o I could hav e zero
seats but potentially need 500 parking spots, and I would
still be somehow in line with o ur CUP .
LOS GAT OS TOWN COUNCIL 1 2/15 /20 15
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requi r ements
and Seating Capacitie s
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm t h in king th at the notion of a seat equals a
parking space is not current, so I agree with the Vice
Mayor that whatever we can do to be more fluid, and this is
where I go to my question to Staff.
If I were interested in making a motion that said
how can I be the most fluid in trying to figure this out
versus starting at X and saying we 'd like to decouple it
and then going off forever, and then coming up with
something that in a year is obsolete, how would I
accomplish that ? I 'm loo king to Staff to tel l me what would
be the way to accomplish that?
MONICA RENN: That would be to be silent , or to
state that it would be the Fire Code, much like Morgan
Hill. They have parking ratios, but they are si lent on the
number of seats, just like we are silent on the number of
people that can be in a dress s hop or another type of
retail establishment.
MAYOR SPECTOR: Further discussion? Further
questions? Ms. Sayoc.
VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Again, following process, then
what do you need as Staff to prepare a draft to bring to
the Planning Commission if , let 's say , we were silent? I
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2 015
Ite m #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't know if we would get there, but would you then
create ... What would you b ring to the Planning Cormnission?
MONICA RENN: We would redline the current Town
Code under the section that speaks to the parking
requirements and leave it at just the square footage . So
what it is now , it 's one for 300 square feet in the
downtown, one for 235 square feet outside of downtown . That
would remain, but the next section that then goes on to
state if you have a separate bar you can hav e three seats,
if you d on 't you ca n have four , that would just be redlined
out.
VICE MAYOR SAYOC: If I may follow up?
MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Sayoc.
VICE MAYOR SAYOC: If I own an eating
establishment downtown , what's the effect on me then ? My
seats are now dependent on the square footage of my
(inaudible) ?
MONICA RENN : That's correct. Whatever the fire
marshal says is a safe number to be in that area , and I 'll
look to Rob . We would probably need to do something if
y ou 're looking to allow peop l e who a l ready have a CUP with
a maximum number of seats. We may be able to do a blanket
statement that allows the least restrictive of those two
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2 0 15
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
18
1 numbers, and then moving forward everybody would follow
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
2 2
23
24
25
whatever the new ordinance was.
MAYOR SPECTO R: Following up on Ms . Sayoc 's
question, if this document goes to the Planning Commission,
wo u ld you b e tellin g t h e P lann i n g Co mm ission he re's what
the Council wants you to do?
MONICA RENN: I think that we would say this was
t he discuss ion tha t we had, this was the Coun cil 's
recomme ndati o n a n d the y'r e asking for your feedback. I
don't know, we could do whatever you would like us to do.
We could say this is what the Council wants, or we could
say this is for your consideration .
MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen.
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: A follow up on the same
question. We could stay silent on page two of our Staff
Repo rt. Under where it says , "Condit i onal Use Permits ," you
say , "Shou l d the Council choose a method other than parking
space credits to calculate seats, ordinance language could
be inc luded to allow t h ose ," b l ah , b l a h, blah , s o it seemed
like Staff had something in mind ? Did you have something in
mind as options?
I 'm goi n g to sa y tha t, and then add on to that if
we didn 't want to just stay silen t , if we wanted to , for
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 1 2/15 /2015
Item #10, P o tential Separation of P a rki ng Re quire me nt s
a nd Seating Cap acit i es
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
example, say we want to allow you to do agreements to share
parking, and we want to do whatever so that we were
creative with our parking requirements, how would we d o
that?
MONICA RENN: We could certainl y propose if you
could give us that feedback tonight we could put it into an
ordinance . We had talked about another option being to not
address it in the ordinance, and then do a policy if you
wanted those things to be more fluid, the shared agreements
and things like that.
And Joel may have more to add.
JOEL PAULSON : I would just add for the shared
parking in particular , that 's currently in our Conditional
Use Permit table, so that would require modification as
we ll . We could encourage it . It c u rrently requires a CUP,
but we could add language to the restaurant section
specifically to allow for that potentially without a
Conditional Use Permit.
COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Okay. I wouldn 't
nec essarily want it to be limited to restaur ants, but I
understand you 're telling me it 's in the CUP tab le.
MAYOR SPECTOR: Further discussion? Ms. Sayoc.
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12/15/2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
20
1 VICE MAYOR SAYOC: One of the reasons why we
2 would have to go through the Policy Commission is one of
3 the goals is to have any interested person weigh in on this
4 potential town-wide change. How would we alert the public
5
that this is a significant issue that we 're con sidering?
6
MONICA RENN: Typically I will do an email out to
7
all of the business owners. We could do other outreach if
8
you would li k e , somethi ng i n the paper or other ... We
9
10
obvi ous ly would use our "W hat 's New !n in our avenues here ,
11
but if there was a deeper outreach that you wanted us to
12 do, we could certainly do that.
13 MAYOR SPECTOR: Can we follow up on that? You
1 4 mentioned having the information go out to the business
15 people. How would the information of a new parking code
16 amendment or change be given to the public?
17
18
19
2 0
2 1
22
23
24
25
MONICA RENN: It would be done through our public
noticing like we do with all of our noti cing, but we could
do further noticing if you wanted it to be not necessarily
just in the legal notices in the paper.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Another option for your
considerat i on is that typically the Los Gatos Weekly is
looking for local stories such as this, and this might be a
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2 015
Item #10, Potential S e paratio n of Parking Requireme nts
and Seating Cap acities
21
1 public interest story that a reporter may want to focus and
2 highlight.
3 MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Sayoc, I cut you off. Do you
4 have anything else?
5
VICE MAYOR SAYOC: No, actually it was along the
6
same vein. I think advertising and reaching out to the
7
business owners is one subset, but if parking is a
8
significant issue that is of concern to any patron, that 's
9
10
a town-wide issue, and so I would encourage you to use all
11
of our mechanisms so that it's just n ot for busine ss ,
12 because they have a certain angle, and we have to make sure
13 that we 're hearing from ever y one .
14 MONICA RENN: Sure.
15 MAYOR SPECTOR: All right, Council, do we have a
16 motion? Ms. Jensen.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COUNCIL MEMBER J ENSEN: Okay , I 'll t r y a mo tion .
My motion would be to dire c t Staff to present options,
including potential ordinance language, to the Planning
Commission for discussion with respec t to d ecoupling
parking and seats (inaudible) just going to say that, in
our codes and ordinances, and not indicate in any of the
options prese nted that the Council is directing a
particular a ct ion, but that these things are being
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capac i ties
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
presented to the Planning Commission at the request of the
Council for discussion and feedback.
MAYOR SPECTOR: We have a motion. Do we have a
second? Mr. Rennie.
COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE : I'll second .
MAYOR SPECTOR : All right, we have a motion and a
second . Discussion? Mr. Leonardis.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Well, I'm going to
support the motion . I do believe in the concept of
decoupling. I think it 's an age-old question that has
reared its head in this community for a long time. I
realize a lot of the businesses are currently out of
compliance in their CUPs with the seating, particularly the
restaurants and such.
I am concerned about some unknown consequences,
as I was with the valet parking. Again, we can try what we
can moving forward to kind of game this lack of parking in
our community , but it's imminent that's we're going to need
a bigger bucket, so being that this is only going to go
back to the Planning Commission and then come out, and I
guess we 'll be poten tially voting on it again in the
future, I will be supporting the motion.
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /15 /2015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR SPECTOR: Further discussion? Do I see Mr.
Rennie? No? Oh, the Town Manager .
LAUREL PREVETTI: Sorry . I just wanted to clarify
the motion. If in t he Planning Commiss i on 's d i scussion and
feedback of the different options they were to provide a
recommendation for a specific ordinance proposal, would
that beat the needs? So l et's say they go beyond feedback
and actually have a specific proposal for your
consideration. Would that be acceptable?
MAYOR SPECTOR : We 'll start with the maker of the
motion. Is that what you had in mind?
COU NCIL MEMB ER JENSEN: Yes, and I 'll just be
more clear. What I had in mind with that: option one would
be suspend portions, option two would be take it out
altogether, option three would be language presented as per
the Staff Report, option four might be something else, and
that it's for the Planning Commission to discuss and if
they got to the point where they wanted to recommend one of
those options specifically and that was an ordinance, that
would be encompassed in my motion .
MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. Before I discuss,
seconder of the motion?
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12/15/2015
Item #10 , Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
24
1 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: I think that was me, but
2 that 's okay , yes.
3 MAYOR SPECTOR: All right . At this point I
4 thought I understood the motion and I was prepared to
5
support it, but now that is inconsistent with my notes, so
6
I will have Ms. Prevetti restate the motion.
7
LAUREL PREVETTI: The motion as I heard it was
8
the Council would be directing Staff to present options,
9
10
including potential ordinance language, to decouple parking
11
and seats in the code for discussion and feedback by the
12 Planning Commission.
13 MAYOR SPECTOR: All right, thank you. Further
14 discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Opposed? Passes
15 unanimously . Thank you .
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 12 /1 5 /2 015
Item #10, Potential Separation of Parking Requirements
and Seating Capacities
25
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
DAT E :
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 12/15/15
ITEM NO: I 0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 7, 2015
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
! "( /~. ~/".7 -
LA U REL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER ( t lA-1 10 I /~~ -' -
POTENTIAL SEPARATION OF PARKfNG REQUIREMENTS AND SEATING
CAPAC'lTIES
RECOMMENDATION :
Provide direction on the potential separation of parking requirements and seating capacities.
BACKGROUND:
Since September 1, 2015, the Council has been considering a series of policies and Code amendments that
relate to businesses including formula retail , paid valet parking service in Downtown, a revised outdoor
seating policy. retail and restaurant definitions, and the relationship between parking requirements and
seating capacities in restaurants . At the October 6, 2015 meeting, the Council requested that these item s
be broken apart and discussed individually at upcoming meetings to more fully address each topic.
This report addresse s options for the Council to consider regarding the relationship between parking
requirements and seating capacities, as well as benchmarking information from other jurisdictions
(Attachment 1 ), and a summary of the history of the Parking Asses sment District (PAD) (Attachment 2).
If the Council should choose to remove the relationship between parking and seating capacities within
Downtown, it would in no way alter the current status of the PAD. or the number of spaces credited t o
each parcel.
In addition, as reques ted by the Council, staff reached out to the approximately 230 property owners
within th e PAD to request their input on this discussion by way of an online survey and received fourteen
res pons es . Of those responses, eight property owners were in s upport of changing the way the Town
calculates seating capacities in Downtown, five were opposed and one felt that they needed to understand
th e di scussion and reason s further.
PREPARED BY : MONlCA RENN
Economic Vitality Manager
Revi ewed by : Assistant Town Manager YJ Jth Town Attorney NA Financt:
N MGR AdmmWorkfJi c-;\2 () I S Counc i l Rcpurts'D<'t:c m ber 1 5\~c.Jil ng t o parlung s ta fl 'r.:j)('n doc EXHIBIT 2
PAGE1
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL SEPARATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND SEATING
CAPACITIES.
DECEMBER 7, 2015
DISCUSSION:
As trends emerge from the food and beverage industry. seating styles often change to meet these
trends. Seats or gathering areas may take many forms, some of those may include : stand-up wunter
space without seats: large communal tables seating multiple parties; couches, benches, ottomans. and
lounge chairs; and traditional tables with chairs or fixed booths.
Currently. the number of approved seats in Los Gatos restaurants is linked to the number of parking
s paces credited to the commercial space. However. as some patrons use alternate transportatJOn. nde
together, or park once and visi t several locations as is the case with Downtown, the linkage of seats to
parking spaces may no longer be an appropriate guideline. In addition. it often becomes difficult to
assign a number of "seats" to seating options that do not include an individual chair. Thus, it may b.:
more appropriate to have parking requirements based on o ther metrics. such as square footage or
maximum fire code occupancy.
Below arc considl;!rations for this discussion:
Commercial Zones:
The Town consists of several residential and commercial zones . Those that currently allow eating and/or
drinking establishments include : C-1. C-2. C H. LM, and CM. The Town code currently addresses parking
requirements in two categories: Downtown and Outside of Downtown . If the Council chooses to etT~.:ct
change in the parking requirements for eating/drinking establishments. it could be done in either. or both
of these Town Code categories.
Conditional Use Permits:
All eating and drinking establishments in Town require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate in
Town . The deciding body tor the associated CUP depends on the type of eating/drinking establishment
and the location of the proposed establishment; however , all CUPs include a condition th at provides for
seating capacity based on the number of parking spaces and credits in the PAD associated with the
proposed location at the time of approval.
Should the Council choose a method other than parking space credits to calculate seats. ord inance
language could be included to allow those with previously approved seating capacities to opt tor the new
calc ulat ion method. or whichever method is least restrictive. Moving forward, all new CUPs would be
given a seatmg capacity condition based on the approved ordinance change.
Current Code Provisions:
The number of s eats a restaurant may have within the establishment is currently governed by Town Code.
Section 29 .1 0.150. thus any changes to this section would require a public hearing by both the Plannmg
Comm iss ion and Town Council.
PAGEJ
MAYOR A~D TOWN COU C IL
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL SEPARATION OF PARKING REQUIREME NTS AND SEATING
CAPAC ITIES .
DECEMBER 7. 2015
DISC USSION (cont"d):
The Town Code parking requiremt!nts for retai l. office. restaurants. and drinking establishments. both in
Dowmov.·n a nd in other commercial zones are:
Th e parking relfttiremelll frJr va r ious uses in the downlmnz are as follows :
(I) Retw l ancJ commercial srores and s hops. Onl! ( 1; parkin~ spaceflJr !'ach 1/tree hundred
(JUO) :;quarefecl <~(gross fluor urea .
r 2) Busines s and pro/(•ssi onal offices. hanks. financial institUTiuns. insurance componit!s.
sociul s eiTicc agencies and sludius. One (I) parking space.fiJr each TWO lzundred.fl(!y
(:50) quare feet rd gross floor area.
(J) H.e.\Uutran/ (no .\eparatt:! hur}. One ( 1) parking spm:e fin· each (our (4) seats.
(4J Restaurum (s eparale har). One (I) parking spucefhr each three (3) seut.\
(5) Burs. wverns cmd nighrcluhs. One (I J parki ng spucefor c.:uch thr£>1! £3) ser.t l'\.
Owsicle d01n11own parking re quiremell!s.
(IJ) Retail und cvmmercial stores and shops. Onr! (I) parking spuce for each TH'O hundred
lhirl_v:five (235) square (e el ofgroso;;jloor area.
(I UJ Businns und professional offices. hanks. financial institwions. insurance companies .
. \Ociul SCITiC<: agencies and studius. One (I J parking space for each flt'O hundred riTirty-
jin: (:!35) squarejeet of grossflovr area.
( 15) Puhlic euling estahlishments, tul'erns , ancJ nightduhs. One ( 1) purkmg space thr each
three {3) sc.:ats in su(:h public t'llting esruh!ishments. tal 'l.!rns or nightclubs
Benchmarking:
St aff reached out to neighboring and other jurisdictions in Calitomia to understand how they regulate
parking and/o r seati ng, and received several responses, see Attachment I.
Calculation Options:
Seating calculation methods most widel y used in the State of California include maximum fire cod~
occup anc). seat s per parking space. seat s per square t0otage. o r omc combination of the three . Nlan y
juri sdictions that use a method other than maximum fire ~.:ode occupancy have different seating
allowances for their Downto wn establishments and other commercial zones .
CONCL US ION /\NO NEXT STEPS:
T he Council should providt> direction regarding parking and seating. From there. s taff could research t he
calculation options and d iscuss the o ptions with th e Planning Commission. Staff would then draft a Code
amendment. The draft amendment would first be considered by the Planning Commission. w ho would
then make a recommendation for t he Council to consider and make a final decision.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL SEPARATION OF PARKI NG REQUIREMENTS AND SEATING
(' APACITlES .
DECEMBER 7. 2015
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council could decide that the current relationship between scats and parking space credit with in
Town Code Section 29.10.150 is most appropriate and direct statTto do no further i nvestigation on
altemative calculation methods .
COORDINATION:
The preparation of this report was coordinated with the Town Managers Offic~o:: and the Community
Development Department.
Attachments:
I. Benchmarking
2. Historical Summary of the Parking Assessment Di strict
BENCHMARKING ON SEATING REQUIREMENTS
r U~slcrJON-~--R-~-U-IR_E_M_E_N_T_S_F_O_R_E_A_T_IN_G_ffi_R_I_N_~_N_G_E_S_T_A_B_L_I_S_H_M_E_N_T_S ___ ~
3 seats per 1 parking sp ace. City does not count outdoor seats in total scat co unt. ....
Saratoga
Morgan Hill
San Jose
Campbell
Menlo Park
C upertin o
I
Palo Alto
One space for each seventy-five square feet of floor area . In addition. if the restaurant
has outdoor dining. one space for each seventy-five square feet of outdoor dining area
shall also be provided .
I parking space is required tor every 100 square feet of gross floor area, and seats are
only limited by the fire code.
Drinking Establishments: I space per 2 .5 seats or 1 space per 40 square feet of drinking
area, whichever requires the greater number of parking spaces
Entertainment (with any food or alcohol service): I space per 40 sq . ft. of area open to
the public
Outdoor dining incidental to a public eating establishment or a retail establishment: 0
spaces up to 25 seats. I space per 2.5 for seats over 25
Public eating establishments: 1 space per 2.5 seats or 1 space per 40 sq uare feet of
dining area, whichever requires the greater number of parking spaces
Take-out only establishment (including but not limited to pizza deli very, ice cream
shops, doughnut shops): 1 per 75 sq . ft. of area open to the public, minimum of 5
spaces, plus I per delivery vehicle (if applicable)
Downtown Restaurants in San Jose do not require parking.
Downtown : 1 space per 4 seats
Outside of Downtown : Eating/Drinking establishments with no drive-thru: 1 space for 3
seats indoor or outdoor. plus I space tor each 200 SF of non-dining floor area.
Take-out only dining with no seats: 1 space for 250 SF, but not Jess than 2 spaces
Requires 6 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of space.
Restaurant/Bar and Nightclubs: 1/3 seats+ !/employee+ 1/36 sq. ft. of dance floor
Restaurants without Separate Bar: 1/4 seats+ llemployee + 1/36 sq. ft. of dance floor
Restaurant-Fast Food : 1/3 seats+ 1/employee
For California A venue Parking Assessment District:
With drive-in or take-out facilities: 3 per 100 sf of gross floor area
All others: I per 155 sf of gross floor area
With drive-in or take-out facilities : 3 per 100 sq. ft. of gross fl oor area
All others: I space for each 60 gross sq. ft. of public service area, plus I space for each
200 gross sq. ft . for all other areas.
ATIACHMENTl
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Benicia
Sacramento
Simi Valley
Lompoc
Redding
Grover Beach
BENCHMARKING ON SEATING REQUIREMENTS
Restaurant without Bar: 1 space I 1 1 0 sq ft.
Restaurant with Bar: 1/7 5 sq. ft .
Bar Only: 1/50 sq. ft.: l /50 sq. ft .
Restaurants with I 00% Fixed Seating and No Bar: 1/2 fixed seats + I /400 sq . ft. of area
not devoted to seating
Outdoor Seating. Additional parking is required for outdoor seating exceeding twelve
seats per business. Seats exceeding this amount are required to provide additional
parking at the rate of 0.33 spaces per seat for each seat above twelve.
Restaurants, cafes, bars, other eating/drinking places
Take-out only: 1 space for each 180 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Fast food (counter service): I space for each 100 sq. ft .: minimum 25 spaces
Table Service: I space for each 2.5 seats or 1 space for each 100 sq . ft . of gross floor
area, whichever is greater
Outdoor seating: 1 space for each 2.5 seats
Maximum occupancy drives seat count, and seats drive parking. If occupancy allows
more seats than parking, the establishment either reduces the number of seats or seeks a
parking variance.
----
Fire Code dictates the maximum number of seats an establishment may have.
Fire Code dictates the maximum number of seats an establishment may have.
Fire Code dictates the maximum number of seats an establishment may have.
3 seats per 1 parking space.
California Building or Fire Code dictates the maximum number of seats an
establi shment may have.
ATTACHMENT 1
I
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF THE DOWNT OWN PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
On October 6, 20 I 5 , in response to a discussion regarding definitions and policies for tonnula retaiL
specialty retail , o utdoor seating, and related business uses and processes, Council directed staff to
provide background infom1ational regarding the Downtown Parking Assessment District (PAD).
DISCUSSION :
Tht: following is a summary regarding the creation and history of the current Parking Assessment
District.
A. Downtown Specific Plan
On May 18. 1982 . the Town Council adopted the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) to guide and
coordinate downtown implementation programs designed to resolve existing downtown issues
and address future needs . The DTSP was amended on February 23. 1986, to incorporate a
parking program , including priorities for constructing parking facilities. The DTSP was again
amended on Apri118, 1994 to change the priority of future parking facilities . The DTSP wa s
repealed on August 7, 2000, on the basis that the plan was no longer needed as the
implementation measures had either been completed or were carried forward to the General Plan
2000.
The DTSP stated that a s ingle unitied parking district shall be formed for the Ct:ntral Bu s ines s
Di strict/East Main St area and membership in that Parking Di strict shall be required for removal
ofnon-confom1ing status due to parking. A policy ofthe DTSP was that the non-conforming
status of downtown uses due to the lack of adequate parking shall be removed contingent upon
the o wners · continuing participation in the implementation of the downtown parking program.
B. Parking As sess ment District
A report from the Town 's Parking Committee, dated August 17. 1982. in regards to the creation
of the Downtown Specific Plan , which ultimately led to the creation ofthe Town's PAD, notes
that parking assessments are based on gross floor area . As defined by Town Code in 19 82 (and
currently), gross floor area means the entire area of all floors , including basements and cellars,
measured from the outer face of exterior walls or, in the case of party walls, from the
centerline.
The Downtown Parking Survey used for the PAD, dated October 29, 1982 , notes that floor areas
for business establishme nts are all estimates. Existing floor areas for the PAD were calculated
from floor plans that were on file with the Town or were calculated from aerial photographs and
then allocated to each business by measuring the business frontage. Since this information was
not preci se , property owners were encouraged at that time to provide additional information
regarding the calculations . Since the floor areas were all estimates, the Town ha s subsequentl y
found that several businesses downtown do not have the precise square footage calculated for the
PAD . Typically when a discrepancy is found , it is that the old square footage estimate is Jess
than what reall y exists . However, To~n staff has found a few instances where the property
owner over estimated their square footage originally.
1\ MG R AdmmWorkFik'S '20 15 Co un c1l Rep,)rt s\Deccmber 15 .Attachment 2 PAD s um mary .doc x
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Parking Assessment D istrict Background
Decembt>r 4, 20 I 5
The PAD data notes the following category of land uses for each parcel: retail, office, restaurant ,
and residential. Miscellaneous uses were classified under retail. Although the PAD data notes
whether or not a parcel had a residential unit at the time of the survey, and documents the square
footage, property owners were not assessed for parking for the residential use .
To finance the parking improvement projects of the PAD, on December 5, 1988 , the Town
issued 25-year Limited Obligation honds which sunseted in December 2013 . The bo nd s are not
a financial liability of the Town and were issued upon and secured by assessments on properties
within the PAD . Installments ofprincipal and interest sufficient to meet annual bond debt
service were included in the property owners· regular county tax bills . Property owners were also
given the option of paying their assessment in advance.
Given the parking cha1lenges and opportunities in the downtown central business district to fund
the creation of more parking, the PAD established the number of parking credits for each parcel
in the district. The fee was based on a formula and the number of spaces (cred its) a property
owner purchased, and from that point on, was unchangeable. These credits did not translate into
a dedicated space and exclusive ownership. but a right to use space from the "pool" of s paces
created by the PAD . The PAD did not provide an opportunity amendment or adding credits .
C. TownCode
On May 18, 1987, The Town Code was amended concerrung rules for properties within a PAD.
Section 29.1 0 .150(f)(2) of the Town Code states that the creation of a PAD relieves those
properties located within the district which were nonconforming as to parking from having to
supply on-site parking spaces as required by Town Code. Based on this code section and that
there is no direction in the historic PAD reports on how to handle corrections to the estimates ,
the Town has not required businesses in the PAD to:
• Meet required parking for their existing floor area (which would be impossible due to
Jack of onsite space); or
• Pay additional funds into the parking assessment district for their existing floor area (it
has been documented that there is no mechanism to pay into the district); or
• Re co nfigure their buildings to remove excess square footage (this would be a hardship to
the business and property owner and goes in the opposite direction of economic vitality
of the downtown).
Purs uant to Section 29 .1 0 .1 50(f) (4) of the Town Code, additional parking would only be
required if additional square footage was added (excluding those properties which paid in to the
district to increase their floor area to the maximum permitted) or the use was intensified . It is
important to note that the Town has never considered that these businesses that have more floor
area than what is documented in the PAD were nonconforming as to parking since the PAD was
created to eliminate that nonconformity.
D . Parking Credits for Expansions, New Development, and Intensification ofUse
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SL'BJECT: Parking Assessment Dis trict Background
December 4. 2015
The maximum tloor area ratio (FAR) for new constructi o n in th e PAD is .60. The option to
include additional fl oor area in the PAD calculation was intended to give vacant pro perti es and
properties wi th s maller buildings (FAR Je ss than .60) an opportunity for future build ing or
intensification up to a FAR of .60 . Some property owners did no t take advantage of this
opportunity. For those properties that took the opportunity and paid into the distri ct for these
credits, they can possibly add addi tional square to their building or intensify the us e without
providing on-s ite parking.
Based on th e 1998 data, out of the 186 parcels in the d ist rict th at have the potential for addi t ional
floor area, approximately 7 J of those parcels have the poss ibility to do so. This is due to the fact
that the Town Code requires PAD properties to maintain whatever existing on-site parking they
may h ave since those spaces were included in the PAD assess ment calc ulations, which greatly
restricts adding onto a building. The remaining 115 parcels that paid into the PAD for potential
additional fl oor area have site cons traints that may never allow them to add square footage. T he
square footage that may never be built equates to 3 18 parking spaces. Therefore, depe nd ing o n
th e use of thes e bus inesses, there is a possibility that up to 3 18 s paces within the PAD are not
assigned to a use.
E . Exceptions
A lth ough no mechanism was esta bl ished in the PAD to a llow a property owner to pay int o the
Assessment District for a dditi o nal parking spaces, Council has approved t wo requests to
purchase additional parking s p aces to intensify a use through the earthquake restoration process.
The b asi s for these approvals was that Town C ouncil adopted Ur gency Ordinances 1800 and
1860, which included a provisio n that allowed any Town Code requirem e nt to be waived in
response to the earthquake restoration process.
On Apri l 17, 1990, Council approved a request at 19 N . Santa Cruz Avenue to allow on s it e
t and em parking and to pay an in-lieu fe e for one parking sp ace to increase the building squ are
footage . The Council found that in this instance, the most lo gical, safe method of restoring this
earthquake damaged building required th e construction of additional floor area . The in-lieu tee
was estimated be to be $16,000 per space. The property owner chose to reduce the number of
restaurant seat s to avoid th e in-lieu fee.
On January 6, 1992 , Town Council a pproved a request for a new restaurant at 21 N. Santa Cruz
A ven ue, to c reate on si te tandem parking and to pay an in-lieu fee to r four additional sp aces to
increase t he number of seats . The Council found that the .. appropriate circum stances'· to waive
the requirements was that i t would help re vita lize the downtown area since the space had been
vacant since the earthquake. The property was b adl y damaged b y th e earthquake, th e property
owner had passed away and th e building was going through foreclosure. The a ppli cant paid the
in-lieu fee which was determined to be $17 ,000 per space. for a total of $68,000. and the fund s
wer e required to be used by the Town to con struct future parking.
F. New Parking
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TO~ COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Parking Assessment District Background
December 4. 2015
Sub sequent to the construction of the eight parking lots/structures which equates to
approximately I ,005 spaces created through the parking assessment district, the Town has
constructed two additional public parking lots in the Central Business District which were not
funded through the PAD. In approximately 2003, a 16 space parking lot (Southside Lot) was
constructed at 145 S . Santa Cruz Avenue across from the Toll House Hotel. In 2009, 29 off
street parking spaces were added to Parking Lot 6 at 224 W . Main Street. These two projects
contributed 45 additional off street spaces to the inventory. In addition, in 2002 the Town
secured a parking lot lease with Verizon at 15 Montebello Way east of the Post Office
(Montebello Lot). The current lease runs until 2019 and is subject to amendments and adds 26
off street spaces. So in all , there have been 71 spaces added to the Downtown Parking fnventory
since 2002 that are not included in the PAD.
CONCLUSION :
Section 29.10.150(f)(2) of the Town Code states that the creation of a PAD relieves those properties
located within the district which were nonconforming as to parking from having to supply on-site
parking spaces as required by Town Code. Pursuant to Town Code and past actions by the Town.
additional parking in the PAD is only required if square footage is added or the use is intensified .
As documented in numerous historic reports regarding the PAD, square footages were estimates,
there is no mechanism to allow a property owner to pay into the Assessment District for additional
parking spaces and there is no direction in the historic PAD reports on how to handle corrections to
the estimates . Since there is no mechanism to pay for additional parking, and ifthere is no room on
the site to accommodate additional onsite parking, the Town has historically not required businesses
to physically eliminate the excess square footage from the building which would have been the only
alternative to balance out the excess square footage issue.
LRP:JSP:cg
C ·\Users JPau l>on \Dcsktop\P A DBackgro und.docx
MEETING DATE: 12/15/15
ITEM NO: 10
ADDENDUM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 14,2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL "I
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER •. ~ U {~(t' ,~i({ 'il> ,
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL SEPARATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND SEATING
CAPACITIES
REMARKS :
After the initial staff report was distributed , staff received an inquiry from a Councilmember
regarding seating calculations.
The following information provides an explanation of seating calculations using square footage
rather than parking spaces.
California Building and Fire Codes allow seating for restaurants at a rate as low as one person per
15 square feet, up to the first 1,000 square feet. For some jurisdictions, seating is allowed up to
the maximum Fire Code occupancy.
In the case of other benchmarked jurisdictions, seating is restricted by another metric as set forth
in their adopted Codes, such as one seat per 40 square feet.
To help steer staffs work, staff is asking for general direction from the Council regarding its
desi re, or lack thereof, to decouple seating and parking requirements and becoming less restricti ve
on seating capacities. Based on Council direction, staff could provide options for consideration to
Pl anning Commission, and after their vetting, Code amendments would be prepared for public
hearing.
The following chart provides an example ofhow the seating capacities may change with a change
in calculation method .
PREPARED BY: MONICA RENN
Economic Vitality Manager
Reviewed by:nc:::=Assistant ~own Manager A.Llfr_Tow n Attorney .clti_Finance
I
N:' \1GR AdminWorkfil es-2 0 15 Coun c il Repons December 15\Addend um-Desk Item Seating to Parking doc .doc EXHIBIT 3
PAGE2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SU BJECT: POTENTIAL SEPARATION OF PARKING REQ UIREME NTS AN D SEATING
CAPACITIES
DECEMBER 14,2015
REMARKS (cont'd):
DINNING AREA IN SQUARE FEET 1,000 1,800 2,300
rJ)
lilil Number of parking spaces that would be credited to the u 3.33 6 7.67 < commercial space based on square footage in downtown Q.,
rJ)
"" ;z
~ Number of parking spaces that would be credited outside 4.26 7 .66 9.79 ~ of downtown . < Q.,
Seating allowance at 4 seats per I space 13 .32 24 30.68 (C2 calculation with no separate bar)
Seating allowance at 3 seats per I space 9.99 18 I 23 .0 1 (C2 with separate bar)
""
Seating allowance at 3 seats per I space 12.78 22.98 29.37 ;z (Outside of downtown) -~ < ~ Fire Code occupancy estimate, assuming unfixed seats 66.67 74 .67 79 .67 rJ)
1 seat per 40 sq. ft . 25 45 57.5
1 seat per l 00 sq. ft. 10 18 23
Public Comment was recei ved after distribution of the staff report on December 10, 2015 and is
included as Attachment 3.
Attachments previously received with Staff Report on December 10, 2015 :
1. Benchmarking
2. Historical Summary of the Parking Assessment District
Attachments received with thi s Addendum :
3. Letter from McCarthy Ranch/Rootstock Wine Bar
Town of Los Gatos
Attn: Town Council
11 0 E Main Street
Los Gatos, CA
95030
VIA EMAIL
Honorable Council Members,
mMcCARTHY
l:iiif R AN C H
December 14,2015
First and foremost, we would like to commend you on the steps you have taken this
year to update the numerous policies and ordinances that impact the various
businesses in Los Gatos, and specifically downtown.
Los Gatos businesses have been suffering in recent years. There are several major
competitive factors that have impacted our Town. First , the revitalization of existing
downtowns such as Redwood City, Los Altos , Mountain View, Campbell and downtown
San Jose (with San Pedro Market and the addition of thousands of new residential units
to support retail and restaurant businesses in that area). Second, the development of
new downtowns that never existed before such as Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santana Row,
and soon to be South San Jose and even Los Gatos's own North 40 . Third, the erosion
of traditional retail shopping by the online marketplace. These changes have made
bringing customers in to our Town as challenging as it has ever been .
Staff has done a good job of framing the issue, however, an important question to ask is
when the cities that are listed as a comparison last established their parameters? It has
probably been some time since any of their regulations have been reviewed . These
neighboring municipalities are all being impacted by the same factors we mentioned
above . With the changing environment of urban and transit oriented design inclusive of
how people travel and visit businesses, a lot of regulatory policies and ordinances need
to be updated. This is the chance for Los Gatos to get ahead of the game by
addressing the issue before our competitors do .
The idea of a "dooms-day" scenario where parking and traffic become gridlock by the
addition of new seats in restaurants is purely unrealistic. Many restaurants are
operating out of compliance as it is and this step would simply bring them into
compliance as well as allow other neighboring businesses the opportunity to compete
fairly. In turn downtown becomes more successful.
Restaurants need the ability to reach their own balance of seats that are adequate for
the ir business . This should simply be limited by the safety factors governed by
occupancy that is established by the Fire Marshall .
Please take the necessary step of unlinking parking and seat count in restaurants in
order to allow all of the restaurants in our beloved Town to adjust their seat count if
necessary in order to become more successful.
McCarthy Ranch/Rootstock Wine Bar ATTAC H MENT 3
15425los Gatos Blvd Suite 102los Gatos. C A 95032 (4 08) 356.2300 Fox {408)356.2338
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Sec. 29.10.150.-Number of off-street spaces required.
(a) Intent. The regulations contained in this section are intended to insure the provision of a
sufficient number of off-street parking spaces privately and publicly owned and operated to
satisfy needs generated by permissible uses .
(b) Parking r equirements for downtown. In addition to other parking requirements, one visitor
parking space for each residential unit other than detached single-family or two-family
dwelling shall be required unless the Planning Commission makes a finding that more or
less visitor parking is necessary due to the size or type of housing unit(s). The parking
requirement for various uses in the downtown are as follows:
(1) R etail and commercial stores, enfi shops, restaurant, bars, taverns , and nightclubs. One
(I) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area.
(2) Business and professional offices, banks, financial institutions, insurance companies,
social service agencies and studios. One (1) parking space for each two hundred fifty
(250) square feet of gross floor area.
(3) Restaumnt (no separate bar). One ( 1) parking space for each four ( 4) seats.
(4) Res(aurant (separate ba1). One (I) parking space for each three (3) seats.
(5) Bars, tavems and nightclubs. One ( 1) parking space for each three (3) seats.
(3) Theaters. One (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor
area.
(4) For uses not specifically listed in this subsection the requirements shall be as set forth in
subsection (c).
(c) Outside downtown parking requirements. The number of off-street parking spaces required
for areas outside the downtown is set in this subsection. When a use is not listed in this
subsection, the Planning Director shall determine the parking requirements by analogy to the
requirements for the listed uses . In addition to other parking requirements , one visitor
parking space for each residential unit other than a detached single-family or two-family
dwelling shall be required, unless the Planning Commission makes a finding that more or
less visitor parking is necessary due to the size or type of housing unit(s).
(1) Single-family, residential condominiums and two-family dwellings. Two (2) parking
spaces for each living unit.
(2) S econdary dwelling units. Parking spaces shall be provided in addition to the required
minimum number of parking spaces for the primary dwelling unit as follows :
Interior secondary dwelling unit ..... 1 space
Attached secondary dwelling unit ..... 1 space
Detached secondary dwelling unit ..... 2 spaces
(3) Multiple-unit dwellings in all z ones and two-family dwellings in th e R-ID z one. One and
one-half (1 V2 ) times the number ofliving units in such dwellings.
Page 1
(4) Hotels, motels and auto courts. One (1) parking space for each guest room or suite, plus
one (1) parking space for each employee.
(5) Lodginghouses, boardinghouses. One (I) parking space for each two (2) beds in such
building, plus one (1) parking space for each employee.
(6) Hospitals. One and one-half (1 Y2) parking spaces for each bed. For uses not specifically
listed in this subsection the requirements shall be as set forth in section 29.10.150(c).
(7) Sanitariums, convalescent homes and rest homes. One (1) parking space per two and
one-half (2 Y2) beds.
(8) Medical or dental clinic or office. One (1) parking space for each two hundred fifty
(250) square feet of gross floor area or six (6) spaces per doctor; whichever is more
restrictive.
(9) Retail and commercial stores, t!HHI shops, restaurant, bars, taverns , and nightclubs ..
One (1) parking space for each two hundred thirty-five (235) square feet of gross floor
area.
(1 0) Business and professional offices, banks, financial institutions, insurance companies,
social service agencies and studios. One (1) parking space for each two hundred thirty-
five (235) square feet of gross floor area.
(11)Householdfurniture, appliances and furniture repair shops. One (1) parking space for
each three hundred fifty (350) square feet of gross floor area.
(12)Enclos ed automobile or machinery sales. One (1) parking space for each four hundred
seventy ( 4 70) feet of gross floor area.
(13) Op en sales areas. Two (2) parking spaces for each employee.
(14)Service stations and auto repair and auto service businesses. Two (2) parking spaces
for each grease rack or working bay, plus one (1) parking space for each employee.
( 15) Public eatiNg eslahlis!mwltts, taverns, tmd nightclubs. One ( 1) parking space for each
three (3) seats in sHch pHblic eating establishments, taverns or nightclubs.
( 15) Wholesale establishments and warehouses. One (1) parking space for each two
thousand three hundred fifty (2 ,350) square feet of gross floor area, plus one (1) parking
space for each company vehicle used in the operation of such establishment or
warehouse .
( 16)Manufacturing plants, machine shops, research or testing [laboratories, bottling
plants] and printing plants. One (1) parking space for each one and one-half (1 Y2)
employees, plus one (1) parking space for each company vehicle used in the operation
of such plant, shop or laboratory.
( 17)Fune ral homes and mortuaries. One (1) parking space for each [seven hundred (700)
square feet of gross] floor area, plus one (1) parking space for each employee and one
(1) parking space for each company vehicle used in the operation of such home or
mortuary.
(18) Community centers and libraries. One (1) parking space for each [five hundred ninety
(590) square feet of] gross floor area, plus one (1) parking space for each employee.
Page 2
( l9)Post offices. One (1) parking space for each two hundred thirty-five (235) square feet of
gross floor area, plus one (1) parking space for each employee, and one (1) for each
official vehicle.
(20)Private clubs and lodges. One (1) parking space for each three hundred fifty (350)
square feet of gross floor area, plus one (1) parking space for each three hundred fifty
(350) square feet of outside areas employed for purposes of assembly and meeting by
the members and guests of such clubs and lodges, plus one (1) parking space for each
five hundred ninety (590) square feet of outside areas developed for recreational
purposes, such as gardens, swimming pools, park areas and assembly areas, excepting
golf course playing area and similar field sports.
(21) Elementary schools. One (1) parking spa ce for each employee , and if such school has an
auditorium there shall be one (1) p arking space for each three and one -half (3 Y2 ) fixed
seats in such auditorium, plus one (1) parking space for each six (6) linear feet of fixed
benches therein, or one (1) parking space for each thirty-five (35) square feet of gross
floor area in such auditorium.
(22)lntermediate or junior high schools. One (1) parking space for each employee, and if
such school has an auditorium there shall be one (1) parking space for each three and
one-half(3 Y2 ) fixed seats in such auditorium, plus one (1) parking space for each six (6)
linear feet of fixed benches therein, or one (1) parking space for each thirty-five (35)
square feet of gross floor area in such auditorium.
(23)High schools. One (1) parking space for each employee, plus one (1) parking space for
each seven (7) students in such high school and if such school has an auditorium there
shall be one (1) parking space for each three and one-half (3 Y2) fixed seats in such
auditorium plus one (1) parking space for each six (6) linear feet of fixed benches
therein, or one (1) parking space for each thirty-five (35) square feet of gross floor area
in such auditorium .
(24) Colleges. One (1) parking space for each employee, plus one (1) parking space for each
three (3) students in such college, and if such college has an auditorium, there shall be
one (1) parking space for each three and one-half (3 Y2 ) fixed seats in such auditorium,
plus one (1) parking space for each six (6) linear feet of fixed benches therein, or one
(1) parking space for each thirty-five (35) feet of gross floor area in such auditorium.
(25) Churches. One (1) parking space for each four ( 4) seats in each building used
separately, or together with any other building, for worship.
(26)Bowling lanes. Seven (7) parking spaces for each lane in each establishment.
(27)Auditorium, th eaters, sports arenas, stadiums and assembly halls, with or without fixed
seats. One (1) parking space for each three and one-half (3Y2) fixed seats on such
premises, plus one (1) parking space for each six ( 6) linear feet of fixed benches on the
premises, or one (1) parking space for each thirty-five (35) square feet of gross floor
area.
(d) Handicapped spaces. Handicapped spaces provided in compliance with State or local
regulation shall be counted in determining the number of spaces provided in meeting the
requirements of this chapter.
Page 3
(e) Alternating uses. Where uses are required by this division to be served by off-street parking
spaces, and where some of the uses generate parking demands primarily during hours when
the remaining uses are closed, alternating use of the space is allowed, but only if specifically
authorized by conditional use permit. Issuance of the permit must be supported by findings
that the alternating use of such spaces will not result in the effective provisions of fewer off-
street parking spaces than required by this division. The permit may contain such conditions
as are necessary to assure the facts found will continue to exist, including:
(1) Submission of satisfactory statements by the party or parties providing the proposed
alternating parking, describing the users and their times of operation, and showing the
absence of conflict between them;
(2) Written agreements between the parties setting forth the terms and conditions under
which the off-street parking spaces will be operated;
(3) Documents showing maintenance provisions; and
(4) Other documents or commitments deemed necessary.
Whenever off-street parking spaces are authorized to serve alternating uses, the number of spaces
required shall be based upon the use which generates the largest number required.
(f) Properties in parking districts. Required spaces in parking districts shall be as follows:
(1) For any building or open-air use in a public parking district, the number of required off-
street parking spaces is:
a . None, when the gross floor area of the building and open area occupied by a use,
combined, do not exceed the area of the building and open area occupied when the
district is formed; or
b . When the area limitation in subsection (f)(1)a. is exceeded or the use is intensified,
the required number is derived only on the basis of the excess area .
(2) The creation of a parking assessment district relieves those properties located within the
district which were nonconforming as to parking from having to supply on-site parking
spaces in accordance with subsection (b).
(3) The assessment formula was based on a number of factors that included existing floor
area, existing use, in some cases potential floor area and included credits for existing
on-site parking spaces and for participation in past assessment districts.
( 4) The Planning Director shall develop a table using the floor area, parking and previous
assessment district information used to calculate the parking assessment and translating
that information into a parking credit based on the parking requirements set forth in
subsection (b).
When an application is filed to intensify the use within an existing building or to expand
an existing building, this information will be used to calculate the amount of on-site
parking, if any, that will be necessary to comply with the parking requirements set forth
in subsection (b).
(5) Any parking spaces that are credited in the parking assessment district calculation may
not be eliminated .
Page4
(g) Parking requirements for major additions to single-family dwellings. Notwithstanding the
provisions of division 5 of this article of this chapter, any addition to a single-family
dwelling as described below shall comply with the parking requirements set forth in
subsection (c)( 1) of this section:
(1) An addition exceeding fifty (50) percent ofthe existing floor area;
(2) An increase in the number of bedrooms;
(3) A second story addition to a one-story building.
(h) Exemptions . Compliance with subsection (c)(1) is not required if the deciding body makes
the following findings:
(1) If the site and/or structures on the site are subject to historic preservation pursuant to
division 3 of article VIII of this Code and the Historic Preservation Committee
determines that the enforcement of subsection (g) will impact the historic character of
the site and/or structures on the site; or
(2) The lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required by subsection (c)(1).
This finding is not required if subsection (h)(l) is made.
If the deciding body makes the findings set forth above, parking shall be provided to the
maximum extent possible.
(i) Parking requirements for residential properties that are nonconforming as to parking with a
Landmark Historic Preservation overlay zone. Residential structure(s) with a Landmark
Historic Preservation overlay zone that are lawfully or unlawfully demolished as defined by
sections 29.10.020 and 29.10.09030(h) ofthe Town Code , shall not be required to meet the
parking requirements for new construction if no changes to the previously approved plans
will be made except as determined by the Planning Director to meet current zoning and
building code requirements.
(Ord. No. 1316, §§ 3.41.010--3.41.075, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1328, 8-2-76; Ord. No. 1349 , 3-21-77;
Ord. No . 1363, 8-1-77; Ord. No. 1375, 11-21-77; Ord. No. 1493, 3-17-81; Ord. No. 1546,8-16-
82; Ord. No. 1652, 4-15-85; Ord. No. 1654, 4-22-85; Ord. No . 1657, 6-3-85; Ord . No. 1724,5-
18-87; Ord. No. 1789, §VI, 5-15-89; Ord. No. 1854, §I, 6-3-91; Ord. No . 1945, §I, 6-7-93;
Ord. No. 2083, §I, 5-7-01; Ord. No. 2149, §I, 5-1-06)
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2016\Restaurant Prking Ord-Exh. 3 Redlined Prkg Ord Amend 29 .10.150.docx
Page 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank