HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-24 City Council Summary Minutes
03/24/97 −317
Regular Meeting
March 24, 1997
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................82-320
APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................82-320
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................82-321
1. Downtown Parking Structure Final Report for Recommendation
Regarding the Construction of and Financing of New Parking
Structure(s) in Downtown Palo Alto - Refer to Policy and
Services and Finance Committees.......................82-321
1A. (Old Item No. 11) Resolution 7655 entitled “Resolution of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of
Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as
Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the
Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution
No. 7548".............................................82-321
1B. (Old Item No. 12) Ordinance 4401 entitled “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the
Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for
La Comida Senior Nutrition Program”...................82-321
1C. (Old Item No. 14) Ordinance 4402 entitled “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the
Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Increase Animal Services Revenues and
to Amend the Municipal Fee Schedule to Include New Flea Control
Product Sales”........................................82-322
2. Ordinance 4403 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97
to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community
Services Department in Recognition of Receipt of Funds from
the Public Library Fund of the State Library”.........82-322
3. Rebate of San Francisco Property Tax Refund to the Water
Utilities.............................................82-322
03/24/97 −318
4. Ordinance 4404 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks to Add
Section 9.48.025 Prohibiting Sitting or Lying Down Upon the
Public Sidewalk on University Avenue Between High Street and
Cowper Street”........................................82-322
4A. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....82-322
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider a resolution
of the City Council concerning the rights of the City’s electric
customers to engage in direct transaction with alternate
power supplies, the City’s recovery of its uneconomic
investments in electric generation facilities, and the City’s
marketing of products and services to customers outside of the
City’s jurisdictional boundaries in the context of
restructuring of the electric utility industry in California
(continued from 3/17/97)..............................82-323
5B. (Old Item No. 8) PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter
12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing
Underground Utility District No. 37 (continued from 3/17/97)
......................................................82-347
5C. (Old Item No. 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council
will consider a Tentative Map application to consolidate
existing parcels into a 9.2 acre site to accommodate an approved
295,000-square-foot medical office, clinic and research
facility campus for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and
proposed modifications to conditions of the 1996 Conditional
Use Permit and Architectural Review approval for property
located at 795 El Camino Real (CMR:185:97)............82-348
5D. (Old Item No. 10) PUBLIC HEARING: Vacation of Street Rights
of Way and Public Utilities Easement - Palo Alto Medical
Foundation Urban Lane Site............................82-381
5E. (Old Item No. 13) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide
an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project
19406, Rinconada Pool Site Improvements, for Replacement of
the Children’s Pool...................................82-382
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator’s decision for a Conditional Use
Permit 96-UP-5, allowing live entertainment, including music
03/24/97 −319
and dancing, at an existing restaurant (Q-Billiards), located
at 529 Alma Street (continued from 3/3/97)............82-383
15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........82-419
03/24/97 −320
03/24/97 −321
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:06 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum,
Schneider, Wheeler
ABSENT: Kniss
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding bicycle safety, Paly
High, Alma/Churchill.
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding fair play.
Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, spoke regarding the Black & White
Ball.
Daniel Daye, Homeless, spoke regarding the sit-lie ordinance.
Michael Campbell, 364 Kingsley Avenue, spoke regarding the interim
Ordinance 4381.
T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding the Children’s Zoo.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding legislative platform
- radar enforceable speed limit.
Margaret Ash, 965 Webster Street, spoke regarding the sit-lie
ordinance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the Minutes of January 6, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Eakins “abstaining,” Kniss absent.
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the Minutes of January 13, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Eakins “abstaining,” Kniss absent.
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the Minutes of March 11, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins “not participating,” Kniss absent.
03/24/97 −322
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the Minutes of March 12, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins “not participating,” Kniss absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, that Item Nos.
11, 12, and 14 would become Consent Calendar Items.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to move
Agenda Item Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 forward ahead of Item No. 6.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
City Manager June Fleming announced that Agenda Item Nos. 11, 12,
and 14 would become Item Nos. 1A, 1B, and 1C, respectively, and Agenda
Item Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 would become Item Nos. 5A, 5B, 5C,
5D, and 5E, respectively.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 4.
1. Downtown Parking Structure Final Report for Recommendation
Regarding the Construction of and Financing of New Parking
Structure(s) in Downtown Palo Alto - Refer to Policy and
Services and Finance Committees
1A. (Old Item No. 11) Resolution 7655 entitled “Resolution of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of
Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as
Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the
Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution
No. 7548"
1B. (Old Item No. 12) Ordinance 4401 entitled “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the
Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for
La Comida Senior Nutrition Program”
Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and La Comida De
California, Inc. for 1996-97 Community Block Grant Funds
1C. (Old Item No. 14) Ordinance 4402 entitled “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the
03/24/97 −323
Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Increase Animal Services Revenues and
to Amend the Municipal Fee Schedule to Include New Flea Control
Product Sales”
2. Ordinance 4403 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97
to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community
Services Department in Recognition of Receipt of Funds from
the Public Library Fund of the State Library”
3. Rebate of San Francisco Property Tax Refund to the Water
Utilities
4. Ordinance 4404 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks to Add
Section 9.48.025 Prohibiting Sitting or Lying Down Upon the
Public Sidewalk on University Avenue Between High Street and
Cowper Street”
Ordinance 4405 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks”
Ordinance 4406 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code Relating to Temporary Street Closures”
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 1 - 3, Kniss absent.
MOTION PASSED 6-2 for Item No. 4, Andersen, McCown “no,” Kniss absent.
CLOSED SESSION
4A. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation
Subject: Scott, et al. v. City of Palo Alto, SMC No. 302290
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a).
Public Comments
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider a resolution
of the City Council concerning the rights of the City’s electric
customers to engage in direct transaction with alternate
03/24/97 −324
power supplies, the City’s recovery of its uneconomic
investments in electric generation facilities, and the City’s
marketing of products and services to customers outside of the
City’s jurisdictional boundaries in the context of
restructuring of the electric utility industry in California
(continued from 3/17/97)
Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said in September 1996, Assembly
Bill (AB) 1890 directed a comprehensive restructuring of the electric
utility in California. Staff extensively analyzed options in order
to prepare for the transition in the market. The mission of the
Palo Alto Electric and Gas Utility was to provide reliable and
competitive energy services which responded to the needs of its
customers. Those services needed to be met in a safe and
environmentally responsive manner. The value to the community
included lower rates, a financial contribution to City services,
local control and accountability, responsive service, and partner-
ing with other agencies on regional issues such as improved air
quality and renewable resources. Those values were the cornerstone
of municipal ownership of utilities, and Palo Alto's strategy was
to continue to provide those same values to the community. While
Palo Alto customers were currently offered power at prices
substantially lower than investor-owned utilities in California,
investor-owned utilities were preparing for competition by paying
off debt and restructuring for lower rates by the Year 2002. Also,
more than 250 companies entered California and registered with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as power marketers.
Palo Alto's challenge was also to reduce its debt on its investments
to supply power to its customers and to retain rates in the future
at or below the projected market prices. While doing that, Palo
Alto needed to continue to provide the municipal valued services
which distinguished a municipal utility from a for-profit
enterprise. To respond to those challenges, staff recommended the
three policies stated in the staff report (CMR:159:97) be adopted.
The policies allowed staff to pursue business strategies that
achieved the City's goal of offering competitively priced services
in the future while maintaining its commitment to policy goals valued
by customers and the community. Although municipal utilities were
not mandated to provide customers a choice of an energy supplier,
staff believed Palo Alto residential and business customers should
have the same energy choices as customers in investor-owned utility
service areas. The City's responsibility was to remain competitive
and be the utility of choice to its customers. Palo Alto was very
successful over the past several years in lowering its energy and
operating costs and currently purchased energy from a variety of
sources at prices at or below market. Palo Alto's vision was to
be the preferred energy enterprise for current and potential
customers as restructuring the electric industry moved forward.
03/24/97 −325
Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Chair Paul Johnston said the
UAC endorsed the proposed recommendations. The City Utilities staff
was essentially leading the way in terms of municipal utilities
preparation for deregulation, and that leadership role was
particularly evident at the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA).
The City of Palo Alto was well positioned for competition compared
to other municipal utilities because of current low rates and a debt
structure which allowed the City to take care of its debts through
the stranded cost approach outlined in the staff report (CMR:159:97).
The proposal did not necessarily include the full range of options
that could be considered in order to assure Palo Alto residents and
businesses continued to have competitive rates and that the General
Fund continued to be supported by some transfer of methodology.
Other alternatives might need to be considered in the future.
Council Member Fazzino applauded the progressive way in which the
Utilities staff and UAC were approaching the issue. Regarding the
stranded cost issue, he clarified the proposal was to apply a stranded
cost across all customer classes.
Assistant Director of Utilities, Administrative Services Randy
Baldschun said the City was currently breaking the electric rate
up into functions of distribution. There would be one component
for stranded costs, one for the power costs, and another called the
public purpose programs. The plan was to use acceptable cost
methodologies to allocate the stranded costs across the rate
schedules. The overall goal was allocating not only the stranded
costs but also the distribution costs and all the other costs to
end up with rates that would take the City through the transition-
ary period without having major impacts on customers. As the City
came out of the transition period, there would be enough funds in
the Calaveras Reserve account to recover a fairly conservative worst
case scenario of stranded costs.
Council Member Fazzino queried whether there would be a differential
charge for residential versus commercial customer service stranded
costs.
Mr. Baldschun said there would be differentials. The specific rate
components would be presented to the Finance Committee in May, and
they would vary by customer class and cost function.
Council Member Fazzino clarified stranded costs would be clearly
delineated as opposed to the other elements of the rate structure.
Mr. Baldschun said that was correct.
03/24/97 −326
Council Member Fazzino queried how long staff suspected the charges
would need to be in place.
Mr. Baldschun said the initial plan was to build up the Calaveras
Reserve so that by the end of the Year 2001 when the investor-owned
utilities would essentially do away with the "competition transition
charge" for their large commercial and industrial customers, Palo
Alto would have paralleled that same path into the stranded cost
recovery component for its large commercial/industrial customers.
In addition, staff wanted to try to eliminate the transition cost
recovery component of the retail residential rate. PG&E and other
investor-owned utilities currently had the option to carry that
transition cost beyond the Year 2001. If Palo Alto could do so
without a substantial impact on its residential class, it would try
to end the transition cost recovery component by the Year 2001.
Council Member Fazzino queried what percentage of the current rate
the stranded cost recovery component might be.
Mr. Baldschun said a residential overall retail rate of a little
less than $0.06 per kilowatt hour was looked at, and of that the
transition cost component would be about one-half cent.
Council Member Fazzino understood there had been discussion about
requiring customers to pay the municipal utility if they selected
an alternative supplier. He asked for comment.
Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management Tom Habashi
said if customers wished to sign up with another marketer, they would
first have to commit in writing to continue paying their Competitive
Transition Charge (CTC) until the end of the Year 2001.
Mr. Mrizek said the reason was that the Calaveras facility was
basically built for all of Palo Alto's customers. If Palo Alto lost
a major customer to another supplier, the customer should still be
required to pay its share of the costs to construct the Calaveras
facility.
Council Member Fazzino queried whether Council would see a proposed
charge as part of the 1998 rate structure.
Mr. Mrizek said yes.
Council Member Schneider asked how investor-owned utilities were
paying off their debt.
Mr. Mrizek said the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
allowed the investor-owned utilities to maintain their rates at the
current level. For PG&E, the current level for the residential class
03/24/97 −327
was somewhere in the range of $0.10 to $0.12 per kilowatt hour.
It did not cost PG&E that amount of money to provide service to that
class. The differential was being put into the bank to pay off debt
service. The CPUC allowed investor-owned utilities to do that until
the end of the Year 2001, and PG&E estimated it would have adequate
funds to pay off all of its debt service by that date.
Council Member Schneider clarified between the period PG&E was paying
off its debt and the Year 2001, PG&E's rates would still be higher
than Palo Alto's.
Mr. Mrizek said that was correct.
Council Member Schneider clarified PG&E's rates would remain fixed.
Mr. Mrizek said PG&E's rates would remain fixed at roughly $0.11
per kilowatt hour. After the Year 2001, PG&E would reduce its rates
to a market level.
Council Member Schneider clarified that compared to Palo Alto's $0.06
per kilowatt hour for stranded cost recovery.
Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. The plan was to recommend that
Palo Alto collect its competitive charges up to the Year 2001 as
indicated by Mr. Baldschun and then also reduce its rates to remain
competitive with PG&E or any other marketer entering the California
markets.
Council Member Schneider queried whether Palo Alto's rates would
be significantly lower after the Year 2001 when its stranded rates
were recovered.
Mr. Habashi said while Palo Alto's rates would be lower, it was
questionable whether they would be significantly lower.
Vice Mayor Andersen understood the investor-owned utilities were
giving a 10 percent reduction with funding through a bonding
mechanism which was spread over several years.
Mr. Habashi said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Andersen heard that PG&E's rates would likely be higher
but was concerned that investor-owned utilities would artificially
reduce its rates in 1997-1998 at the same time Palo Alto was raising
its rates. He queried whether the City was putting itself in a
vulnerable competitive position.
03/24/97 −328
Mr. Habashi believed on the residential side it would be very hard
for Palo Alto to be in an uncompetitive position. The investor-owned
utilities would not reduce its commercial rates by 10 percent.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked how Palo Alto would carry out the
possibility of expanding its own competitive base and its power
retail services beyond its boundaries and whether it could be done
beyond Palo Alto's contiguous borders.
Mr. Habashi clarified Palo Alto was not likely to seek customers
all over California but rather would target only specific areas where
it could provide value not only for the customers it would be working
with but also for the customers in Palo Alto. For example, it was
possible that Hewlett Packard (HP) would look for a marketer to
aggregate all the campuses in the Bay Area. Palo Alto wanted to
be there working with HP because it did not want to lose HP as a
customer of Palo Alto. The same thing was true of Stanford
University. Stanford had on its land almost 40 percent of Palo
Alto's customers, and Palo Alto wanted to work with Stanford to be
sure it was happy with Palo Alto's service and to make sure Stanford
did not get another marketer. When Palo Alto sought opportunities
outside of Palo Alto, it would do so strategically and selectively.
If Palo Alto went beyond that, it would work with marketers who
already had sufficient staff and help to give along the way.
Vice Mayor Andersen commended staff on its progressive approach to
the issues.
Council Member Wheeler said while Mr. Habashi gave Council Member
Schneider assurance that Palo Alto could continue to acquire energy
and sell it to its customers at competitive prices in the future,
and the staff report (CMR:159:97) gave the same assurances, she
queried on what basis the City believed it could play in the "big
boys'" game.
Mr. Mrizek said for the last three years, staff had been buying energy
at or below market rate in the market. Approximately one year
before, Palo Alto temporarily reduced its Western contract by 37.5
megawatts and bought that energy amount on the open market. In less
than a year, the City saved approximately $1 million. Mr. Habashi
and his staff negotiated for additional marketing resources, and
in every agreement to date, the benefits were on the plus side.
He believed the trend would continue. In the Year 2002 the
investor-owned utilities would be required to buy energy from the
California Power Exchange (CPE), and as a municipal utility, the
City would have choices. It could buy from the CPE at the market
price, it could buy from a marketer through a short- or long-term
agreement, and it could continue to get energy from Western. The
City was currently working on a new marketing agreement with Western
03/24/97 −329
for approximately another 18-year period; however, while Western
was currently not the best price in the game, it had to reduce its
prices in the market. He believed the City would have more choices
than the investor-owned utilities in the future.
City Manager June Fleming said it was true the City had benefited
by wise moves and a low debt. The City would have to pay close
attention to the electric utility in the future, and it would have
to be treated much more like a business. Some of the public processes
currently in use would have to be reviewed. In the next five to
seven years, the Council would have to revisit the appropriate role
of the City. While she was comfortable about the City's current
position, it was not something to take for granted.
Council Member Wheeler referred to Vice Mayor Andersen's questions
about how the City would hold on to its larger corporate customers.
The staff report (CMR:159:97) indicated options in services would
be offered similar to those of the competitors to help the City hold
on to its large customers. She asked what kinds of services and
options would be provided.
Mr. Habashi said one example would be to offer a menu of pricing
for the commodities so the customers could choose the type of pricing
they preferred given their certain circumstances. Another option
would be to go to customers' site and work with them on using some
of their money, which they provided for the public services goods,
to work some efficiencies on their facilities, and to help reduce
their overall costs of energy. A third option might be to work with
the customers on lending them money to build some of their systems.
It would be cheaper for the City to provide the money than it would
be for the customers because their costs of capital were somewhat
higher. There was a long list of options and services staff was
currently considering, and staff asked the customers what they
wanted. Before January 1, 1998, staff would return to the City
Council and share some of the ideas being considered.
Council Member Wheeler said the City's General Fund had always
benefited greatly from having its municipally owned utilities, and
she suspected the implementation of the new restructured electric
utility would inevitably impact the General Fund revenues. As staff
considered the various options for services for its major customers,
she assumed the potential consequences to the City's General Fund
was also considered.
Ms. Fleming said while there was no simple answer, as discussed with
the UAC and staff, the City had to accept the fact that it was time
to review its transfer policy. The level at which the City
legitimately made the transfer according to the methodology approved
by the Council needed to be studied. When she talked about
long-range financing and being cautious with the funds currently
03/24/97 −330
being used because of the many external factors which would impact
the City's financial health, the electric utility transfer to the
General Fund was one of them. She did not want to leave Council
with the impression the City would enjoy the same level of transfer
to the General Fund for a long period of time. Staff would discuss
with the UAC and Council funding a study to review the transfer
methodology. She believed the study would likely reveal the same
level of transfer could not be maintained.
Council Member Eakins said 15 percent of the electric power was sold
to about 26,000 households in Palo Alto. She queried whether staff
anticipated doing some public relations explanations not only of
the charge but also of what some of the terms meant, e.g., stranded
recovery costs.
Mr. Habashi said as soon as Council endorsed the policies set forth,
staff would proceed immediately to do its public relations work.
Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the issue of marketing and that
a third of the requests had to do with expanding marketing outside
of the City. He queried whether any thought had been given to
stopping marketing entirely following the model of Pacific Bell and
long distance. Pacific Bell did not offer long distance. The
individual customer chose a long distance supplier, and the whoever
it might be, the bill was provided by Pacific Bell. He queried the
advantages and disadvantages of doing the same thing with respect
to providing power.
Mr. Mrizek said while there would be 250 marketers applying to FERC
to market energy in California, he estimated that when deregulation
was fully implemented after the Year 2002, there might be 10
marketers. The same happened with the gas deregulation. Ini-
tially, there was a multitude of marketers, but most fell by the
wayside. While one possibility was to buy only from the CPE at
market, put Calaveras Hydroelectric into CPE, and get the market
price for it, and deliver market-priced power to the customers, he
did not believe it was the best approach for Palo Alto. He believed
Palo Alto could do better than the CPE by having alternate marketers
from which the City could buy energy in the future. It was impossible
to know what the market would be in the Year 2002. When staff went
through the stranded costs analysis with the UAC, the range between
low-, medium-, and high-cost estimates in the market was phenomenal.
In the long run, he believed having an opportunity to buy from a
number of marketers would keep the City in a position of continuing
to keep its supply below the CPE market level. If the City
discontinued its marketing, it would have to get its energy from
CPE. He expected the market to be very volatile over the next five
years, and to get out at that time would place the City in the position
of not having a marketer it could depend on to provide energy at
03/24/97 −331
or below market. It would be impossible to get a long-range
commitment on a price from any marketer at that point. He believed
staff did a good job of keeping its market supply at below market,
and that should continue.
Mr. Habashi had been scheduling meetings with some of the City's
largest customers. A couple of the customers had indicated they
were happy with what they received from the City and did not need
to know much about what was available to them in the marketplace;
they enjoyed working with Palo Alto and wanted to keep it going.
The City was doing a good job of marketing. If the time came when
the City could no longer do as good a job as others, then it should
get out of the business.
Council Member Rosenbaum agreed the City was currently doing an
excellent job, and it had a very good staff. He inferred from Mr.
Habashi's answer that the City's effectiveness would be evaluated
from time to time. If it were determined that the City's marketing
efforts and costs were such that it was not an advantage to continue,
the City would surely consider getting out of the marketing part
of the business.
Ms. Fleming believed Council Member Rosenbaum's comments were right
on target in terms of what she was trying to say in response to Council
Member Wheeler. She was totally committed to the philosophy
articulated by Mr. Habashi. In terms of the letter submitted by
Mr. Keicher (on file in the City Clerk's Office), staff believed
most of the items would be addressed in the future.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests
from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to
adopt the Resolution concerning restructuring of the Electric
Utility in California.
Resolution 7656 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Concerning the Option of the City’s Electricity
Customers to Engage in Direct Transactions with Alternate Power
Suppliers, the City’s Recovery of its Uneconomic Investments
in Electric Generation Facilities, and the City’s Marketing
of Products and Services to Customers Outside of the City’s
Jurisdictional Boundaries in the Context of the Restructuring
of the Electric Utility Industry in California”
Council Member Rosenbaum said City staff had done an excellent job,
and Palo Alto was ahead of many cities not only because of its good
choice of power suppliers but also because of the excellence in its
03/24/97 −332
staff and the analysis and thought exercised in looking towards the
future. He urged support.
Vice Mayor Andersen said while there were many important items on
the Council agenda that evening, the most important issue was the
electric utility. He was galled that such a comprehensive and
significant issue was receiving so little attention from the news
reporters. He thanked staff and the UAC for an outstanding job of
keeping the City on the right track. There would be some major shifts
in the entire industry, and Palo Alto citizens needed to know. Palo
Alto had an obligation as a utility to educate its community, and
he was sure that would take place in every way possible. He
understood the private sector was seeing the unbundling of
distribution services such as billing, etc., and he queried whether
the City might have to do that.
Mr. Baldschun said there was a national effort by the marketers who
wanted to have the billing function. Currently and traditionally,
the monopolistic utilities did the billing, and it was the key link
to the customer. There were moves in California from the CPUC to
force utilities to unbundle the costs of billing, which were the
customer information system and the metering function, and put them
on the bill so that marketers instead of the utility could offer
those services. The City's current plan was not to do that unless
it made sense for Palo Alto.
Vice Mayor Andersen queried whether the City was in a position where
it could hold on to the function as a municipal utility or whether
it might be forced to be put into a competitive arena.
Mr. Mrizek said AB 1890 gave the local control to the City Council
for the distribution system which included metering.
Council Member Fazzino concurred with both Vice Mayor Andersen and
Council Member Rosenbaum that staff deserved great credit for its
work. Based upon what he had heard from both public and private
sources regarding the issue, the City had moved far ahead of other
municipal utilities, and staff deserved the credit for it. He agreed
it would be nice to see a feature article in the local newspapers
regarding the issues surrounding the electric utility and that it
was much more important in the long run than on which side of the
street the Stanford housing went. Few people understood the issue,
and it was incumbent on the City to educate the community and itself
over the next few years regarding the impact of deregulation.
Walking the halls of the State Capitol on a regular basis, he knew
there were many state legislators who voted on the deregulation issue
but had little idea about its implications in the future.
03/24/97 −333
Mayor Huber complimented the staff of what he had always considered
to be dark science, and he never quite understood what staff was
doing. The staff report (CMR:159:97) and the presentation were
readable and understandable for anyone, and he appreciated it.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
5A. (Old Item No. 7) PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider
a Site and Design and Conditional Use Permit application to
demolish an existing one-story gas station building (1,075
square feet) and construct a new single story 900-square-foot
car wash building, an 1,855-square-foot gas station canopy and
related site improvements for property located at 3897 El
Camino Real (continued from 3/17/97)
Council Member Schneider asked whether the car wash was to be
self-serve or fully automated with employees.
Contract Planner Chandler Lee said it would be an automated car wash.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests
from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to
approve the staff, Planning Commission, and Architectural Review
Board recommendations that the City Council:
1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the
proposed project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts, if certain conditions of approval are
imposed;
2. Approve the Site and Design, as revised, for construction of
the gas station and car wash facility based on the following
findings and conditions; and
3. Approve the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of an
automotive service station use, based on the following findings
and conditions.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be
detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity, and
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience in that sufficient landscaping and
landscaped setbacks are provided around the perimeter of the
site to screen the use from neighboring properties, lighting
is sufficiently shielded to reduce lighting impacts on
03/24/97 −334
neighboring properties to acceptable levels, gasoline dispens-
ing facilities will be equipped with both Phase I and Phase
II Vapor Recovery Systems to prevent toxic vapors from escaping
from the storage system, all four existing trees will be
preserved, a Corrective Action Plan to remediate soil and
groundwater pollution is currently being implemented on the
site and will not be affected by the proposed gas station use,
and the proposed project will incorporate sufficient noise
mitigations to reduce noise levels to within the range that
is acceptable according to City noise standards. These
acoustical features include an existing seven foot sound wall,
an acoustical ribbon curtain at the car wash entrance, and a
10 foot by 8 foot entrance setback to the car wash. The proposed
gas station and car wash will be required to include all these
provisions as a condition of project approval and, therefore,
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in
accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and purposes of
the zoning district in that the automobile service station and
car wash uses are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
(Urban Design Element Objectives on p. 42 which provides for
orderly development and high aesthetic quality and Program 4
which discourages garish signs) and meet the development
regulations of the zoning ordinance with respect to floor area
ratio, height, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, setbacks
and other requirements.
SITE AND DESIGN FINDINGS
1. The construction and operation of the use in a manner that will
be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing and
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites will be ensured
by the fact that sufficient landscaping and landscaped setbacks
are provided around the perimeter of the site to screen the
use from neighboring properties, lighting is sufficiently
shielded to reduce lighting impacts on neighboring properties
to acceptable levels, gasoline dispensing facilities will be
equipped with both Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems
to prevent toxic vapors from escaping from the storage system,
all four existing trees will be preserved, a Corrective Action
Plan to remediate soil and groundwater pollution is currently
being implemented on the site and will not be affected by the
proposed gas station use, and the proposed project will
incorporate sufficient noise mitigations to reduce noise levels
to within the range that is acceptable according to City noise
standards.
03/24/97 −335
2. The desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas will be ensured by
the improvements to the site that will add value to the location
and replace the existing, dilapidated building. Also, all
off-site impacts on surrounding businesses will be reduced to
acceptable levels through standard conditions of approval and
special noise mitigations.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance
will be ensured by the conformance of the project with the
development standards of the CS zoning district with respect
to floor area, height, lot coverage, parking, landscaping,
setbacks and other environmental design requirements; the
project will reduce the use of water by implementation of a
car wash water recycling system and will prevent toxic vapors
from escaping from the gasoline storage system with the
installation of both Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery
Systems.
4. The use will be in accord with the policies of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan in that the automobile service station and
car wash uses are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
(Urban Design Element Objectives on p. 42 which provide for
orderly development and high aesthetic quality and Program 4
which discourages garish signs).
SITE AND DESIGN CONDITIONS
1. The revised site plan shall include the acoustical mitigation
measures cited on page 3 of the Noise Analysis by Charles Salter
dated October 3, 1996. These acoustical features shall include
an existing seven foot sound wall, an acoustical ribbon curtain
at the car wash entrance, and a 10 foot by 8 foot entrance setback
to the car wash. The freestanding sign should be a monument
sign and be located within the planter strip near the corner.
The landscaping and freestanding sign shall be designed and
located so as not to obstruct the sight distance triangle for
drivers exiting the site. The four perimeter light standards
shall be reduced in height to 15 feet. The existing Scarlet
oak tree in the sidewalk on El Camino Real shall be replaced
with a Sycamore tree and two new Sycamores planted in the
sidewalk for a total of four Sycamore street trees. The existing
30 foot driveway near the corner shall be reduced to 28 feet
and shifted three feet to the south and the proposed 28 foot
northern driveway shall be shifted 5 feet to the north to provide
for a 25 foot spacing between street trees. The planter strip
along the El Camino Real frontage shall be lengthened from 27
to 35 feet and planted with an evergreen tree with a low canopy
03/24/97 −336
(Arbutus Marina) to fill in between the Sycamore street trees.
An evergreen of the same species should be planted in each of
the corner planter strips along El Camino Real. The new street
trees, on-site trees, and on-site landscaping should be located
so as not to block the sight distance triangle for drivers
exiting the site. The loading zone should be expanded to 540
square feet (12 by 45 feet) to conform with the requirements
of the Off-Street Parking Regulations. The planter strip on
the northern perimeter of the property next to Jack-in-the-Box
shall be supplemented with a row of Arbutus Marina (15 gallon)
along this perimeter.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
1. The proposed service station use may operate 24 hours per day,
seven days a week. The car wash hours of operation shall be
limited as follows:
7:00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday through Friday
9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Saturday
9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Sunday.
2. All on-site activities shall be subject to the requirements
of the
City's
Noise
Ordinance
, Chapter
9.10 PAMC.
3. All on-site deliveries, including the delivery of gasoline,
shall be limited to the following hours:
7:00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday through Friday
9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Saturday
9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Sunday.
4. No engine or body work shall be performed on-site at any time.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit
Planning/Zoning
1. A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning
Division which reflects any modifications by the Planning
Commission, ARB, and City Council. The revised site plan shall
include the acoustical mitigation measures cited on page 3 of
03/24/97 −337
the Noise Analysis by Charles Salter dated October 3, 1996.
These acoustical features shall include an existing seven foot
sound wall, an acoustical ribbon curtain at the car wash
entrance, and a 10 foot by 8 foot entrance setback to the car
wash. The freestanding sign should be a monument sign and be
located within the planter strip near the corner. The
landscaping and freestanding sign shall be designed and located
so as not to obstruct the sight distance triangle for drivers
exiting the site. The four perimeter light standards shall be
reduced in height to 15 feet. The existing Scarlet oak tree
in the sidewalk on El Camino Real shall be replaced with a
Sycamore tree and two new Sycamores planted in the sidewalk
for a total of four Sycamore street trees. The existing 30 foot
driveway near the corner shall be reduced to 28 feet and shifted
three feet to the south and the proposed 28 foot northern
driveway shall be shifted 5 feet to the north to provide for
a 25 foot spacing between street trees. The planter strip along
the El Camino Real frontage shall be lengthened from 27 to 35
feet and planted with an evergreen tree with a low canopy
(Arbutus Marina) to fill in between the Sycamore street trees.
An evergreen of the same species should be planted in each of
the corner planter strips along El Camino Real. The new street
trees, on-site trees, and on-site landscaping should be located
so as not to block the sight distance triangle for drivers
exiting the site. The loading zone should be expanded to 540
square feet (12 by 45 feet) to conform with the requirements
of the Off-Street Parking Regulations. The planter strip on
the northern perimeter of the property next to Jack-in-the-Box
shall be supplemented with a row of Arbutus Marina (15 gallon)
along this perimeter.
Public Works Engineering
2. The plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable codes
but the design remains the responsibility of the
architect/engineer who prepared it. Any changes to these plans,
other than those provided herein, must be reviewed by the Public
Works Engineering Division.
Utilities Electric
3. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and
location of all utilities, both public and private, within the
work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the
Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800)
642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work.
Public Works Operations
03/24/97 −338
4. All existing street trees to be retained, as shown on the final
landscape plan, shall be protected during construction. The
existing Scarlet Oak tree in the sidewalk on El Camino Real
shall be replaced with a Sycamore tree. The following tree
protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and
included in construction/demolition contracts and be
implemented during demolition and construction activities
unless otherwise approved. The following tree protection
measures shall apply: PAMC Sec. 8-04-070. Any modifications
to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City
Arborist.
a. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with
six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted
on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into
the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more than
10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area
under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be
erected before construction begins and remain in place
until final inspection of the building permit, except for
work specifically required in the approved plans to be
done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works
Department's standard specification detail #505).
b. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment
shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.
c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be
altered.
d. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
e. The tree protection measures shall be approved by the City
Arborist and Planning Division and included in
construction/demolition contracts and be implemented
during demolition and construction activities unless
otherwise approved.
5. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to
prepare and submit tree protection plans. The plans shall
identify the trees to be protected and include measures for
their protection during construction. The certified arborist
shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify
that the PAMC Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to
demolition, grading, or building permit issuance.
6. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility
services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy.
03/24/97 −339
The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities
will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after
receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after
all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and
removed.
Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit
Utilities Electric
7. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location
of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan
and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural
Review Board.
8. Three phase electric service is not readily available to the
site. The applicant is responsible for all expenses to extend
three phase service to the site. The Utility will compute an
economic justification based on estimated load consumption and
reimburse applicant for part of the off-site costs.
9. The applicant shall provide space for an above ground load break
cabinet on-site.
Fire Department
10. Since the car wash requires more than 1,000 gpd of water, fire
sprinklers will be required per PAMC, Section 15.04.170 (dd).
The canopy does not require sprinklers.
11. The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval
by the Fire Department. Plans and permits are required for the
underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system
installation. If the sprinkler system serves 100 sprinklers
or more, it shall be supervised for water flow and value tamper
by an approved central station. The underground fuel storage
tanks require a separate plan review by the Fire Department
prior to installation.
Planning/Zoning
12. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown
on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences,
utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
13. Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and
off-site plan table areas out to the curb must be submitted
to and approved by the Utility Marketing Services Division.
A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and
03/24/97 −340
a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each
project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall include:
a. All existing trees identified both to be retained and
removed including private and public street trees.
b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species,
quantity, size, and locations.
c. Irrigation schedule and plan. Spray nozzles are to be
chosen carefully to minimize overspray in the irregular
planter beds. A separate, irrigation only, water meter
is to be installed.
d. Fence locations.
e. Lighting plan with photometric data. The existing lighting
plan shall be revised to reduce the height of the perimeter
light standards from 16.5 feet to 15 feet and to meet the
.5 to 1.5 footcandle average lighting standards contained
in PAMC Section 18.64.030. All lighting must be shielded
in a manner to prevent visibility of the light source,
eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter
of the development. The lighting plan, photometrics and
specification sheets shall be revised to meet these
guidelines and shall be submitted to Planning Division
staff for review and approval.
f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
14. The project shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area
which complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB
and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070
(PAMC). The final site plan shall include an enclosed trash
and recycling area with a roof. The enclosed trash and recycling
area should include a two cubic yard container for cardboard
and two 64 gallon containers for bottles and cans. The
trash/recycling facilities shall be approved by the City of
Palo Alto Recycling Division prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Public Works Engineering
15. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan
to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on
site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate
03/24/97 −341
that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent
properties are not altered.
16. The site shall be fine graded to provide a minimum 2% slope
away from the building perimeter and adjacent property lines.
In no case shall the final grading increase the sheet flow onto
adjacent properties.
17. The proposed development will result in a change in the
impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide
calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the
building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment
will take place in the month following the final approval of
the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
18. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo
Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100
cubic yards or deeper than 3 feet.
19. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans
if any lane closures are needed on El Camino Real in
performance of this work.
20. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing
at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials
storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall
conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route
Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which
outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo
Alto.
Transportation
21. Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance require-
ments of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where
driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall
be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting
these height requirements. Specifically, the project should
reduce the concrete wall along the Ventura Avenue, El Camino
Real, and back side perimeter to 3 feet, ensure that all
landscaping along the Ventura Avenue, El Camino Real, and back
side perimeters is 3 feet or less, and ensure that the height
of the entry sign at the corner does not impede the sight
distance triangle.
Utilities Electric
03/24/97 −342
22. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers,
and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the
landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict
will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and
shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design
and setback requirements.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
23. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER
SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo
Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information
requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas
in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.).
24. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility
construction. The plans must show the size and location of
all underground utilities within the development and the public
right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire
service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required
utilities.
25. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any
water well, or auxiliary water supply.
26. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrad-
ing the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as
necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibil-
ity includes the design and all the cost associated with the
construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and
sewer mains and/or services.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Planning/Zoning
27. Color chips to match the colors specified in the approved ARB
drawings shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building
permit drawing set by the applicant.
Public Works Engineering
28. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public
Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed
in the City right-of-way.
03/24/97 −343
Public Works Water Quality Control
29. If industrial process water is to be discharged to the sanitary
sewer, a waste minimization study shall be completed prior to
construction to ensure that the industrial processes have
employed all appropriate waste minimization techniques. An
application for an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit (for the
car wash water and any other wastes other than sanitary or storm)
shall be filed before (or with) the Building Permit application.
No floor drains shall be allowed in bays unless permitted.
30. The applicant shall install a recycling system and treatment
system for car wash water and any other discharge wastes other
than sanitary and storm. The applicant must operate the facility
in compliance with the City's Sewer Use Ordinance, Section
16.09.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
31. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations which
show that the off-site and on-site water and sanitary sewer
mains will provide the domestic water, fire flows, and
wastewater capacity needed to service the development and
adjacent properties during anticipated peak load. Field
testing may be required to determine current flows and water
pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by
a registered civil engineer.
32. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the
approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as
an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed
on the account.
33. An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Backflow
Preventer Device) shall be installed for all existing and new
water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17,
Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure
Principal Assembly shall be installed on the owner's property
and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the
Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply
pipe between the meter and the assembly.
34. An approved Check Valve shall be installed for the existing
or new water connections for the fire system to comply with
requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17,
Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check
Detector Check Valve shall be installed on the owner's property
adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities
03/24/97 −344
Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe
between the city connection and the assembly.
During Construction
Building Inspection
35. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth
surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from
hauling operations along or across any public or private
property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the
contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor's
operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall
be controlled at the contractor's expense.
Fire Hazardous Materials
36. All gasoline dispensing facilities shall be equipped with both
Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems to prevent toxic
vapors from escaping from the storage system per State law.
Utilities Electric
37. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and
approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the
Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
38. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall
be inspected before backfilling.
39. Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit
from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street
right-of-way.
Police
40. All non-residential construction activities shall be subject
to the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10
PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted
and that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday.
Public Works Engineering
03/24/97 −345
41. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at
(415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public
right-of-way.
42. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street
or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works
Engineering.
43. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best
management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution preven-
tion in all construction operations, in conformance with the
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP's with
respect to the developer's construction activities on private
property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP's
with respect to the developer's construction activities on
public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction
debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.)
or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. The
applicant also will be required to paint a "No Dumping/ Flows
into the Bay" logo near all drainage inlets.
44. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or
other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to
Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
45. The applicant shall be required to replace a 50 foot section
of sidewalk and driveway approach on the Ventura Avenue
frontage.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
46. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the
installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the
City of Palo Alto Utilities
Prior to Finalization
Planning/Zoning
47. The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit
to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the
landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects
of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been
installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and
function, and all plants including street trees are healthy.
Public Works Engineering
03/24/97 −346
48. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or
removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved
standards.
49. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit
prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site
improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
After Construction
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
50. The customer shall give the City written notice of any material
changes in size, character, or extent of the equipment or
operations for which the City is supplying utility service
before making any such change.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent.
5B. (Old Item No. 8) PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter
12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing
Underground Utility District No. 37 (continued from 3/17/97)
City Manager June Fleming referred to Council Member Fazzino's
concern that staff was directed by Council to involve the residents
and that he could not interpret the survey as carrying out the intent
of Council's direction.
Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said when staff received the
assignment at the January 1997 meeting, a survey was done of the
entire underground district, and letters were sent to all residents
in the underground district with estimated costs they would incur
as a result of the conversions. Staff responded to many letters
and had one-on-one meetings with customers in the district who had
specific questions regarding their specific. In the correspon-
dence, customers were encouraged to contact City staff with any
questions. No indication was received to hold an additional group
meeting from the district, and therefore, another meeting of the
entire district was not held. A meeting was held prior to the
previous Council meeting, and a second was held for one particular
street in the area where the residents were concerned about the
aesthetics.
Council Member Fazzino understood staff was going to contact the
neighbors, set up a meeting to explore financing options, and discuss
reasons why the actual costs varied significantly from the estimated
03/24/97 −347
costs. Based on his reading of the report (CMR:170:97), the primary
communication was through the survey.
Mr. Mrizek said the report included the survey and correspondence
advising residents in the district that the City reestimated the
costs to convert the service on their particular pieces of property,
and that the estimate the consultant came up with were much lower
than what staff estimated. The related information was also
provided to each customer. Some had questions and contacted staff;
staff met with others individually in the field and responded to
their questions. A group meeting was not held.
Council Member Fazzino queried whether residents were advised that
the item would be considered at the Council meeting that evening.
Mr. Mrizek said yes.
Ms. Fleming believed once customers saw the revised costs, some of
the concerns were diminished; other concerns included issues which
were better to answer one-on-one in the field rather than handle
in a group meeting.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing. Receiving no requests from
the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Eakins, to introduce
for first reading an Ordinance to establish Underground District
No. 37 and amend Section 12.16.02, of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12,
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter
12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing
Underground Utility District No. 37"
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5C. (Old Item No. 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council
will consider a Tentative Map application to consolidate
existing parcels into a 9.2 acre site to accommodate an approved
295,000-square-foot medical office, clinic and research
facility campus for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and
proposed modifications to conditions of the 1996 Conditional
Use Permit and Architectural Review approval for property
located at 795 El Camino Real (CMR:185:97)
03/24/97 −348
Council Member McCown said that she would not participate in the
item because of a conflict of interest due to the fact that the
applicant was a client of her law firm.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber
referred to a corrected Attachment H, the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) minutes, to the staff report (CMR:185:97).
Planning Commission Chairperson Phyllis Cassel said the Commission
discussed the item the previous week and recommended it go forward.
There were discussions regarding bicycles and where bicycle lockers
should be located, and the Commission made a minor amendment to
monitor the bicycle locations, lockers, and use as part of the parking
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program which were
incorporated. The monitoring would provide the ability to make
adjustments in the future and to gain some knowledge regarding who
used which kinds of bicycle lockers and what kind of spaces which
should translate into other kinds of uses in the future.
Council Member Rosenbaum referred to a letter from Ellen Fletcher
(on file in the City Clerk's Office), which indicated the City's
ordinance required bicycle facilities be located near the main
building entrances used by the public. He queried whether it was
a problem with respect to the action taken by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Schreiber did not believe so. Staff and the Planning Commission
shared the recommendation to the Council. While the definition of
"near" was not included in the ordinance, staff believed the bicycle
parking was in close proximity to the front entrance and was in a
location where it would be acceptable and beneficial to the
bicyclists yet not provide a safety or other hazard problems for
the entrance. Staff agreed with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's
(PAMF) staff position that if the bicycle parking were placed right
at the main entrance, there would be many conflicts which were best
to avoid.
Ms. Cassel said the Commission discussed where the bicycle parking
should be and decided to recommend a monitoring program which would
provide the City with some further information. The Commission
believed some of the bicycle parking was close to the main entrance.
Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 10 of the staff report
(CMR:185:97) and the statement that "the ARB added the requirements
that art elements be included in the underground parking structure
and in the pediatrics section and that PAMF provide an ongoing art
program at the Urban Lane campus." He queried the statutorial basis
for making the last requirement in particular.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the review authority fell out of
the ARB, and he did not believe ARB had interior jurisdiction.
03/24/97 −349
Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the Public Art Commission (PAC).
Mr. Calonne understood the PAC operated in an advisory capacity to
the ARB.
Mr. Schreiber said it was not a planned community zone, so the art
was not part of a public benefit provision. It was a standard ARB
review, albeit a large project, and it was appropriate to have a
public art component to the project. There were many discussions
between the PAC and the PAMF representatives. He did not believe
Council Member Rosenbaum's question was raised in the review process,
and he deferred to the City Attorney in terms of whether the condition
was appropriate and acceptable or whether it should be deleted.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, said they were not talking
about bicycle lockers but rather parking near the entrance. The
ordinance referred to Class 2 and Class 3 racks being close to the
entrance. PAMF currently had racks set up in the vicinity of the
entrance, and to her knowledge there had not been a problem of people
tripping over the bicycles or bicyclists running into patients.
The monitoring would not work because the PAMF was planning to have
a security guard who would chase away the bicyclists who wanted to
park near the building. The existing racks would be at the next
building, which was unnatural. The racks should be within site of
the entrance. Stanford University had bicycles parked at all the
entrances as close as possible. If bicycles were chased away by
the security guards, there would be nothing to monitor. It was
important to require the racks be in a logical location before the
construction went forward; otherwise it would be much more of a
problem to include later. She urged conformance to the ordinance.
David Jury, 330 Town and County Village, Real Estate Manager for
the PAMF, also introduced Jeff Teel, Project Architect from RMW
Architecture in San Francisco. A security guard was currently on
the PAMF site and was anticipated to be on the new site to prevent
problems, not to push people around or chase bicycles away. If there
were not a safety issue, he doubted the security guard would say
anything to anyone. The issue was riding bicycles in the loggia
area, which was approximately 12 feet wide and covered by an overhead
trellis. The loggia area was where people would enter and exit the
clinic buildings and be dropped off or picked up by cabs, vehicles,
and paratransit vans. People would be parked in the spaces across
the entry which were for the urgent care center. There would be
a variety of individuals in the loggia area, and it would be a busy
and congested area. The PAMF preferred people get off their bicycles
03/24/97 −350
and walk into the loggia area rather than ride bicycles there.
Bicycle parking would be located approximately 70 feet from Building
A and about 100 feet from the main entrance to the clinic. There
would be a number of main entrances to the clinic, and because of
the north/south connection, the extension of Urban Lane in the rear
of the site, there were main entrances there. Bicycle racks in that
location would be very close because it was anticipated to be the
main bicycle entrance because it was adjacent to the bicycle path
being built along the railroad track right-of-way.
Council Member Schneider asked whether the PAMF would be willing
to add bicycle racks closer to certain entrances in six months to
a year if needed as long as they did not impede people in walkers
or wheelchairs.
Mr. Jury said absolutely. As any business which wanted to be patient
and customer friendly, PAMF would do what was necessary to
accommodate the traffic.
Council Member Wheeler assumed the ARB strongly requested the program
the clinic had for a number of years in its current facility be
continued. If that were the understanding, she queried whether the
ARB condition was something the PAMF accepted.
Mr. Jury said the PAMF accepted the ARB condition. PAMF understood
the ARB wanted the program which had been going on to continue and
also for the PAMF to look for other avenues to expand it if the
funding were available and if the opportunities were there.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the following Planning Commission and staff recommendations:
1. Finding that the previously certified Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) adequately analyzes the currently proposed
changes to approved Conditional Use Permit and Architectural
Review Board Approval conditions, the project Tentative
Subdivision Map and vacation of portions of Homer Avenue and
Urban Lane, and that there are no changed circumstances that
invalidate the continued use of the that certified EIR;
2. Approval of modifications to conditions of the previously
approved use permit, 94-UP-8, based on the following findings;
3. Approval of a tentative subdivision map, 96-SUB-4, to assemble
13 parcels into one parcel and to establish needed roadway and
other public dedications and easements, based on the following
findings and subject to the recommended condition; and
03/24/97 −351
4. Approval of modifications to conditions of the previously
approved Architectural Review Board Approval 94-ARB-30, based
on the following findings.
CEQA Findings for PAMF 1997 Approvals
FINDINGS
1. On January 29, 1996, the Palo Alto City Council adopted a
Resolution certifying the adequacy of the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation New Campus Project Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and making findings thereon pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Those findings included:
a. A determination that there were several significant
impacts which could be mitigated to a less than signifi-
cant level. Those impacts included various Land Use,
Traffic and Circulation, Public Services and Utilities,
Toxic and Hazardous Materials, Drainage and Water Quality,
Geology ad Seismic Hazards, Air Quality, and Cultural
Resources effects that could result from the proposed
project.
b. A determination that there were two air quality impacts
and one noise impact that would remain significant and
unavoidable even with required mitigation.
c. A certification that the Final EIR described a reasonable
range of alternatives to the proposed project, or to its
location, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives
of the project and that the Council evaluated the
comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them
in favor of the proposed project. Those alternatives
included the No Development Alternative, the Existing
Plans Alternative, the No-Urban-Lane Alternative, the
Reduced Density Alternative, the Former Maximart Site
Alternative, and the Hewlett-Packard Site Alternative.
d. A finding that the unavoidable environmental impacts of
the project were acceptable when balanced against the
benefits of the project, which included the following:
1) The relocation of most of the existing Medical
Foundation facilities and activities from a mostly
residential neighborhood to a mostly commercial
area;
03/24/97 −352
2) Avoidance of the short-term, but multi-year impacts
to the residential neighborhood surrounding the
existing Medical Foundation if the previously
approved Specific Plan were to be implemented,
resulting in a substantially longer construction
period than would occur at the proposed Urban Lane
Campus;
3) Retaining and modernizing the medical services and
research activities of the Medical Foundation within
Palo Alto;
4) Short-term construction expenditures for the pro-
posed project would exceed Fifty Million Dollars
($50,000,000) and long-term expenditures associated
with retaining the Foundation in Palo Alto; and
5) The Foundation’s funding with the City of a compre-
hensive planning effort for the properties to be
vacated in the Downtown area upon completion of the
new Urban Lane Campus.
e. Finding that the EIR concluded that numerous other impacts
would not be significant.
2. In September, 1996, the Medical Foundation filed materials,
including documentation of project compliance with Use Permit
and ARB conditions of approval and an application for approval
of a tentative subdivision map, for a 295,108 square foot
project consistent with the City Council’s January 29, 1996
approval of the proposed Urban Lane Campus project. In
November, 1996, the Foundation requested that several Use
Permit and ARB conditions of approval be modified in order for
project grading and excavation to proceed sooner than would
be possible with the original conditions of approval.
3. The Foundation’s November 1996 request for changes to the
existing Use Permit and ARB Approval conditions would not result
in any major modifications to the proposed project, including
but not limited to its size, location, site plan, architecture
or landscaping, nor any changes to required mitigation measures
imposed as conditions of approval by the City Council on January
29, 1996.
4. Environmental conditions pertaining to the project site and
environs have not changed in any significant way since the
certification of the Final EIR.
03/24/97 −353
5. Based on the facts contained in findings 2, 3 and 4 above, the
currently proposed Urban Lane Campus project will have no
different environmental effects than were analyzed in the
previously certified Final EIR, which remains an adequate
environmental document for the currently proposed project
consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, and
all previously required mitigation measures remain conditions
of approval for the currently proposed project.
Findings and Conditions for Modifications to Use Permit
FINDINGS
1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, with conditions
as modified, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvement in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental
to the pubic health, safety, general welfare, or convenience
in that:
a. The proposed PAMF medical clinic and research uses
approved in 1996 are compatible with the commercial and
warehouse uses on Wells Avenue and the uses of the Holiday
Inn and Stanford-Joint Powers Board (JPB) properties to
the north; with the commercial and industrial uses on
Encina Avenue and other properties including Town and
Country Shopping Center to the south; and with the CalTrain
right-of-way to the east and the Stanford University
arboretum to the west across El Camino Real. The Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the PAMF
Urban Lane Campus project identified no site specific
significant adverse environmental impacts that would
affect vicinity properties so long as all mitigation
measures, incorporated as conditions of approval for the
Use Permit and related entitlements approved in 1996, are
implemented. The modifications to the original
conditions of approval will not change the proposed
project or the mitigation measures required with the 1996
approvals which include:
1) EIR Mitigation Measures C.1, C.2, and C.3 regarding
visual, light and glare impacts that could otherwise
adversely affect adjacent properties, particularly
the properties on the north side of Encina Avenue.
2) EIR Mitigation Measure J.2 which governs future noise
levels of PAMF project stationary equipment, such
as that to be located on the southerly service road
adjacent to properties on the north side of Encina
Avenue, and the Use Permit and EIR mitigation measure
03/24/97 −354
that govern the noise levels permitted at the
southerly property line adjacent to the properties
on the north side of Encina Avenue.
3) The provision of public easements for circulation
improvements on Wells Avenue and Urban Lane between
University Circle and Encina Avenue and related
transportation on and off-site improvements that
would serve the PAMF site and its vicinity.
b. Likewise, the EIR identified no significant adverse health
or safety impacts from the proposed PAMF uses so long as
all mitigation measures are implemented, which is a Use
Permit condition of approval.
c. Further, the EIR and City analyses have found that the
PAMF project would improve the overall circulation and
public convenience in the project vicinity with provision
of the Urban Lane Extension north to University, a
vehicular connection south to Encina Avenue, the widening
of existing Urban Lane north of Wells Avenue, the widening
of Wells Avenue for provision of a sidewalk, and the
pedestrian-bicycle path along the eastern side of the PAMF
site.
d. Additionally, the PAMF Urban Lane Campus project would
relocate most existing PAMF facilities out of an otherwise
primarily residential portion of Downtown, thereby
decreasing land use conflicts in that area, and would
modernize the medical clinic facilities utilized by a
large proportion of the residents of Palo Alto and
surrounding communities.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in
accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes
of the zoning ordinance in that:
a. The comprehensive plan designation of Major Institution/
Special Facilities is intended for institutional,
academic, governmental, and community service uses and
lands that are either publicly owned or are operated as
nonprofit organizations as would be the case with the PAMF
Urban Lane Campus project.
b. The designation of the PAMF Campus is consistent with the
surrounding comprehensive plan designations of Service
Commercial for the hotel, commercial and warehouse uses
to the north; of Major Institution/Special Facilities at
the JPB parking lot, the CalTrain right-of-way and the
03/24/97 −355
transit center to north; and of the Service Commercial
and Regional Community Commercial designations to the
south.
c. The Public Facilities rezoning, related text amendment
and this Use Permit, as conditioned, implement the
comprehensive plan designation and are consistent with
the nonprofit medical clinic and research uses proposed
at the PAMF Urban Lane Campus.
3. The proposed modifications to the Use Permit would affect only
the timing of grading and excavation permits and minor other
aspects of the following conditions, not affecting any of the
original findings made in conjunction with the original
approval of the project by the Palo Alto City Council in January
1996.
MODIFIED CONDITIONS
7. As part of the annual mitigation monitoring report to the City,
the permittee shall survey on-site parking occupancy and
vacancy, including bicycle parking, distributed by patient and
employee parking spaces, during peak hours on three consecutive
work days (Tuesday-Thursday) and provide this data to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment for
consideration relative to the deferred parking approval.
(Same as ARB 4)
11. No excavation or grading permits shall be issued unless and
until permittee has provided written evidence to the satisfac-
tion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment in
a form approved by the City Attorney that agreement can be
reached among the relevant parties (PAMF, Stanford, JPB, and
City) regarding design of the extension of Urban Lane from the
northern project boundary to University Circle that is
consistent with the certified Final EIR and the January 1996
approvals by the City Council. No building permits shall be
issued unless and until permittee has provided in a form
approved by the City Attorney the final written agreements
and/or easements concerning the extension of Urban Lane and
permittee has entered into written agreement with City
guaranteeing timely funding and construction of said Urban Lane
improvements.
(Same as ARB 13)
12. Preliminary improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane
from the northern edge of the project site to University Circle
shall be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review
Board and City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any grading
03/24/97 −356
or excavation or building permits. Final improvement plans
for the extension of Urban Lane shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director, Public Works Director and
Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits.
Improvement plans for the Urban Lane extension shall include,
as a minimum, the following elements:
Roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path extensions per the
City-approved alternate, including connections to the
pedestrian to the bicycle/pedestrian path and roadway on the
PAMF site.
• Landscaping, lighting, fencing and other amenities.
• Connections of the new roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path
to University Circle.
• (omitted)
• Any and all required changes to the Joint Powers Board
parking lot.
• Accommodation of the new Marguerite bus access/storage
area per Stanford’s plans.
(Same as ARB 14)
13. Preliminary improvement plans for all work on El Camino Real
related to the project shall be submitted to and approved by
the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or
excavation permit. Final improvement plans for all work on
El Camino Real shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits and
by Caltrans prior to issuance of any building permits and by
Caltrans prior to issuance of any interiors building permits.
The Plans shall include as a minimum, the following elements:
• Reconfiguration of southbound on-ramp.
• New signal installation for PAMF intersection, including
separate phase for southbound ramp and hardwire intercon-
nection with Embarcadero/El Camino Real signal. The
signal controller shall be able to accept a possible future
pedestrian phase (refer also to mitigation measure B.4).
• Closure of abandoned driveways and streets.
• Construction of new five-foot wide sidewalk and
five-foot-wide planting strip along project frontage.
03/24/97 −357
Due to lack of right-of-way on El Camino Real, part of
this construction may be on permittee’s property. If the
approved improvement plans show these improvements on a
portion of permittee’s property, the Final Map shall
include appropriate easements.
• Restriping of El Camino Real and construction of new
five-foot wide median and four-to-five-foot wide island
separating on-ramp and through lanes.
• New signage and landscaping.
Relocation of electroliers and other utility poles, if
necessary due to roadway widening.
(Same as ARB 15)
15. Permittee shall submit improvement plans for the public
bicycle/pedestrian path on the PAMF site, along the eastern
edge of the site, to comply with applicable City and Caltrans
design standards for bicycle paths. The preliminary plans
shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the
Architectural Review Board prior to issuance of any grading
or excavation permits. Final improvement plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director, the Public
Works Director and the City Traffic Engineer, with input from
the Utilities Department and the Planning Arborist, prior to
issuance of any building permits. Improvement plans shall
include, as a minimum, the following provisions:
• Landscaping, lighting, fencing, signage.
• At least two path connections into the PAMF site.
• Transition and connection to the portion of the path
extending south from the site.
• Continuation of the path along the Urban Lane extension
to University Circle,
• Maintenance of all features of the portion of the path
located on the PAMF site.
(Same as ARB 17)
16. No excavation or grading permits shall be issued until the
tentative subdivision map is approved and the Public Works
Director, consistent with Chapters 12.08 and/or 12.12 of the
Municipal Code, authorizes excavation and grading in the public
rights-of-way, after PAMF has provided bonding and evidence
03/24/97 −358
of insurance coverage to the satisfaction of the City Attorney.
No building permits shall be issued until the final subdivision
map is approved and recorded.
NEW CONDITIONS
24. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits(s) by the City, PAMF
shall complete all off-site improvements including but not
limited to the Urban Lane Extension, improvements along El
Camino Real and the new traffic signal at the PAMF driveway.
Upon completion of the above said improvements, ownership and
title to the traffic signal system shall be vested in Caltrans.
25. Urban Lane Extension shall be maintained by PAMF. PAMF shall
allow Caltrans right-of-entry upon its property for maintenance
of the traffic signal system. No building permit shall be
issued until an agreement has been reached between the relevant
parties regarding the maintenance of Urban Lane Extension and
the right-of-entry to Caltrans as required above.
Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Map
FINDINGS
1. The proposed map, its design and improvements are consistent
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that thirteen existing
parcels are combined so as to provide a single ownership and
a large single parcel for development of an approximate 300,000
square foot medical office, clinic and research facility
consistent with the Major Institution/Special Facilities
designation for the property. Roadway and other public
easements are being provided to improve site and vicinity
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation.
2. The site is physically suitable for approximately 300,000
square feet of medical clinic and research uses on the
approximate 9.2 acre site proposed for development in that the
site is relatively level, is not subject to flooding or special
seismic hazards, and will have previously existing contaminated
soil and ground water from the prior gasoline service station
on a portion of the site remediated, in a manner consistent
with the proposed PAMF uses and facilities, and as required
by local and State regulatory authorities.
3. The EIR certified for the proposed PAMF project, including the
design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, found
that the project is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat nor cause serious public health
03/24/97 −359
problems in that no significant fish or wildlife habitat exists
on the site due to prior urban development, that on-site erosion
control and drainage improvements will adequately protect
downstream fish or wildlife habitat, and that the remediation
of site soil and ground water previously contaminated by the
prior gasoline service station use on a portion of the site
has progressed so that grading and excavation can proceed with
no unusual measures required during construction and monitoring
will continue after completion of construction.
4. The design of the subdivision and its improvements involves
vacating public rights-of-way and easements for access through
or use of property within the proposed subdivision and
dedicating new public rights-of-way and easements that will
be substantially equivalent or superior to those vacated.
North-south circulation will be improved with the extension
of Urban Lane from Encina Avenue to University Circle and the
provision of access easements for vehicles, excepting large
trucks, at the west entrance oval and Building A parking lot
will facilitate vehicular movement to and from El Camino Real,
vicinity properties and University Avenue/Palm Drive. Urban
Lane will be extended from Encina Avenue to University Circle,
with sidewalks provided, improving north-south circulation in
the project vicinity. Wells Avenue will be widened, with a
new sidewalk to improve pedestrian circulation in the area.
An easement will be provided along the eastern portion of the
PAMF site for a pedestrian-bicycle path to connect with planned
segments to the north and south.
5. The design of the project will not cause public health problems,
in that the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision
will meet all City of Palo Alto standards, with many special
mitigation measures identified by the certified EIR being
required as conditions of approval due to the nature of
materials used and encountered at the PAMF facilities. EIR
Mitigation Measure D.4 requires that PAMF work with the City’s
Division of Public Works Operations/Recycling to design and
implement new source reduction, recycling and composting
programs. Mitigation Measure D.5 requires PAMF to require
demolition and construction contractors to maximize diversion
of solid waste materials. Mitigation Measure D.6 requires PAMF
to include storage space for its projected rate of production
of recyclable and compostable materials. Mitigation Measure
G.8 requires PAMF to specify the disposal location of all spoil
material taken from the site and to test and dispose any
contaminate material in a facility licensed to receive that
class of material. Recent consultation with Chevron and its
consultants and with Santa Clara Valley Water District staff
has led to the conclusion that remediation actions to date have
03/24/97 −360
rendered the site soil and ground water fit for normal grading
and excavation activities without need for special testing or
handling of spoil materials. Mitigation Measure E.17 requires
PAMF to establish a written hazardous waste minimization
program prior to occupancy of the new facility.
CONDITIONS
Public Works
1. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Map is
approved by the City Council and recorded with Santa Clara
County.
2. Grading and excavation may proceed in advance of recordation
of the final map only if the Public Works Director issues permits
consistent with Chapters 12.08 and/or 12.12 of the Municipal
Code after subdivider provides proof of insurance and bonding
to the satisfaction of the City Attorney.
3. Prior to approval of an excavation permit or the final map,
whichever occurs first, the subdivider shall submit to Public
Works Engineering for review and approval a final grading and
drainage plan, including drainage patterns on site and from
adjacent properties. The plans shall demonstrate that
pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties
are not altered.
4. Prior to submittal of the final map, the subdivider shall submit
improvement plans for the design of the improvements proposed
for the public rights-of-way and all public utilities. These
improvements shall be installed by the subdivider, at the
subdivider’s expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other
form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. All public
improvements shall be constructed by a licensed contractor and
shall conform to the City’s standard specifications.
5. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall enter into
an agreement with the City in a form approved by the City
Attorney which guarantees the completion of the improvements
specified in the tentative map conditions of approval, and shall
post a bond or other acceptable security, in an amount
determined by the Director of Public Works, as security for
performance of this obligation.
6. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall
enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto.
The agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map
at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder.
03/24/97 −361
7. The subdivider shall pay the City for the services of a project
engineer/inspector to insure that street work permits and
construction activities are constructed in accordance with
approved plans. Public Works staff shall provide an approxi-
mate cost of this fee once a construction schedule has been
presented by the subdivider and accepted by the Public Works
Department.
8. All City easements and rights-of-way as shown on the Tentative
Map dated January 6, 1997, with any necessary adjustments
required by the Utilities Department, the Public Works
Department and the Transportation Division to comply with all
City subdivision or other regulations, shall be granted or
dedicated by the subdivider.
Subdivider shall grant an easement for public vehicular ingress
and egress, excluding large trucks, in the west entrance oval
and through the lane in the Building A parking lot connecting
the entrance oval to Wells Avenue.
9. Subdivider shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineer-
ing, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire and Transportation
departments/divisions after approval of the tentative map and
prior to submitting the subdivision improvement plans. The
improvement plans must be completed by the subdivider,
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division and approved
by all affected departments and divisions prior to the
subdivider submitting a final map for review and approval.
10. All construction within the City rights-of-way, easements or
other property under City’s jurisdiction shall conform to
standard specifications of the Public Works and Utilities
Departments.
Utilities-General
11. All conditions for provision of utilities to the PAMF site and
facilities shall be as stated on the tentative map dated
09/10/96 and as required by the Utilities Department. Minor
changes to utilities locations may be required by the Tree
Protection Program under development by subdivider that must
be approved by the City Planning Arborist prior to issuance
of any grading and excavation permits. Minor changes to the
provision of utilities and easements for utility improvements
may be required on the final map as determined by the Director
of Utilities depending on conditions encountered.
12. The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and
location of all utilities, both public and private, within the
03/24/97 −362
project excavation/grading and construction area. Prior to
issuance of grading or excavation permits, the subdivider shall
submit to the Public Works and Utilities Departments a plan
for discontinuing or maintaining the various utilities on site
or adjacent to the site and in the general construction area.
Said plan shall be approved by the Public Works and Utilities
Departments prior to issuance of grading or excavation permits.
13. Prior to any excavation or grading work at the site, the
Subdivider shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800)
642-2444, at least five (5) work days prior to beginning work.
14. All relocation work required for telephone and cable TV shall
be coordinated with and approved by Pacific Bell and Cable Co-op
prior to submittal of the final map.
15. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, the
subdivider shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for any
utilities installed in private property at or near the PAMF
site. If, at the time of filing of the final map, subdivider
has not acquired sufficient title or interest in the required
public rights-of-way and/or easements to allow construction
of the improvements and conveyance of same to the City, the
subdivider shall agree to the following:
i) Subdivider shall complete the improvements at such time
as the City acquires an interest in the land which will
permit the improvements to be made, and
ii) Subdivider shall pay all costs and expenses of the City
related to acquisition of off-site real property interest
required in connection with this subdivision. Such costs
and expenses shall include, but not be limited to, court
costs, appraisal expenses, payment to parties having
interests which must be acquired, and legal fees (whether
service is rendered by City employees or outside counsel).
City may require, as part of the agreement, a deposit
and/or posting of other security to guarantee payment by
subdivider of all costs and expenses.
Utilities (Water-Gas-Wastewater)
16. All water, gas and wastewater improvements shall conform to
standard specifications of the Utilities Department and shall
be paid for by the subdivider.
17. The subdivider shall maintain all private on-site water
utilities within the subdivision boundaries. The water main
03/24/97 −363
utility mains and services that are within the public
rights-of-way or public utility easements will be maintained
by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department.
Utilities (Electricity)
18. The cost of removal and relocation of existing overhead electric
facilities will be borne by the subdivider.
19. City will install at subdivider’s expense all 12KV underground
cables necessary for maintaining the overhead lines on Wells
Avenue. All substructure required for extending primary lines
(12KV) to maintain the overhead lines will be installed by the
subdivider.
20. Any easements required for relocating the 60 KV line at Urban
Lane shall be procured by the subdivider.
21. Street lights installed by the subdivider on Wells Avenue and
Urban Lane, including the extension north to University Circle,
shall meet City standards.
22. The subdivider’s schedule and construction plans shall be
coordinated with Utilities Department-Electricity to ensure
that there are not conflicts between project construction and
City construction of the railroad crossing electrical service.
Transportation
23. No excavation or grading permits shall be issued unless and
until subdivider has provided written evidence to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney that agreement has been
reached among the relevant parties (PAMF, Stanford, JPB, County
Transit and City) regarding design of the extension of Urban
Lane from the northern project boundary to University Circle.
No building permits shall be issued unless and until subdivider
has provided to the satisfaction of the City Attorney the final
agreements and/or easements concerning the extension of Urban
Lane and subdivider has entered into written agreement with
City guaranteeing timely funding and construction of said Urban
Lane improvements.
24. Preliminary improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane
from the northern edge of the project site to University Circle
shall be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review
Board and City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any grading
or excavation permits. Final improvement plans for the
extension of Urban Lane shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director, Public Works Director and Traffic
03/24/97 −364
Engineer prior to submittal of the final map. Improvement
plans for the Urban Lane extension shall include, as a minimum,
the following elements:
• Roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path extensions per the
City-approved alternate, including connections to the
pedestrian to the bicycle/pedestrian path and roadway on
the PAMF site.
• Landscaping, lighting, fencing and other amenities.
• Connections of the new roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path
to University Circle.
• Any and all required changes to the Joint Powers Board
parking lot.
• Accommodation of the new Marguerite bus access/storage
area per Stanford’s plans.
25. Preliminary improvement plans for all work on El Camino Real
related to the project shall be submitted to and approved by
the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any grading
or excavation permit. Final improvement plans for all work
on El Camino Real shall be submitted to and approved by the
City Traffic Engineer prior to submittal of the final map and
by Caltrans prior to issuance of any interiors building permits.
The Plans shall include as a minimum, the following elements:
• Reconfiguration of southbound on-ramp.
• New signal installation for PAMF intersection, including
separate phase for southbound ramp and hardwire intercon-
nection with Embarcadero/El Camino Real signal. The
signal controller shall be able to accept a possible future
pedestrian phase (refer also to mitigation measure B.4).
• Closure of abandoned driveways and streets.
• Construction of new five-foot wide sidewalk and
five-foot-wide planting strip along project frontage.
Due to lack of right-of-way on El Camino Real, part of
this construction may be on permittee’s property. If the
approved improvement plans show these improvements on a
portion of permittee’s property, the Final Map shall
include appropriate easements.
03/24/97 −365
• Restriping of El Camino Real and construction of new
five-foot wide median and four-to-five-foot wide island
separating on-ramp and through lanes.
• New signage and landscaping.
• Relocation of electroliers and other utility poles, if
necessary due to roadway widening.
26. In the section of El Camino Real affected by Condition 24 above
and Mitigation Measure B.9a, the minimum widths of the
northbound and southbound through lanes and the southbound
on-ramp lane shall be at least 14 feet (in order minimally to
accommodate bicycle traffic), with 15 feet preferred.
27. Subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the public
bicycle/pedestrian path on the PAMF site, along the eastern
edge of the site, to comply with applicable City and Caltrans
design standards for bicycle paths. The preliminary plans
shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the
Architectural Review Board prior to issuance of any grading
or excavation permits. Final improvement plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director, the Public
Works Director and the City Traffic Engineer, with input from
the Utilities Department and the Planning Arborist, prior to
submittal of the final map. Improvement plans shall include,
as a minimum, the following provisions:
• Landscaping, lighting, fencing, signage.
• At least two path connections into the PAMF site.
• Transition and connection to the portion of the path
extending south from the site.
• Continuation of the path along the Urban Lane extension
to University Circle,
• Maintenance of all features of the portion of the path
located on the PAMF site.
28. The subdivider has consulted with the City, Stanford
University, Caltrans, and Santa Clara County Transit Agency
concerning the feasibility of constructing southbound and
northbound bus stops on El Camino Real near the new signalized
PAMF entrance. Both bus stops have been found to be feasible
by the parties identified above, and the subdivider shall
design, construct and fund the bus stop amenities, signal
03/24/97 −366
modifications for the pedestrian crossing, crosswalk
(including short connecting sidewalk on the west/Stanford side
of El Camino Real), and on-site connecting sidewalks. The
northbound bus stop will require a pullout to be constructed
on PAMF property and easements granted to the appropriate public
agency consistent with the dimensions of the pullout. The
subdivider shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the
northbound bus stop and related improvements for the life of
the project.
29. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits(s) by the City,
subdivider shall complete all off-site improvements including
but not limited to the Urban Lane Extension, improvements along
El Camino Real and the new traffic signal at the PAMF driveway.
Upon completion of the above said improvements, ownership and
title to the traffic signal system shall be vested in Caltrans.
30. Urban Lane Extension shall be maintained by PAMF. PAMF shall
allow Caltrans right-of-entry upon its property for maintenance
of the traffic signal system. No building permit shall be
issued until an agreement has been reached between the relevant
parties regarding the maintenance of Urban Lane Extension and
the right-of-entry to Caltrans as required above.
Planning
31. The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitor-
ing and Reporting Program, adopted as Attachments N and O with
the January 29, 1996, City Council approvals of the project,
are incorporated hereby as conditions of tentative map
approval.
32. The design of new curb and sidewalks to be installed along the
south side of Wells Avenue shall avoid any detrimental impact
on the mature oak located there. Similar design consideration
shall be given to the mature pepper tree located on the historic
Greer property adjacent to the southern end of the proposed
north-south connector road. The design of these street
improvements and provisions for protection of these significant
trees shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning
Arborist prior to issuance of any excavation or grading permits
and shall comply with Chapter 8.10 of the Municipal Code.
33. Chapter 8.10 of the Municipal Code regarding tree protection
shall apply to any qualifying trees located on the project site
or affected by project construction that were not authorized
for removal by the City Council’s 1/29/96 approvals of the PAMF
Urban Lane Campus project.
03/24/97 −367
34. The Improvement Plans shall include the location and specifi-
cations of the above-ground pad-mounted utility equipment
consistent with the locations and specifications shown on plans
dated January 6, 1997 as preliminarily approved by the ARB and
subject to final approval by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment and Utilities Engineering to insure
adequate screening, where required, for said improvements.
Findings and Conditions for Modifications to Architectural Review
FINDINGS
1. The proposed PAMF Urban Lane Campus and the recommended changes
to existing ARB conditions of approval meet the goals and
purposes (Section 16.48.010) of the Architectural Review
Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in
that:
a. Orderly and harmonious development will result from
approval of the project which has an integrated design
with numerous buildings of similar architectural styles
and qualities.
b. Approval of the consolidated PAMF Campus will provide a
local modern medical clinic facility for residents of Palo
Alto and surrounding communities, involving substantial
investment by the Foundation and possibly triggering
increased investment by the vicinity property owners into
existing or future improvements.
c. Prior to the PAMF consolidation of the thirteen separate
parcels comprising the Urban Lane Campus site, use of the
land and improvements was scattered among several
unrelated uses without uniform design or coordinated use
of such strategically located property on El Camino Real.
d. Employees, patients, and visitors to the PAMF Urban Lane
Campus will experience more efficient, safe and aestheti-
cally pleasing facilities than those currently utilized
in the downtown area because all structures will meet
current building code requirements and have been uniformly
designed as a single coordinated medical clinic and
related research complex.
e. The approved design will create a noteworthy institution
in a highly visible location on El Camino Real and a new
extension of Urban Lane from University Circle to Encina
Avenue; and
03/24/97 −368
2. The PAMF Urban Lane Campus would, as modified by conditions
of approval and revised conditions of approval, meet all fifteen
standards for architectural review contained in Section
16.48.120 of the Municipal Code, in that:
a. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with
the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
b. The design of the project is compatible with the immedi-
ate environment of the site if mitigations to ease
transitions to adjacent properties are implemented
consistent with the conditions of approval. The project
design insures that drainage will not flow toward the Palo
Alto Pet Hospital on Wells Avenue. The PAMF Urban Lane
Campus proposal has been found by the certified EIR to
provide sufficient on-site parking so that parking at
vicinity sites, such as the Pet Hospital, will not be
adversely affected. Regarding the proposed project’s
relationship to adjacent properties on Encina Avenue,
conditions of approval relating to wall, fence and
landscape design and to light/glare and noise attenuation
along the south boundary of the PAMF site will ensure that
no adverse effects would result from the PAMF Urban Lane
project.
c. The design of the proposed improvements is appropriate
to the medical clinic and related research land use and
functions proposed for the PAMF Urban Lane site. The
project has been designed to provide PAMF a large,
consolidated and modern campus, with a design that is urban
in form and scale as viewed from El Camino Real and the
proposed north-south extension of Urban Lane.
d. The subject property is not located in an area which has
a unified design or historical character. However, the
project design is generally in keeping with the recommen-
dations of the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ARB,
November 1979) in that street trees are being provided
along El Camino Real; several existing trees are being
preserved and will be protected during construction; the
buildings are set back from El Camino Real, with land-
scaping provided and parking screened; and all building
elevations have an integrated architectural character.
Further, appropriate mitigating measures will be imple-
mented to screen the project from the historic Greer
property.
e. The project design would promote harmonious transitions
in scale and character between different designated land
03/24/97 −369
uses if the conditions of approval referenced in (b) above
are implemented. Proposed front building setbacks and
landscaping are appropriate for the existing character
of this segment of El Camino Real in north Palo Alto where
there are other large institutions and campuses, such as
the Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford University,
Holiday Inn, Town & Country Village and Palo Alto High
School. Transitions to the north and south at Wells
Avenue-Urban Lane and the south service road adjacent to
properties on the north side of Encina Avenue will be
harmonious with implementation of the mitigations and
conditions referenced in (b), above.
f. The design of the project is compatible with improvements
both on site and off site. The project involves the
removal of several dated retail and industrial buildings
and uses, which designs has not been compatible with each
other or with vicinity uses such as the Holiday Inn and
Town & Country Village. The large PAMF Campus site will
be developed with a unified design, upgrading the site’s
appearance and value. The PAMF project’s transitions to
adjacent properties and improvements will be acceptable
with implementation of the conditions of approval
referenced in (b), above.
g. The planning and siting of the proposed campus functions
and buildings create an internal sense of order in that
the buildings proposed for immediate construction
(Buildings A, B and C) relate well to each other and the
parking proposed to serve the various campus uses.
Additionally, the Urban Lane Campus design relates well
to the new north-south connector (Urban Lane) which will
improve site and vicinity access by providing a new link
between Encina Avenue to the south and University Circle
to the north. Occupants, visitors and the general
community will all benefit from that and other
improvements associated with the PAMF project.
Improvements to Wells Avenue and the new signalized
entrance will provide better circulation and access
on-site and for vicinity properties by providing more
vehicular circulation options. Pedestrian and bicycle
circulation is also improved with the provision of the
pedestrian-bicycle path along the eastern edge of the
campus, with connections serving the proposed PAMF
buildings and paths to the Urban Lane Extension to the
north and the City path project planned to the south.
h. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate
to the design and the function of the PAMF structures.
03/24/97 −370
Open spaces designed for employee and patient use are
appropriate for a diverse urban facility such as the PAMF
Campus, being composed of many different elements in the
front entrance area, the Building B and C court/atrium
and the extensive public use areas provided along the
north-south connector and at major entrances to Buildings
A, B and C. Landscaped areas are concentrated along El
Camino Real to provide a campus look for the facility and
scattered throughout the various open areas on the site,
with particular attention to providing an urban street
scape along the north-south connector (Urban Lane).
i. The project proposes sufficient ancillary functions to
support the main functions of the project because the PAMF
Campus will serve as a freestanding facility, providing
most of its own support services. Significantly, the
Campus will rely on “just-in-time” deliveries to the
service areas, whereby most supplies are stored off-site
by suppliers and delivered by small trucks on an as-needed
basis. This type of supply delivery system virtually
eliminates large truck deliveries and the need for
significant on-site supply storage space. The designs
of Building A and C service areas are compatible with the
implementation of conditions of approval regarding hours
of operation and the fencing and landscaping required on
the south side of the Building C service road.
j. The access to the property and circulation thereon are
safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles
because through-site and on-site circulation is provided
for all modes of transportation. Sidewalks are provided
along El Camino Real, Wells Avenue, the north-south
connector and internal to the project between buildings
and parking areas. Bicycle paths are provided along the
east side of the property and connecting into the Campus.
Adequate lane widths are provided on El Camino Real for
safe bicycle use there. Service circulation by large
trucks is restricted from the entrance oval, with the
north-south connector and south service road accessing
Building A and C loading areas.
k. Natural features are notably absent from the site, with
the exception of a few trees. Those trees have been
evaluated by a qualified horticulturist, with several
being included in the project design and others being
removed but replaced with new project landscaping of
comparable value.
03/24/97 −371
l. The materials, textures, colors and details of the
proposed buildings, in addition to proposed and required
landscaping, establish a project design that is compati-
ble with adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape
elements and functions. The proposed building design
would be a significant improvement over the mix of diverse
building architecture, including several metal buildings,
which occurred on the site prior to consolidation by PAMF
of thirteen separate parcels and the subsequent demolition
of the buildings. It is likely that there would be
upgrading and possibly redevelopment of the adjacent
properties after development of the PAMF Campus.
m. The landscape design concept as proposed and as modified
by conditions of approval creates a desirable and
functional environment both for PAMF employees and
patients and for those members of the general public who
may have occasion to facility and scattered throughout
the various open areas on the site, with particular
attention to providing an urban street scape along the
north-south connector (Urban Lane).
n. The proposed plant materials are generally suited and
adaptable to the site, with preliminary plant selections
reviewed by the City Planning Arborist and the ARB and
final plant selections to be subject to City Planning
Arborist approval prior to issuance of building permits.
The plant materials and proposed irrigation systems will
comply with all City requirements for drought-resistance
and low water consumption.
o. The project would result in greater energy efficiency than
would otherwise be easily achievable at the older PAMF
facilities in the downtown area. Retrofitting for energy
efficiency is more difficult than designing a new building
to comply with applicable local and State energy
requirements.
3. The modifications to the ARB approval would affect only the
timing of grading and excavation permits and minor other aspects
of the following conditions, not changing any of the findings
made in conjunction with the original approval of the project
by the Palo Alto City Council in January 1996.
MODIFIED CONDITIONS
4. As part of the annual mitigation monitoring report to the City,
the permittee shall survey on-site parking occupancy and
vacancy, including bicycle parking, distributed by patient and
03/24/97 −372
employee parking spaces, during peak hours on three consecutive
work days (Tuesday-Thursday) and provide this data to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment for
consideration relative to the deferred parking approval.
(Same as UP 7)
8. The design of new curb and sidewalks to be installed along the
south side of Wells Avenue shall avoid any detrimental impact
on the mature oak located there. Similar design consideration
shall be given to the mature pepper tree located on the historic
Greer property adjacent to the southern end of the proposed
north-south connector road. The design of these street
improvements and provisions for protection of these significant
trees shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning
Arborist prior to issuance of any excavation or grading permits
and shall comply with Chapter 8.10 of the Municipal Code.
13. No excavation or grading permits shall be issued unless and
until permittee has provided written evidence to the satisfac-
tion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment in
a form approved by the City Attorney that agreement can be
reached among the relevant parties (PAMF, Stanford, JPB, and
City) regarding design of the extension of Urban Lane from the
northern project boundary to University Circle that is
consistent with the certified Final EIR and the January 1996
approvals by the City Council. No building permits shall be
issued unless and until permittee has provided in a form
approved by the City Attorney the final written agreements
and/or easements concerning the extension of Urban Lane and
permittee has entered into written agreement with City
guaranteeing timely funding and construction of said Urban Lane
improvements.
(Same as UP 11)
14. Preliminary improvement plans for the extension of Urban Lane
from the northern edge of the project site to University Circle
shall be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review
Board and City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any grading
or excavation permits. Final improvement plans for the
extension of Urban Lane shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director, Public Works Director and Traffic
Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits.
Improvement plans for the Urban Lane extension shall include,
as a minimum, the following elements:
• Roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path extensions per the
City-approved alternate, including connections to the
pedestrian to the bicycle/pedestrian path and roadway on
the PAMF site.
03/24/97 −373
• Landscaping, lighting, fencing and other amenities.
• Connections of the new roadway and bicycle/pedestrian path
to University Circle.
• (Omitted)
• Any and all required changes to the Joint Powers Board
parking lot.
• Accommodation of the new Marguerite bus access/storage
area per Stanford’s plans.
(Same as UP 12)
15. Preliminary improvement plans for all work on El Camino Real
related to the project shall be submitted to and approved by
the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or
excavation permit. Final improvement plans for all work on
El Camino Real shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits and
by Caltrans prior to issuance of any interiors building permits.
The Plans shall include as a minimum, the following elements:
• Reconfiguration of southbound on-ramp.
• New signal installation for PAMF intersection, including
separate phase for southbound ramp and hardwire intercon-
nection with Embarcadero/El Camino Real signal. The
signal controller shall be able to accept a possible future
pedestrian phase (refer also to mitigation measure B.4).
• Closure of abandoned driveways and streets.
• Construction of new five-foot wide sidewalk and
five-foot-wide planting strip along project frontage.
Due to lack of right-of-way on El Camino Real, part of
this construction may be on permittee’s property. If the
approved improvement plans show these improvements on a
portion of permittee’s property, the Final Map shall
include appropriate easements.
• Restriping of El Camino Real and construction of new
five-foot wide median and four-to-five-foot wide island
separating on-ramp and through lanes.
• New signage and landscaping.
03/24/97 −374
• Relocation of electroliers and other utility poles, if
necessary due to roadway widening.
(Same as UP 13)
17. Permittee shall submit improvement plans for the public
bicycle/pedestrian path on the PAMF site, along the eastern
edge of the site, to comply with applicable City and Caltrans
design standards for bicycle paths. The preliminary plans
shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the
Architectural Review Board prior to issuance of any grading
or excavation permits. Final improvement plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director, the Public
Works Director and the City Traffic Engineer, with input from
the Utilities Department and the Planning Arborist, prior to
issuance of any building permits. Improvement plans shall
include, as a minimum, the following provisions:
• Landscaping, lighting, fencing, signage.
• At least two path connections into the PAMF site.
• Transition and connection to the portion of the path
extending south from the site.
• Continuation of the path along the Urban Lane extension
to University Circle,
• Maintenance of all features of the portion of the path
located on the PAMF site.
(Same as UP 15)
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the permittee shall
consult with the Hazardous Materials Inspector, and prior to
the issuance of interiors building permits the permittee shall
submit to the Fire Department a Hazardous Materials California
Quality Act (CEQA) checklist and permit fee (Sec. 12.08.010).
52. Preliminary landscaping, lighting and signage plans shall be
submitted for ARB review and approval prior to issuance of
excavation or grading permits. Final landscaping, lighting
and signage plans shall be submitted for Planning Director,
City Traffic Engineer and Planning Arborist review and approval
prior to issuance of interiors building permits. Key
components of these submittals shall include the following:
a. Final landscape plans shall include number, size, height
and location of trees and plant material to be installed
03/24/97 −375
and include the final status of trees to be saved and
removed.
b. Landscaping and lighting design solutions for the Building
A/Building C service docks shall be submitted. Building
A’s elevated service dock entry shall be adequately
screened to reduce visibility from Wells Avenue and Urban
Lane. Building C’s service dock and drive will create
noise, lighting and visual impacts for properties along
Encina Avenue which will require installation of trees
for screening and fencing for noise attenuation along the
southern edge of the service drive. Lighting shall be
installed that is not directed onto adjacent or vicinity
properties.
c. Detailed landscaping, fence and retaining wall design
details shall be provided for the portion of the project
area bordering properties on Encina Avenue. These plans
shall provide high quality building materials, trees, and
plan materials that will provide significant screening
of these properties as well as an aesthetic buffer.
d. The on-street parking and sidewalk shown on sheet 9I dated
11/27/95 along the east side of the north-south connector
road between Encina Avenue and the intersection with the
southern service drive shall be revised to remove
on-street parking and provide planting strips including
street trees and sidewalks on both sides of the street.
(Dimensions of the landscape strips and sidewalks may
be adjusted somewhat to accommodate the large pepper tree
on the Greer property.)
e. The section showed on sheet 9G dated 11/27/95 shall be
modified to replace the retaining wall with a landscaped
2:1 slope. Fill in this area must be kept outside the
canopy of the large oak tree (#20, Sheet 15) located on
the Wells Avenue property line.
f. Detailed plans for each public plaza including curbing,
bollard and paving designs, sun/shade analysis, seating
areas, kiosk design if any, trash receptacles, signage,
electrical outlets and other support facilities for
outdoor public activities shall be provided.
g. Detailed plans showing the dimensions, adequacy of soil
volume and drainage for tree wells over the parking garage
shall be provided.
03/24/97 −376
h. The signage program shall include off-site signage along
University, Alma, Embarcadero and Palm Drive to direct
PAMF patients to the University Circle and Encina Avenue
entrances to the site.
i. Detailed plans shall be provided showing fencing and
landscaping within the approximate 5-foot strip along the
south property line between El Camino Real and the
north-south connector.
j. Plans shall show how electrical outlets will be provided
for electric vehicles used by PAMF employees.
58. The permittee shall submit a concept proposal for a significant
art program for consultation with the Public Art Commission
and then for ARB review and approval prior to issuance of
excavation or grading permits. Prior to issuance of interiors
building permits, the permittee shall have consulted with the
Public Art Commission and gained approval by the ARB of the
final art program, including a schedule for installation of
the art program components. The seven components of the art
program approved by the ARB on March 6, 1997 included:
a. A freestanding sculpture at the east entrance to Buildings
B and C.
b. An art component in the paved garden plaza and related
improvements east of the east entrance to Buildings B and
C.
c. Four benches designed by artists for the western loggia
area.
d. The medallions on the west and east elevations of the
buildings.
e. Art components in the underground parking structure.
f. Art components in the pediatric area.
g. An ongoing art program for the PAMF Urban Lane Campus.
Occupancy of the project shall not be allowed unless and until
installation of components a through f above is substantially
complete, as determined by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment. Components a through f of the approved
art program shall be fully installed no later than six (6) months
following initial occupancy.
03/24/97 −377
Council Member Schneider was pleased to see the project in its final
phases.
Council Member Wheeler asked the City Attorney whether the ARB art
condition was appropriate for inclusion since it was approved by
the applicant.
Mr. Calonne said yes.
Council Member Wheeler believed the applicant was probably correct
when he said the large number of people who biked to the site would
use the paths and the off road facilities being constructed by the
applicant and the City. The placement of the most convenient bicycle
parking in the area most convenient to the bicycle path was probably
correct. The bicyclists should be encouraged to use the safest
facilities rather than use El Camino Real. Given the Planning
Commission discussion and the appropriate conditions it imposed on
the monitoring of the bicycle parking in the front loggia area, and
if the need arose, additional parking could be provided in front,
she believed the initial focus was correct.
Council Member Rosenbaum said clearly the PAMF had displayed art
on a volunteer basis, and he did not believe the City had the statutory
right to require it as a condition.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved that the Condition
regarding the provision of interior art be deleted.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Eakins said the map reflected a couple of places for
people to get off El Camino Real so they would not have to go through
the loggia area and all around. There looked to be alternative
routes so that someone coming from the Stanford direction could
secure the bicycle parking closer to El Camino Real in the 12 lockers
or go on around toward Building A where there were 16 racks. She
believed the bicycle parking distribution around the entrances was
adequate.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown “not participating,” Kniss absent.
5D. (Old Item No. 10) PUBLIC HEARING: Vacation of Street Rights
of Way and Public Utilities Easement - Palo Alto Medical
Foundation Urban Lane Site
Council Member McCown would not participate in the item because of
a conflict of interest due to the fact that the applicant was a client
of her law firm.
03/24/97 −378
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests
from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve the staff recommendation that the Council:
1. Make the following findings:
a. The Project will have no significant effect on the
environment, as shown in the Environmental Impact Report
which the City Council approved on January 29, 1996; and
b. The streets and public utilities easement are not
necessary for present or prospective public use, in that:
i) The proposed project includes dedication of new
public rights-of-way and easements as necessary to
serve the project and properties in the vicinity;
and
ii) The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
project concludes that replacement of existing
street pattern with the proposed new public streets
including the extension of Urban Lane, would bene-
fit the general public.
2. Adopt the Resolution ordering the vacation of street
rights-of-way and a public easement on the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation (PAMF) development site; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to sign the deed granting property to PAMF.
Resolution 7657 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Ordering Vacation of Public Street and Utilities
Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site
at 795 El Camino Real”
Grant Deed Conveying Portions of Homer Avenue and Urban Lane
to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown “not participating,” Kniss absent.
RESOLUTIONS
5E. (Old Item No. 13) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide
an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project
19406, Rinconada Pool Site Improvements, for Replacement of
the Children’s Pool
03/24/97 −379
City Manager June Fleming realized Council was not accustomed to
receiving such a large budget amendment request at that time of year.
The action before the Council was twofold. While it was a budget
amendment, it was also a decision about whether Council wanted a
children's pool to remain at Rinconada Pool. As staff considered
the attendance patterns at Rinconada Pool, it was a family-oriented
park, and children used the pool. While she was pleased with staff's
extensive investigation, she was dismayed to learn the pool could
not be repaired. The option was either to fill it in or repair it.
The reason she made the unusual choice to bring the matter before
the Council at that time was that budget hearings were upcoming.
If the item waited until July after Council approved the budget,
the next swim period would be missed. Changes were currently being
undertaken to address some more pleasing aesthetics and play
activities in the pool at minimal costs.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests
from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve: 1) the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $400,000
to fund the replacement of the Rinconada Children’s pool and 2) the
CIP description for Rinconada Pool Improvements, CIP 19406.
Ordinance 4407 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97
to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement
Project 19406, Rinconada Pool Site Improvements, for Replace-
ment of the Children’s Pool”
Council Member McCown believed the function of the pool and the timing
warranted the exception of a budget amendment ordinance rather than
folding it into the budget. She understood the reasoning, and an
exception was appropriate.
Vice Mayor Andersen agreed with Council Member McCown.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION AT 9:02 P.M. - 9:17 P.M.
The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving
existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 4A.
Mayor Huber announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 4A.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
03/24/97 −380
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator’s decision for a Conditional Use
Permit 96-UP-5, allowing live entertainment, including music
and dancing, at an existing restaurant (Q-Billiards), located
at 529 Alma Street (continued from 3/3/97)
Mayor Huber would not participate in the item due to a conflict of
interest.
Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the appeal was the result of
a use permit approval she granted for live music in an existing
cafe/restaurant and billiard facility. The original request was
for live entertainment seven days a week beginning at 9:00 a.m. and
ending at 2:00 a.m., including lunch, dinner, and after dinner hours.
Her approval granted live entertainment three nights a week,
Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings beginning at 9:00 p.m. and
ending at 1:30 a.m. There were two appeals of the decision: one
from the applicant due to a disagreement with several of the 23
conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report (CMR:131:97)
and one from a neighbor based on the belief that the use was
inappropriate in the downtown area and would be detrimental to the
surrounding land uses. The Planning Commission heard the appeal
and conducted a public hearing on two evenings. Ultimately, the
Commission recommended the Zoning Administrator's approval be upheld
with several modifications to the conditions of approval. The
Commission recommended eliminating Condition 13 regarding the
internal vestibule. She had attached the condition to insure a
closed door situation so that noise would not escape as doors were
opened and closed as people entered and exited the facility. The
Commission did not believe the condition would be needed with the
addition of Condition 23 regarding a sound monitoring device which
would keep the decibels at the interior of the facility to an average
of 90 decibels which would ensure compliance with the noise
ordinance. The Commission also recommended the addition of
Conditions 24 and 25 to augment the security program and the patron
educational program. The Commission also recommended modification
of Condition 5 which would require a Zoning Administrator review
after 6 months rather than the 12 months she originally attached
and allow a maximum of two infractions in that 6-month period rather
than three in the 12-month period she initially attached. The
Commission also recommended a modification to Condition 2 to end
live music on Friday and Saturday at 11:30 p.m. and midnight on
Thursday and end the service of alcohol at 1:00 a.m. on Friday and
Saturday and midnight on Thursday. The Commission did not
specifically mention whether it intended to limit only live music
or live music and the disc jockey (DJ) music. When she originally
attached the condition, she specifically called out recorded music
played by a DJ. In her mind, she thought of an event in which the
DJ was actually part of the performance and an attraction in and
03/24/97 −381
of themselves. Condition 15 was corrected to reflect the Planning
Commission's recommendation. There were questions throughout the
appeal hearing about the noise analysis and the standard applied.
Those clarifications were provided as part of the Planning
Commission hearing. The staff recommended upholding the Zoning
Administrator's approval and supporting the Planning Commission's
modifications with the exception that staff supported the inclusion
of Condition 13 which required the internal vestibule and that
performance of DJ recorded music be limited as was live music.
Planning Commission Chairperson Phyllis Cassel understood live music
was band music that would attract a larger audience. In terms of
the sound and noise, there was agreement regarding the monitoring
being in place at all times when any kind of music was being played
to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. The Commission did
not recommend the vestibule because the doors opened directly toward
the tracks on Alma Street rather than back toward the facility, and
the majority of the noise would not be heard from that direction.
Further, modifications were made to the roof and open areas of the
roof to try to limit the sound.
Council Member Schneider asked what constituted a night club; whether
the City had any way of limiting the number of night clubs in a
specific area, and if not, whether the number could be limited.
She also asked whether the City had a policy regarding night clubs
in the downtown area.
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the City's ordinance did
not define night clubs, and they were not allowed as a use in the
City's zoning. Restaurants were allowed, and drinking was permitted
with a conditional use permit. Live entertainment was also an
allowable use only in conjunction with restaurants. A night club
use was not permitted under Palo Alto zoning.
Council Member Schneider clarified a night club would be a club which
did not serve food.
Ms. Lytle said that was essentially where Palo Alto's definition
precluded what would normally be considered as a night club because
the primary use was restaurant.
Council Member Schneider queried whether Palo Alto limited the number
of restaurant uses in the downtown area which served food and played
live music.
Ms. Lytle said there was a limitation on the number of alcoholic
beverage permits which could be issued within a radius of one another
and within certain blocks, but there was no provision in the ordinance
which limited live entertainment.
03/24/97 −382
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said if one accepted that drinking and
live entertainment constituted a night club, then the conditional
use permit process was designed precisely to control that type of
use. In effect, Council had the authority to use the conditional
use permit process to limit the total number of "night clubs" within
a given area based on the compatibility and Comprehensive Plan
consistency findings which would need to be made to approve a
conditional use permit. Use permits could limit the length of time
which a particular use was assured of being allowed. There was
a leaning toward that with Condition 15 which required the Zoning
Administrator review. While Condition 15 did not say the City could
rethink the use in six months or a year, it did say if a violation
existed. The City had jurisdiction to initiate revocation
proceedings. He suggested Council consider the option of using a
time limitation on the life of the conditional use permit where upon
its expiration, the applicant could reapply. That tool was
available.
Council Member Schneider asked specifically what constituted a
violation.
Mr. Calonne said it could be a violation of the conditions of approval
or the noise monitoring requirements.
Council Member Schneider clarified it would require a neighbor or
someone in the area complaining about loud noise which in turn would
cause the situation to be checked. She clarified three violations
in six months would lead to a permit revocation process even with
a five-year sunset clause on the permit.
Ms. Grote had attempted to define a noise violation at the end of
Condition 15 by saying officially documented infractions were ones
in which the Palo Alto Police Department had actually done noise
readings and confirmed the excess of noise which meant the use was
out of compliance. The wording said the permit could be revoked
with two or more officially documented infractions. The permit
would be called up for review, and there might still be the
opportunity to modify the conditions, permit, or operating
conditions rather than revocation.
Mr. Calonne said the violations were a separate opportunity for the
City to start revocation proceedings. The City would bear the burden
of showing that a violation had existed, and it could be hotly
contested. The question about a time limitation really turned on
whether the City wanted to retain the authority to review the number,
location, and other factors associated with the live music venue
in the downtown. While the time limitation was traditionally used,
the City shied away from it in some instances because of the time
03/24/97 −383
and expense involved. The legal effect was to prevent the site from
gaining a vested right to maintain live music subject to revocation.
If a time limitation were not included, when the premises changed
hands, the use permit went with it, and a vested right was acquired
subject to the conditions in the permit to maintain live music at
the site. He believed the old 42nd Street location was an old live
music use permit which had existed for a long time.
Council Member Fazzino asked which noise provisions were applicable,
e.g., residential or commercial.
Mr. Calonne said the commercial standard was consistently applied.
Council Member Fazzino said since Council struggled with the Edge
situation about a year ago, he was interested in staff's perspective
regarding how the subject issue was similar to and/or different.
Police Agent Patty Stone said from the Police Department perspective,
since April 1, 1996, there were 225 calls for service at the Edge.
Of those, 8 were specifically for loud music. At the Q Cafe there
were 32 calls for service, and 7 were for loud music. The Edge
involved a much wider range of calls, and 39 were serious arrests,
e.g., batteries and assault with deadly weapons. The situations
were only similar in terms of the calls for loud music.
Ms. Grote said many of the conditions she originally attached as
part of her approval and the added Planning Commission conditions
were modeled on the Edge and what had been done there. Patron
education, security guard, monitoring the area, and helping people
find places to park were programs modeled on what had occurred and
been successful at the Edge. There were some differences between
the two establishments in that the Edge stayed open until 3:00 or
4:00 a.m., and the Q Cafe was not requesting to stay open that late.
The Edge had music many more days of the week than what was
recommended for approval at the Q Cafe. There was probably a
difference in the type of entertainment as well.
Council Member Fazzino queried whether many of the problems were
associated with the 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. period at the Edge. If
the Edge closed at 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m., he asked whether the same
problem reports would exist.
Ms. Stone believed the problem at the Edge were widespread but not
directly related to 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. The problems ranged
anywhere from midnight to 4:00 a.m.
Council Member Fazzino said the additional two hours the Edge was
open was not a significant factor in terms of the increased incidence
of problems.
03/24/97 −384
Ms. Stone said the later closing was intended to let people stop
drinking, sober up, and move out of the club over a longer period
of time. The later time was not significantly related to the number
of calls for service, but there were still calls during that time
period.
Council Member Fazzino queried whether on balance the Police
Department believed the City had been successful in resolving the
issues and concerns associated with the Edge since the conditions
enacted one and one-half years before.
Ms. Stone said the City was initially successful. Things had
continued to mount, and the calls for service had grown.
Council Member Fazzino queried whether the Edge might return to the
Council.
Ms. Stone said it was a possibility.
Council Member McCown referred to eating and drinking establishments
in the downtown area which were open until late hours and queried
to what extent the Police Department had received complaints of noise
and behavior associated with departing patrons. She queried how
such behavior was manifesting itself downtown.
Ms. Stone said one comparison club might be Fanny & Alexander's.
The Police Department received a higher number of calls for service
during the years, but only two were for loud music. While calls
for service to Fanny & Alexander's were somewhat similar to the Edge
in terms of batteries and fights, etc., they were not on as grand
a scale.
Council Member McCown queried whether the fights involved people
who had left the premises and were fighting in the parking lot.
Ms. Stone said fights involved people who had not gained entry and
were denied access, people in the parking lots, and people who had
been drinking.
Council Member McCown said given the overall mix of such facilities
downtown, she queried the problem was generalized in terms of late
night conduct of people leaving establishments who had too much to
drink, got into fights, etc.
Ms. Stone did not believe it was a generalized problem but rather
one which had occurred from time to time. The biggest problems were
with Fanny & Alexander's and recently with the Q Cafe. Some of the
03/24/97 −385
smaller bars, such as Rudy's, had a few calls, but it was not a
generalized problem at all.
Council Member McCown queried whether there were any other examples
downtown where use permits had the conditions of education, etc.
Ms. Grote said the closest example downtown was Paradis, which began
as 42nd Street. The use permit was modified several years prior
to include several of the types of conditions recommended in the
subject use permit.
Council Member McCown queried the City's experience regarding a
change in the number of problems with the attachment of the
educational conditions.
Ms. Stone said Paradis was very good in terms of police related calls.
Very few calls for service for noise and music were received.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Gordon Biersch had at one
point applied for live music. He was also interested in the Blue
Chalk.
Ms. Grote said Gordon Biersch had actually applied for several
temporary use permits over the past couple of years which allowed
it to have live music on a Friday or a Saturday night for a defined
period of time. Gordon Biersch had not applied for a permanent use
permit to allow live music. The temporary use permits had been
approved. While she deferred response regarding whether the Blue
Chalk had applied for a temporary use permit for live music, it did
not have a permanent use permit which allowed it to have live music.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether a temporary use permit was
good for one night or one weekend.
Ms. Grote said it was usually good for one night. Sometimes it was
for a Mardi Gras or Cinco de Mayo event.
Council Member Rosenbaum regarded Gordon Biersch, the Blue Chalk,
and Q Cafe as similarly sized large establishments with a lot of
people milling around on Friday and Saturday nights. If Council
provided a permanent use permit for live music for one, he queried
whether it would be under any special obligation to do so for the
other two.
Mr. Calonne said no. Council would have to evaluate each applica-
tion based on the information at that time. While the permit could
not be prejudged, Council would be under no obligation to issue it.
03/24/97 −386
Vice Mayor Andersen declared the Public Hearing open.
Cheryl Young, attorney, 529 Alma Street, represented Q Cafe. She
apologized to the City on behalf of the Q Cafe for the unintended
violation of its temporary use permit by continuing to have live
music after the temporary use permit expired. The Q Cafe was a
restaurant and billiard use which desired to complement its casual
dining atmosphere with live music. Q Cafe intended to offer jazz,
blues, and soft rock music rather than the loud, hard rock music
at the Edge, and patrons at the Q Cafe were a minimum of 21 years
of age while the Edge patrons were a minimum of 18 years of age.
She believed the Edge was located about 100 yards away from
residences while the Q Cafe was a greater distance. While there
were some residential facilities in the area, it was primarily
commercial. The Q Cafe wanted to add to Palo Alto's diversified
night life in the downtown by including live music which she believed
was consistent with the proposed downtown urban development and the
Comprehensive Plan. Q Cafe also wanted to be a place where Palo
Alto musicians could perform as well as top-of-the-line and
award-winning musicians from the Bay Area. Two areas of the building
were identified as places where noise could escape, e.g., the
skylights and the front doors. Mitigations included double paning
all the skylights, weather stripping to seal all gaps in the front
doors panel area, and the front doors which were adjusted to
automatically close so they would always return to the closed
position thereby eliminating the need for a vestibule. The two
issues before the Council were whether there was a noise problem
and whether patrons would cause a disturbance to its neighbors.
The area was busy with many businesses and people on the street,
and while she did not doubt the Plaza residents experienced noise
problems, there was a question about whether the noise originated
at the Q Cafe. The acoustical reports indicated that Q Cafe met
Palo Alto's noise ordinance. The second report in response to Ms.
Baigent's letter of January 30, 1997 (on file in City Clerk Office),
reflected measurements taken at the skylights with the doors opened
and closed, and Q Cafe met Palo Alto's noise ordinance at both the
front door and top roof property line at 1:00 a.m. with an average
of 90 decibel music inside with a range of 84 to 94 decibels and
peaks at or below 97 decibels. The report also stated that whether
the front door was opened or closed had no impact on the Palo Alto
Plaza because there was less than one decibel difference at the
rooftop property line directly facing the plaza. There was no record
of a noise ordinance violation issued to the Q Cafe, and while she
heard there had been seven calls, she believed any were validated
as originating from the Q Cafe. She did not believe a noise problem
existed at the Q Cafe, and mitigations eliminated the potential.
Regarding whether patrons leaving the Q Cafe would cause a problem
to the neighbors, previous testimony already indicated Q Cafe had
03/24/97 −387
a much lower service call basis, and there had not been noise or
patron disturbances or complaints. In order to eliminate the
potential for patron problems, Q Cafe received permission from
Caltrain to direct and educate patrons to use the parking lot directly
across the street from Q Cafe to eliminate patron parking on High
Street near the plaza. There were over 90 spaces in that location,
and they were well equipped to handle any overflow due to live
entertainment. Q Cafe also began implementing the security patrol
which was requested under Condition 24 and a customer education plan
as requested under Condition 25. Q Cafe already began implementing
those two conditions despite not knowing whether the permit would
be approved because they wanted to be "at one" with neighbors in
the area. She did not believe there was any evidence of patron
disturbances in terms of guns or battery complaints or the like.
She did not believe there would be a potential with the mitigations
installed. There were many supporters of live music at the Q Cafe
including Casa Olga.
Council Member Schneider disclosed she had been to the Q Cafe on
a number of occasions. She asked how long Q Cafe had been open.
Ms. Young said two years.
Council Member Schneider clarified Q Cafe was originally designed
and developed as a pool hall and eatery and queried when the decision
was made to add music.
Bill Kiang, Owner, Q Cafe, said the Q Cafe opened in March, 1995,
and live music began January 1996.
Council Member Schneider queried the number of pool tables when the
establishment opened.
Mr. Kiang said Q Cafe began with 12 and currently had 7. The decrease
was to add space for a stage for the live entertainment.
Council Member Schneider clarified the intent was to change the
nature of the business and make it almost exclusively music and food
rather than pool hall.
Mr. Kiang said no. Q Cafe’s business model was to have 30 percent
for eating, live entertainment, and continued pool business.
Council Member Schneider queried the hours of operation.
Mr. Kiang said they were 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. On Monday
through Thursday, Q Cafe actually opened at 3:30 p.m. because there
was no business for lunch.
03/24/97 −388
Remy Malan, Appellant, 685 High Street #5B, had lived downtown since
about the middle of 1992, in close proximity to Gordon Biersch,
Hagashi West, and the Empire Grill & Taproom. During that time,
he had little reason to complain. Over the past four years, the
livability of downtown was called into question, and with regard
to the Q Cafe, he had a number of concerns which made wanting to
maintain a livable downtown a priority. From his living room window,
he had an unobstructed view to the roof of 529 Alma Street. He was
disturbed that last year Q Cafe openly advertised live music and
DJs in the Palo Alto Weekly prior to the Zoning Administrator's
hearing to determine whether a permit should be issued. At the
hearing in July 1996, he provided a videotape to the Zoning
Administrator documenting some of the activities he had observed
at the particular location. It was an important issue to him as
a resident and a neighbor downtown. Similar environments in the
City reflected that lunchtime to midnight, there were fewer calls
for service at the Edge than there were in the two hours from midnight
to 2:00 a.m. His own experience living downtown corroborated his
calls for service typically around midnight or later when he was
getting out of bed, getting dressed to find out where noises were
coming from, calling the Police Department, and waiting to see if
someone would show up. There were eight calls for loud music at
the Edge and seven calls at the Q Cafe. While the Edge currently
had a permit for music, there were about as many calls for noise
there as there were at the Q Cafe where no permit for live music
existed. He queried what would happen if the permit were issued.
Even with the conditionally approved permit, the Q Cafe had music
on nights other than those specified in violation of the previous
temporary permit. The track record of the Q Cafe was not good when
it came to following permits that were granted. On July 17, 1996,
18 people in the neighborhood submitted a petition requesting that
the project not be approved because of the concerns about the track
record of the establishment and enforcement. At midnight, it was
difficult to be assured the police would respond to the noise issues
because there were much more serious problems they needed to spend
their time on. It was also difficult to ensure the officer who
responded was adequately trained in the noise ordinances. For
example, there was an incident in which an officer measured 17
decibels above ambient in the alley outside of Gordon Biersch which
was clearly over the 8 decibel commercial specification. The
officer in question did not believe there was a violation of the
commercial noise ordinance.
Julia M. Baigent, Attorney at Law, 13 Woodleaf Avenue, Redwood City,
said the necessary findings made by staff in order to issue the permit
were based upon a lot of technical data. They pointed out a couple
of issues through Mr. Salter who was Mr. Malan's acoustical
consultant. Issues were that the ambient noise which was the outside
03/24/97 −389
noise measured against what was measured at 11:30 p.m. with music
being played in an empty room. They were concerned about the
midnight to 2:00 a.m. time frames when the ambient noise levels could
be substantially less. The most recent report submitted stated it
addressed the 1:00 p.m. ambient noise, but it did not. The report
submitted said the City of Palo Alto noise ordinance stated the
ambient was to be taken as the lowest number read on a sound level
monitor in a six-minute period. The interval was used to simplify
code enforcement. The short time interval allowed an officer to
determine if the noise ordinance was being violated without a more
involved measurement. The report did not address the Palo Alto noise
ordinance and went on to a lot of other irrelevant standards.
Charles Salter, acoustical engineer, 130 Sutter Street, San
Francisco, said Council had received two acoustical reports from
Vince Salmon, two from Jim Mills, and two letters from him (on file
in the City Clerk's Office). His first letter suggested taking noise
measurements near where the people were complaining. Obviously,
people were hearing noise, or they would not spend money and time
in opposition of the permit. His second letter, dated January 31,
1997, stated that while Q Cafe's calculations reflected no
violations, his calculations reflected Q Cafe had violated the
ordinance with the door closed. He recommended in that letter that
having the condition of the additional door seemed reasonable.
In San Francisco, the Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) did not
allow audible music noise, and it used a very straightforward
calculation for measurement. If music created audible noise, it
disturbed people and there was a violation. Facilities needed to
be sound proofed so noise was inaudible, which was something Council
might want to consider. Jim Mills basically dismissed Palo Alto's
approach to the noise ordinance of allowing eight decibels above
the minimum sound level. Perhaps getting at the issue of
inaudibility so his clients could no longer hear the noise was
reasonable. Based on the information recently presented, the
applicants double paned the skylights when it was possible the noise
emitted from the ventilation equipment on the roof. Additional
soundproofing measures might still be needed so the facility could
operate without disturbing neighbors.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked for more information regarding the
inaudibility standard used in San Francisco.
Mr. Salter said in San Francisco, there were many bars and nightclubs
which disturbed nearby residents. While police officers attempted
to go out and make acoustical measurements, it was difficult, and
thousands of people continued to complain. The ABC said if an
establishment disturbed neighbors, the license would be revoked.
He believed that was the essence of what Council was trying to
achieve. As one read the six acoustical reports and got involved
03/24/97 −390
with the decibels, etc., it was an extremely complicated and
difficult process.
Council Member Rosenbaum said the revocation of a liquor license
would be a serious matter requiring some documented evidence of a
disturbance. He queried the basis for saying sound was not
inaudible.
Mr. Salter said in his experience people complained to the Police
Department who filed reports with the ABC, and then the police went
out and listened. If the Police Department could hear what someone
complained about, the establishment was in violation of its
alcoholic permit. It was separate from the San Francisco noise
ordinance, but it was powerful enough for the establishments to hire
acoustical engineers and take the necessary steps so the noise was
inaudible.
Council Member Fazzino asked if the approach applied in mixed use
areas.
Mr. Salter said yes.
Council Member Fazzino was not convinced that the sound was inaudible
in the area south of Market Street.
Mr. Salter agreed, but the application of soundproofing was used
with many bars because of the difficulty the police had in
administering the sound level measurements. While the approach had
not worked perfectly, it certainly helped in many residential
neighborhoods.
Council Member Fazzino queried whether licenses had been revoked.
Mr. Salter was not an expert but had talked with attorneys involved
in the matters who were very concerned because they were threatened
with having licenses revoked. While he did not know the details,
he knew that San Francisco's approach to the issue had many bars
implement soundproofing to protect the neighbors.
Vice Mayor Andersen clarified the applicant's sound engineer would
have an opportunity to make rebuttal remarks.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether soundproofing indicated Mr.
Salter's feelings about the effectiveness of the Zoning Adminis-
trator's recommendation regarding the vestibule area.
Mr. Salter supported the condition for a vestibule.
03/24/97 −391
Council Member Wheeler queried whether there were measures beyond
the vestibule that were not imposed which were necessary to
soundproof the facility or whether the vestibule and the other
conditions were sufficient.
Mr. Salter believed the vestibule had merit because if the commercial
noise ordinance were violated with the doors closed, there would
be an even greater violation if the doors were opened. Given his
client's residential proximity to the building roof and the fact
that he heard the noise with his windows closed, more soundproofing
might be required of sound emitting from the roof. While double
paning was a step in the right direction, there could be other means
so the noise from the roof which needed to be treated acoustically
did not disturb the residential neighbors. He believed they were
talking about something very straightforward and objective. The
purpose was so the neighbors were not disturbed at night.
Council Member Wheeler asked how one dealt with noise emitting from
an air conditioning unit.
Mr. Salter said it was a simple process of adding silencers which
were specially made devices to allow the air to flow out of an opening
while noise was trapped.
Council Member Schneider asked, since the Q Cafe had put in its double
paned skylights and some other mitigations, how the noise problems
had improved.
Mr. Malan believed that since the Assistant Police Chief visited
the applicant in August 1996, things had quieted down considerably.
There were some instances over the Halloween weekend when some heavy
base noises emitted from the building. He did not know some of the
issues related to when insulation was installed, and he was unaware
that the applicant had live bands or other live entertainment as
such because it was precluded from any current permits. Given the
violations of the permit in the past, he was concerned about more
in the future. Apart from a few instances, he believed it had been
relatively quiet in the neighborhood.
Council Member Schneider asked about the other establishments in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Malan was not aware of other neighbors who lived near him on
High Street or Forest Avenue who had been disturbed by Paradis or
Cafe Fino. Gordon Biersch had been disturbing on occasion and most
recently during the Mardi Gras festival when they were measured at
17 decibels above ambient. Generally, Gordon Biersch might have
Oktoberfest music which only ran until 9:00 p.m. or so. It was not
particularly onerous. The prospect of living next to something week
03/24/97 −392
in and week out where there was ongoing noise was a different matter
compared to something which only happened a couple of times a year.
Council Member Eakins had known the building for a long time. She
asked whether the roof was weather insulated and soundproofed.
Mr. Salter did not know. The previous analysis indicated the weak
link in the construction was the skylight, which was ultimately
double paned.
Council Member Eakins queried whether an R-19 roof would help with
stopping sound transmission.
Mr. Salter said not much. Sound isolation required mass weight and
air tightness. Insulation would not help very much, but having a
layer of gypsum board, improving the mass of the roof, or making
sure sound leaks in the roof were eliminated would make a substan-
tial difference. It could be just one small duct that emitted the
noise and disturbed his client. It was a matter of acoustical
testing, measuring closely in throughout the roof and the exterior
walls, identifying the hole, and sealing it.
Council Member Eakins clarified the basic idea was that sound went
where air went.
Mr. Salter said that was correct.
James S. Mills, P.E., Acoustical Consultant, 3776 Thrush Way Court,
Santa Clara, said Dr. Salmon, a competent acoustical engineer,
measured the background noise according to the City of Palo Alto
code, e.g., the repeatable low level for a six-minute period. There
was another way to measure the same noise, and that was the 90 percent
exceeded level in the same time or a longer time interval. As long
as the 90 percent level was there, those two numbers were compared
to be about the same level. The 90 percent level was one decibel
lower than Dr. Salmon's level. As recommended by Mr. Salter, the
noise on the roof was also measured which included the noise from
all the sources, not just the windows. The point at which the band
played was about the center of the building, and directly above it
was the air conditioning unit Mr. Salter referred to. They were
near the air conditioner with their 24-hour measurement used to
establish what the annual average background levels would be. If
one applied for a building permit for a private home, the 24-hour
measurement was used to determine what type of acoustic requirement
would be placed on the building. If it was below 60 decibels, there
would not be serious restrictions with respect to acoustical
isolation. More than 60 decibels might have special requirements
to bring levels inside the building down. Both his and Dr. Salmon's
measurements reflected that the roof of the Q Cafe met the noise
code for actual residential emplacement. The area in front of the
03/24/97 −393
Q Cafe had a 24-hour measurement of 74 day-night average noise level,
which reflected the industrial or commercial loud noise zone. It
was loud because the traffic on Alma, the trains on the railway,
and the noise on El Camino Real were not far away. If there were
noise levels coming out of the Q Cafe with the doors opened that
were as high as 74 decibels, he maintained they could not be heard
at the plaza because the front of the Q Cafe was the L-l0 noise level.
Therefore, when the test was done at 1:00 a.m., the doors at the
Q Cafe were opened with the noise set at 90 decibels inside on the
dance floor. The peak range would be from 82 to around 97 decibels.
The highest numbers he measured were 94 decibels on the dance floor
with the music going. He was told it was exactly the kind of music
that was always played at the Q Cafe. Dr. Salmon's report found
that the canned music was worse than the live music in that it would
be louder outside the Q Cafe than the live music which would be inside
the Q Cafe. He believed his measurements verified what Dr. Salmon
had shown, i.e., Q Cafe met the residential district standard on
the roof. Mr. Salter recommended in one of his letters that the
residential standard be used. Both his and Dr. Salmon's
measurements met the City of Palo Alto code for residential areas.
It was a commercial use, and at least two decibels below what would
normally be expected was measured.
Gordon Cohl, 3790 El Camino Real, was a proud Palo Altan and designer,
who was very observant about what happened in and around his home
and office. For him, Q Cafe was a cause for celebration since its
birth. The live music which was recently added caused Q Cafe to
be rated as one of the top quality establishments in the Bay Area
which set it apart from its contenders. The location of the Q Cafe,
at the outskirts of downtown Palo Alto, was a perfect place for such
an establishment. If any establishment should be allowed to have
live music, he believed Q Cafe was the one. The building was solid
brick except on one side where there were heavy glass doors facing
the railroad and the Holiday Inn. He urged Council to support the
Q Cafe in Palo Alto.
Martin Bernstein, P. O. Box 1739, believed the goal of the applicant's
attorney "to be at one with the neighbors" was a good one. While
Q Cafe was a commercial property, the neighbors who had an issue
with it were residential, so to be at one with the neighbors was
an excellent measure. He lived on the 600 block of High Street with
a direct view of the roof of the Q Cafe. Being in a commercial
neighborhood, he accepted the fact that there was more noise. On
March 17, 1997, at 1:00 a.m., he walked over and verified there was
base music coming from Q Cafe. On March 21, 1997, at midnight base
music could be heard through his closed windows. At 1:00 a.m. that
same night, he also called the Police Department. He had used Mr.
Salter's services at De Anza College some seven years before, and
he put a lot of faith in Mr. Salter's acoustical analysis. He queried
whether the applicant might agree to look at possible leaks other
03/24/97 −394
than the skylights, such as mechanical openings, and add acoustical
insulation to those openings. He agreed just one leak of air could
allow music to penetrate. What kept him awake at those hours was
essentially the base notes. He did not hear any other level of noise.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified Mr. Bernstein believed the noise
problems had to do with the base levels.
Mr. Bernstein said yes. He walked over to the Q Cafe at those times
and heard exactly the same music. He asked the door person the type
of music playing, who responded that it was a DJ.
Council Member Rosenbaum queried whether base sounds were more likely
to escape such a structure than the higher frequencies.
Mr. Salter said the Shoreline Amphitheatre experience also revealed
that base notes were the ones which kept people awake.
Council Member Rosenbaum said Council was told the situation with
the Shoreline Amphitheatre was a different phenomenon.
Mr. Salter said the phenomenon was that the noise a person heard
penetrating into a dwelling unit was primarily base notes.
Chris Dunlap, 255 Homer Avenue, believed it was important for Palo
Alto to have live music downtown. He lived two blocks away from
the Q Cafe and enjoyed Palo Alto's diverse environment. Early in
the morning, he could go somewhere interesting for coffee or he could
go out late at night to a couple of different places and see a good
variety of music. Q Cafe's music added a lot to the downtown area.
He urged support.
Jean Paul Labrosse, 809 San Antonio Road, lived, worked, and voted
in Palo Alto and was a former Stanford student. Live music at the
Q Cafe was an important addition to the richness and diversity of
Palo Alto's artistic culture. As a consumer, live music establish-
ments such as the Q Cafe made downtown Palo Alto more attractive
to him. While he understood the difficult issues for the Council
and the community in terms of dealing with live music, he believed
it was Council’s responsibility to make allowances where necessary
so the Q Cafe and other establishments had the most freedom possible
to offer the valuable resource to Palo Alto in a financially and
practically viable manner. He saw the issue as freedom of expression
for businesses. He urged support.
Mark Weiss, 13130 Byrd Lane, Los Altos Hills, produced the popular
music concert series at Cubberley Center in Palo Alto and in his
work visited many live music venues and nightclubs to research
03/24/97 −395
potential shows. In his experience, the Q Cafe in Palo Alto was
a particularly well run venue and very responsive to the concerns
and needs of Palo Altans. He hoped the City allowed the Q Cafe to
resume the presentation of live music because he believed it was
an important part of the community's culture. Ms. Young commented
about hoping to present more locally based artists, and he worked
with local artists who would love to perform at the Q Cafe. He urged
support for the Q Cafe.
Jeremy Sutton, 245 Everett Avenue, had lived downtown for nine years
and supported the Q Cafe’s having live music. He was 35 years old,
loved dancing, and usually went to San Francisco for good venues
where he was with others his age and enjoyed a good dance floor.
Q Cafe was unique in downtown Palo Alto. It drew a high caliber
of bands and offered excellent facilities for dancing. Palo Alto
was an affluent area with many people of his generation who would
love to dance and socialize somewhere within walking distance from
their homes. He understood there were little to no litter or
behavior problems from patrons of Q Cafe, and valuable foot traffic
was generated in a neglected part of downtown. His personal
experience was that patrons of Q Cafe were friendly; it was not a
rough place full of troublemakers. He encouraged support for live
music at Q Cafe. He believed Q Cafe should have the flexibility
to have live music on the same basis as Fanny & Alexander’s, and
at least the flexibility to make a good business of the Q Cafe.
D. Dimitrelis, 165 Forest Avenue #3A, was 38 years old, loved to
dance, and sleep in the night. Council deliberations were between
providing an additional mix in the business area downtown and
maintaining the residential portion of the mixed use. He was
concerned because one of his bedrooms faced Q Cafe, and a second
bedroom partially faced it with a lot of exposure to street traffic.
He urged Council to place itself in the positions of the people
hearing the noise at night and to consider when they would like the
noise to end.
Bill McCann, 685 High Street #2F, said a nightclub was defined in
the dictionary as an establishment which stayed open late at night
and provided food, drink, entertainment, and music for dancing.
His letter to the City, dated January 30, 1997 (on file in the City
Clerk's Office), indicated he was a 12-year resident of Palo Alto
Plaza, and had been on the homeowners' association board for the
past eight years. He enjoyed the vitality and vibrant life downtown
Palo Alto offered and commended the City for its efforts in creating
it. While on the surface allowing live music and dancing at Q Cafe
did not appear to be a major issue, to the residents of Palo Alto
Plaza, there were major cumulative impacts with such a permit, such
as ongoing late night noise and patrons pouring out on the street
03/24/97 −396
at 1:30 a.m. and mingling below their bedroom windows. The patrons
were having a good time and were oblivious to the needs of the sleeping
residents. The idea of educating customers who were intoxicated
or under the influence as they left the premises was absurd. After
he delivered his verbal objections to the Q Cafe's having live music,
Commissioner Byrd asked whether he had ever considered ear plugs.
Such a recommendation could be disastrous in the event of an
emergency. He hoped Council would give more serious consideration
to the issue. There were plenty of places with live music downtown
where residents were not bothered and the problems associated with
Q Cafe’s having a permit for live music and dancing were unnecessary.
Palo Alto Plaza had spent $35,000 in landscaping remodeling and
did not appreciate late night drunks breaking beer bottles, pulling
plants out of the ground, vomiting, urinating in the plaza, etc.
The residents had a right to a good night sleep. He urged Council
to reject Q Cafe's request.
Michael Wright, 185 Forest Avenue, said his building was one of the
three which constituted Palo Alto Plaza. While his building and
unit were situated such that he did not hear noise from Q Cafe, he
appreciated the problems because he was perhaps the closest resident
to Gordon Biersch. On those occasions when Gordon Biersch had live
music, the sound level was so high there was no way he could sleep
through it. He was often awakened at night by the patrons of Gordon
Biersch and the Empire Taproom. None of the establishments,
including the Q Cafe, existed when the residents moved in. If they
had, the situation would have been different. He urged that Council
contain the noise issue.
Ms. Young said in terms of the conditions recommended by the staff
and the Planning Commission, Q Cafe was agreeable to all with a
modification to Condition 2 to allow Q Cafe to offer live music
Tuesday through Saturday and special event days from 9:00 p.m. to
9:00 a.m. The difference was the ability to offer live music Tuesday
and Wednesday in addition to what the Planning Commission proposed.
Q Cafe would agree to cut off the live music at 1:00 a.m. In terms
of the alcohol service hours, she believed the Planning Commission's
intention was for a gradual dispersement of the crowd, but if
everything ceased at the same time, the patrons would leave at the
same time creating more potential for noise. Q Cafe proposed to
cease the live band performance at 1:00 a.m. and alcohol service
at 1:30 a.m. When the band stopped, some people would leave then,
and some would stay and mingle until 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. If a
distinction were imposed in Condition 2, it should be on live music,
not recorded music. Q Cafe currently had a use permit for recorded
music and there were no complaints. Mr. Malan indicated there were
no problems with the noise level since August. Q Cafe wanted to
offer softer music on the less busy Tuesday and Wednesday nights
such as jazz, blues, or acoustical. If it would work Thursday
03/24/97 −397
through Saturday, Q Cafe could make it work Tuesday and Wednesday.
Adding live music to Q Cafe's repertoire on Tuesday and Wednesday
would be within the ancillary use. With respect to the vestibule,
Q Cafe met the Palo Alto noise ordinance. No noise came from the
front doors that could possibly affect the Palo Alto Plaza residents.
As indicated by Mr. Mills, there was less than one decibel difference
at the rooftop facing the plaza. The noise ordinance did not require
a reading with the doors opened since it was not a continuous and
repeated exposure. Q Cafe had eliminated potential noise issues
and patron problems and was trying to be a good neighbor and a
successful business.
Mr. Malan said neither he nor Mr. Bernstein were Palo Alto Plaza
residents. There were permit violations, and the nearby residents
did not like it. He urged rejection.
Ms. Baigent said a lot of mention was made about the kind of music
offered at the Q Cafe, but the permit did not limit the kind of music.
As Mr. Salter pointed out, even with the 11:30 p.m. ambient noise
level measurements, with Condition 23 requirements that the inside
noise level not exceed 97 decibels, which according to Q Cafe was
the noise level of a train, it would still exceed the Palo Alto
ordinance requirements for commercial uses by five decibels at the
property plane. The applicable portion of Palo Alto's noise
ordinance indicated that at commercial property planes, the noise
could not exceed eight decibels over ambient. At residential
property planes, the noise could not exceed six decibels over
ambient. The continuous noise source referenced in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code was the music itself which was then measured at any
place on the property plane, and any excess was a violation. The
conditions were written such that it would be a confirmed violation
if, in front of the door of the Q Cafe at the property plane, the
noise exceeded eight decibels over ambient. The code was specific,
and there were no exceptions. They were concerned about any
elimination of the double vestibule door because as the doors were
opened, clearly there would be an excess of eight decibels over the
ambient at the front and possibly in other places.
Vice Mayor Andersen declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve staff and Planning Commission recommendations to deny the
appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval, with
modifications to conditions of approval, based on the following
findings, conditions and amended mitigated negative declaration.
Revise Condition No. 15 to read “The Zoning Administrator shall
hold a public hearing within 6 months of the approval of this use
permit to determine the business owner’s compliance with the use
permit conditions of approval. If the business owner has not
03/24/97 −398
complied with all the conditions or there have been a total of two
or more officially documented infractions of the noise ordinance
within the 6 month period...,” and reinstate Condition No. 13
requiring an internal vestibule to be built to ensure a closed-door
condition.
Further, that in addition to the periodic compliance review pursuant
to Condition No. 15, this use permit shall expire, and be of no further
force and effect, on the fifth anniversary of its effective date.
The applicant shall not acquire any right, vested or conditional,
to conduct the uses permitted under this use permit after its
expiration. The applicant may make a timely application for an
extension of the use permit. If any extension proceedings,
including related administrative appeals, are not concluded before
expiration of this use permit on its fifth anniversary, the use
permitted shall cease immediately. Delays caused by litigation
shall not be considered to toll, stop, or delay commencement or
expiration of any time period under this permit. Reinstate the
wording in Condition No. 2 “or recorded music may be played by a
disc jockey.”
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT 96-UP-5
1. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare or convenience in that, with the
attached conditions, the playing of live and recorded music
and dancing will be ancillary to the primary use of the facility
as a billiard facility and restaurant. The conditions of
approval will ensure that all requirements of the noise
ordinance are met and that the use will not have a significant
adverse impact of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition,
the conditions provide for a mechanism to review and revoke
the Use Permit for live and recorded music and dancing should
the business operator fail to comply with the conditions of
approval or repeatedly violate the City of Palo Alto Noise
Ordinance.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in
accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that it complies
with Policy 14 in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan
by encouraging mixed commercial and residential uses and the
Alma Street District guidelines in the Downtown Urban Design
Guide, which also recommend mixed commercial and residential
uses in the Alma Street area and the purposes of Title 18 of
the Palo Alto Municipal code in the “Purpose” section of the
Downtown Community Commercial Zone District specifies the
03/24/97 −399
appropriateness of mixed uses and allows commercial,
recreational uses with a conditional use permit.
3. The location, access or design of the ground floor space of
the building proposed to house the use, creates exceptional
or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in
the same district in that it is a large, open interior space
measuring 50 feet wide by 125 feet deep which is especially
suitable to a commercial recreation and eating and drinking
establishment with the on-site sale and consumption of liquor,
beer and wine and live entertainment and dancing. The open
nature of the space lends itself to live and recorded music
and dancing whereas other more typically sized and configured
storefronts would have difficulty accommodating such uses.
DRAFT CONDITIONS FOR USE PERMIT 96-UP-5
1. All conditions of 94-UP-33 shall remain in effect, with the
exception of condition 1, which shall be modified by the
conditions of 96-UP-5.
2. Live music may be performed or recorded music may be played
by a disc jockey and dancing to live entertainment may occur
within the building during the hours of 9:00 p.m. to midnight
on Thursdays, and 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday
nights only. Alcohol serving shall cease at 1:00 a.m. Fridays
and Saturdays and at midnight on Thursdays. Friday, and Saturday
nights only, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. only.
3. Music or dancing of any kind outside the building shall not
be allowed at any time.
4. No activity of any kind, except cleaning of the premises, or
activities related to the provisions of the litter removal plan
established in condition 5, shall occur between the hours of
2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on any day of the week.
5. The business operator or his/her employees shall remove all
litter associated with its operation in the area patrolled by
the security guard and “host/security” personnel (as discussed
in conditions 7 and 8). Litter removal shall commence no
earlier than 8:00 a.m. and shall be completed by 10:00 a.m.
the morning after every business day.
6. All employees responsible for serving liquor, beer or wine
shall participate in “LEAD” (license, education, alcohol, and
drug) program activities at a minimum of once a year.
03/24/97 −400
7. The owner of the facility shall insure that one uniformed
security guard, licensed by the State of California, shall be
stationed either outside the entrance to the building, or
immediately inside the vestibule, during the hours that live
or recorded music is played to discourage vandalism,
disturbances and other unlawful behavior. The owner of the
facility shall provide the name, address and telephone number
of the security guard service to the Zoning Administrator for
the City of Palo Alto and to the Palo Alto Plaza Homeowners
Association.
8. In addition to the security guard, employees of the facility
shall perform the “host/security post” duties outlined in the
“Q Cafe Billiards Security Profile Policy.” A written
description of these duties shall be provided to all staff and
are as noted in the application materials included in the file
located in the Office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
9. A “Manager on Duty” shall be present at the facility at all
times. The name of the Manager on Duty shall be made available
to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator as well as to
the Palo Alto Plaza Homeowners Association. If the Manager on
Duty is expected to change, the name of the new Manager shall
be provided to the Zoning Administrator and Palo Alto Plaza
Homeowners Association at least two weeks in advance of the
change.
10. The Manager on Duty shall be available at all times to handle
complaints made by private individuals or the Police
Department. He or she shall document the complaint and the
facility’s response to the complaint. A copy of the complaint
log shall be provided to the Palo Alto Zoning Administrator
every two months for the first 12 months of the use permit and
upon request by the Zoning Administrator after the first 12
months.
11. All live and recorded music and dancing activities shall comply
with the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Section 9.10 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code. No noise ordinance exception
permit shall be requested with respect to the uses granted under
this use permit.
12. All doors and windows shall be kept closed at all times when
live or recorded music and dancing is occurring to prevent noise
from escaping through theses openings in the building.
13. To further prevent noise escaping from the opening and closing
of the main doors, a double-door interior vestibule shall be
constructed. The design of the interior vestibule shall be
03/24/97 −401
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and the Chief Building
Official, or their designees. At no time when live or recorded
music and dancing is occurring shall both sets of doors that
comprise the vestibule be open simultaneously.
14. At least one consultation shall occur between the business
operators, the Zoning Administrator, or her designee, and a
professional noise consultant to determine what reasonable
noise attenuation could feasibly be added to existing skylights
and windows to further prevent sound from escaping from these
openings. The Zoning Administrator has the authority to require
the recommended additional attenuation and the business
operator shall implement these measures at his/her expense.
15. The Zoning Administrator shall hold a public hearing within
6 months of the approval of this use permit to determine the
business owner’s compliance with the use permit conditions of
approval. If the business owner has not complied with all the
conditions or there have been a total of two or more officially
documented infractions of the noise ordinance within the 6 month
period, Use Permit 96-UP-5 may be revoked or modified pursuant
to the procedure set forth in PAMC section 18.90.080. Officially
documented infractions means that the Palo Alto Police
Department has conducted noise readings and found the
establishment to be in violation of the Palo Alto Noise
Ordinance.
16. In order to insure compliance with the conditions of this use
permit within the first 6 months of the approval of this use
permit, a minimum of four random noise tests shall be authorized
by either the Zoning Administrator or police personnel and shall
be conducted by police personnel during times when live or
recorded music and dancing are occurring. The business operator
shall not be notified prior to the Police Department conducting
such tests. Other tests may be conducted by the Police
Department as a result of private complaints.
17. Compliance shall be required with all applicable codes and
ordinances, including Titles 9 (Peace, Morals and Safety) and
15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
18. The live entertainment allowed under this use permit shall be
deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, the owner,
their heirs, successors and assigns to comply with all terms
and conditions of this use permit.
19. During live music events, tables shall remain in the location
shown on the floor plan submitted as part of the original
03/24/97 −402
application for Use Permit 94-UP-33. Any movement of chairs
shall not obstruct the exit routes from the building.
20. The one-hour fire corridor shall be kept clear and unobstructed
at all times.
21. The sprinkler system shall be central station monitored for
water flow and control valve tamper.
22. At no time shall the maximum occupant load for the interior
space be exceeded.
23. Sound system volume control will be required so that interior
average audio levels will never exceed 90 dBA., with peak audio
levels not to exceed 97 dBA., per report by I.N.A.S., dated
December 19, 1996. A plan for accomplishing volume control
within the establishment shall meet the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and Police Department, prior to operation
of the expanded use permit for live entertainment and dancing.
The plan may include methods of controlling sound system volume,
purchase of equipment and self-monitoring of interior noise
levels, and other practical or operational methods of
controlling and demonstrating the compliance with this internal
volume requirement.
24. The business operator shall submit a plan for utilization of
security guards outside the establishment and in the surround-
ings for reducing noise levels, educating and directing patrons
to public parking lots, and reducing vandalism in the Downtown.
This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Palo Alto Police
Department and Zoning Administrator. The scope of the plan shall
be defined by the Palo Alto Police Department prior to submittal
to the City for approval. The plan shall be in place prior to
execution of the conditional use permit.
25. The business operator shall submit a plan to educate patrons
that the use of the property is only permitted under certain
conditions, particularly respect for the surrounding business
and residential neighborhood. The education program shall
direct patrons to park in public parking lots, to reduce noise
in the Downtown, to eliminate litter and vandalism, and to be
respectful of property and residents in the Downtown. The plan
shall include wording for handbills, to be distributed upon
entry to the facility, and signs within the building. The
education program shall be reviewed and approved by both the
Police Department and Zoning Administrator. The plan shall be
submitted no later than 15 days after issuance of this use permit
and implemented immediately upon approval.
03/24/97 −403
Council Member Schneider said the 25 conditions seemed to be
comprehensive, and Council would hold Q Cafe to a higher standard
than any other music and eating establishment in the downtown area.
No one else had the same conditions imposed. She believed the
particular building and its location was well designed for
entertainment. It faced a busy street, and it had the train on the
other side. The number of complaints had decreased, and with the
mitigations required, she expected the sound would go down further.
There was talk about the base noises, and if the motion passed,
she asked that Q Cafe do everything in its power to ensure that any
leakage through the air conditioner or any other ducts be eliminated.
She supported live music only Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights
not on Tuesday and Wednesday. Q Cafe would be a test case, and if
it succeeded in fulfilling the conditions, Q Cafe could set itself
up as a model for entertainment in the downtown. As pointed out
by the City Attorney, the use permit could be revoked if there were
two violations within a six-month period.
Council Member McCown said corrected Condition 15 defined an
officially documented infraction with which the Police Department
conducted noise readings and found violations of the noise ordinance.
She queried whether the intent was the noise readings would be
conducted on a complaint basis or whether within the six-month
period, the City would randomly monitor the Q Cafe.
Ms. Grote said when she originally attached the condition, it was
complaint based. Condition 16 also referenced random noise tests
that either the Zoning Administrator or police personnel could
authorize.
Council Member McCown said with Condition 16, noise tests occurred
within a 12-month period. She queried whether some way existed to
ensure some random tests were initiated by the City within the 6-month
period so the data would be available at the hearing to be held in
six months under Condition 15.
Ms. Grote said Condition 16 could be modified to say within the first
six months.
Council Member McCown said the Planning Commission minutes reflected
the frustration expressed at the earlier meetings. It probably
became more complex with the war between the experts and the degree
to which the City was being asked to decide. Council heard two
completely different things about whether the measurements did or
did not violate the noise ordinance. While she understood there
was a difference between what an instrument read as the number and
what she might perceive as objectionable, it seemed that two
competent consultants should be able to get to some common
determination of how the City ordinance worked and how one took the
03/24/97 −404
readings and what the objective numbers were. If the motion passed,
she hoped the City conducted tests in the appropriate locations to
have an objective record about whether, after improvements, the
building could operate consistently with the City's noise ordinance.
If not, the applicant either had to do something more to the building
to ensure it complied with the noise ordinance or the City had to
discontinue the operation. She believed a six-month period was a
fair test to see whether the doors, included in the motion, and the
things already done with the skylights worked.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY MAKER AND SECONDER that Condition
No. 16 be revised to require that the four random tests occur within
the first 6 months rather than 12 months.
Ms. Grote said there might be a question of who should do the tests
and who should pay, and she needed to determine from the Police
Department whether it could get on the roof if the City did the
testing.
Council Member McCown believed Condition 16 said the City would do
the testing, and it should be available to the Zoning Administrator
at the time of the public hearing.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne urged that the motion clarify exactly
what the City expected in the way of tests, i.e., noise leakage for
ordinance compliance. The concern of the Police Department was it
would not be able to get on the roof to do the tests. He suggested
the condition be revised to require the applicant to have the report
done and submitted to the City. The condition might also be revised
to require the applicant to reimburse the City for its costs to do
the tests. The police was not equipped to deal with the skylights.
Council Member McCown asked what the City needed to do to evaluate
whether the noise ordinance was being met. If the police could not
do the tests because of some cost or physical access issue, the
condition needed to be changed.
Mr. Calonne said the City's noise ordinance would not require the
City's measuring noise leakage from the skylight.
Council Member McCown was not thinking about measuring for leakage.
If Mr. Salter contended the skylights could be the source of the
problem that would violate the ordinance, there had to be some way
to determine if that was correct. If the City did not know the
answer, it needed to find out. She was frustrated with the findings
of competent independent people and not hearing that the City knew
whether or not its ordinance would be violated by sound leaking out
of the skylights.
03/24/97 −405
Mr. Calonne said the City could answer the question. His clarifica-
tion was whether Council Member McCown's view of the four random
noise tests were different from the police’s measuring for ordinance
compliance.
Council Member McCown said no.
Council Member Wheeler said it was clear that in the interim period
without the live music, there was still some disturbance in the
neighborhood. One of the possible sources of leakage identified
by Mr. Salter was the air conditioning units. In his testimony,
Mr. Salter indicated there was a widely available fix. She queried
whether it was possible for the City to add a condition to require
the installation of silencers on the air conditioning units.
Mr. Calonne said the City probably had authority, but the six-month
Zoning Administrator hearing would also provide the authority, and
it was probably staff's designed opportunity to modify conditions
if necessary. He read the staff report (CMR:131:97) as an attempt
to try to balance the competing interests so as not to compel
installation of the silencers unnecessarily.
Council Member Wheeler believed the statement by neighbors that the
noise still occurred even in the absence of live music as recently
as a week prior indicated there was still a problem with sound leakage
even though the applicant went ahead and installed the skylights.
Commissioner Cassel said the Planning Commission minutes reflected
her desire to understand why her impression was slightly different
from Ms. Grote’s. It became clear there was a misunderstanding in
terms of what constituted live music. The Zoning Administrator's
definition was that playing recorded music with a DJ was live music,
and the Planning Commission somehow missed that in its definition
as did everyone else because Q Cafe had been playing recorded music
with a DJ which would be limited by the Zoning Administrator's
decision.
Council Member Wheeler did not want to wait six months to work on
the existing noise problems. She believed the neighborhood should
be given every possible protection.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, that
the applicant be required to install silencers on the air condi-
tioning units.
Council Member Schneider was concerned about requiring the applicant
to install a vestibule at some unknown cost and a silencer on the
air conditioning units at some unknown cost in a six-month period.
Financially, the additional requirements at that time seemed like
03/24/97 −406
a tremendous burden in a six-month period. If at the end of six
months, the applicant did not make it, the applicant were out. She
was concerned about the addition of another requirement that could
run thousands of dollars. She would not support the amendment.
Council Member Eakins asked for more detail regarding the costs.
Mr. Salter said the installed costs of the silencers were approxi-
mately $100 per square foot. It seemed Council wanted more noise
control as did the applicant. It might be that a hole in the roof
existed, had been overlooked, and needed to be sealed. It might
not be the duct, and a silencer might not be needed. It could be
a vent. He suggested that he and Mr. Mills work together and do
a simple, straightforward acoustical test and identify the weak link
in the roof which could make a big difference.
Council Member Wheeler believed they were all trying to work toward
a common goal. She queried whether the applicant was willing to
work cooperatively to try to identify the weak link.
Mr. Mills had no problem working with Mr. Salter on the question
of other leaks. Dr. Salmon spent a great deal of time at the
establishment and assured him and the owners of the Q Cafe that the
skylights were the problem with the noise at the residences. He
was sure there were not any leaks because he had been over the entire
roof with a sound level meter with the music playing inside. He
did not measure a level outside one meter away from any of the surfaces
that was higher than 50 decibels with the level set at an average
of 90 decibels inside. He recommended to the owner that they not
actually use the 90 decibels but rather the 85 decibels, and also
reduce the base content of the music. Q Cafe was currently playing
flat music.
Vice Mayor Andersen opposed the amendment for the simple reason he
wanted to see the Zoning Administrator have the flexibility in six
months to make some recommendations if needed.
Council Member McCown withdrew her second.
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Fazzino was concerned about the whole issue of mixed
use. A lot of lip service was paid to the need for mixed uses in
Palo Alto, and while everyone wanted to live like the Florentines
and Rome, the fact was Americans were far more sensitive to noise
than Italians, Brazilians, or Argentines. As mixed use issues were
looked at, the needs of businesses and residents had to be balanced.
Fifteen years before, Council was hung up on the possibility of
putting housing above businesses in the research park, and he
03/24/97 −407
believed that would have led to a huge host of problems that Council
would still be dealing with. While it might not seem relevant to
the specific issue before the Council, it was a long-term issue
Council needed to address as it moved through the Comprehensive Plan
with respect to mixed uses. He tended to think that between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., businesses predominated, and their needs were
preeminent, but late at night, particularly on week nights, the needs
of residents had to take precedence. While he supported the need
for live music in the downtown area and believed it added vibrancy
to the area, he was troubled by the past noise problems associated
with the Q Cafe and appreciated its efforts in the past few months
to address them. He was fairly comfortable that the proposed
conditions addressed the concerns of most residents, although he
still believed noise was an issue for others. He believed the
six-month monitoring of the situation as well as the ongoing
monitoring was a solid approach. If violations or problems
occurred, the concerns of the residents had to prevail. He also
believed that Q Cafe had to continue to address the other issues
of security, parking, and the behavior of patrons. Those concerns
were just as legitimate as the noise question. In the long term,
Council needed to address the issue of nightclubs directly. There
was no question in his mind that Q Cafe, Paradis, the Edge, and other
clubs were de facto nightclubs. Palo Alto had found a nice, neat
way to allow nightclubs into the community, and while he believed
live music was great, Council had to directly address the de facto
nightclubs as it worked through the Comprehensive Plan. He was not
necessarily suggesting nightclubs should be banished completely from
Palo Alto, but the issue should be addressed directly in order to
make policy which allowed the nightclubs to exist and more
importantly coexist with residents. He hoped the noise tests would
provide answers with respect to whether noise levels were acceptable
at Q Cafe. In the final analysis, it would be the residents' concerns
which determined how he would eventually vote on the particular
issue. For the short term, he was fairly comfortable with the
conditions. He did not want to put the Q Cafe out of business and
wanted it to succeed and provide live music, but at the same time
he wanted to address the legitimate concerns of neighbors in the
downtown area. He supported the motion.
Council Member Eakins opposed the use permit at the Planning
Commission level because she did not want to see the hours of alcohol
service be so long. As she looked back through the Planning
Commission minutes, she saw that Commissioner Schmidt made a clear
distinction between controlling the noise and the behavior of the
patrons. Everyone referred to what happened late at night. It was
the lateness that was the real problem, not that the music happened
or could happen. She believed the combination of early morning
continued alcohol consumption along with the music and the dancing
contributed to the problems controlling the patrons in the
03/24/97 −408
neighborhood after they left the premises. She wanted to see the
hours shortened. While she would not push for it at that time, she
reserved the right to do so in six months depending upon how things
worked out. She agreed there should be no Tuesday or Wednesday night
live music. She shared Council Member McCown's concern about the
dilemma if one heard the music and was bothered by it; it did not
matter whether the noise ordinance worked to define whether there
was a violation. Decibels did not help residents sleep. She
supported the motion with the reinstatement of the DJ.
Council Member Wheeler associated with most of the comments of
Council Member Fazzino. Her experience was mostly from living in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, where many people lived over the store
and to her knowledge got along very well. She was concerned that
over the past decade, the Council and the Planning Commission on
which she served encouraged the construction of residences in the
downtown area and were moving forward with a Comprehensive Plan which
not only carried on the thought but also tried to look at ways of
enhancing residential uses particularly along the Alma Street
corridor which was conveniently located to both the downtown and
the transit station. She had strong feelings about the types of
businesses encouraged to locate along the same corridor. She did
not believe having lots of night life and music was particularly
compatible with the encouragement to construct housing. They were
trying to be all things to all people and probably not doing justice
to either the business entities or the residents both current and
future. She appreciated the hard work by the Zoning Administrator,
Planning Commission, applicant, and the appellant. She was not
satisfied they were ever going to make the two entities work together,
and she opposed the motion.
Council Member Rosenbaum said somewhere in the Planning Commission
minutes, there was discussion about a temporary use permit which
presumably would not vest the rights as a regular permit.
Mr. Calonne said a temporary use permit as described earlier that
evening was for an occasional or one-time event.
Council Member Rosenbaum was thinking more in terms of six months.
Mr. Calonne said along the same lines as introduced by Council Member
Schneider, the use permit would expire after five years or Council
could pick another date. Five years was purely a judgment call.
If Council was concerned about the length of time, it should consider
two factors: first, the potential that the City was essentially
guessing wrong about the impact on the neighborhood, and second,
the improvement expense the applicant would bear. Somewhere between
those two factors, there was a reasonable period of time. While
he did not remember the exact reference Council Member Rosenbaum
03/24/97 −409
referred to, it might well have been to the five-year type of approach
of preventing the permit from vesting.
Ms. Lytle said the discussion was whether to allow the use to go
ahead for a trial period of three months. Instead, the Planning
Commission believed the evidence probably showed there would be a
problem with compliance with the noise ordinance and decided to
continue the item to get additional conditions to assure compliance.
Council Member Rosenbaum said due to his experience with Shoreline
Amphitheatre, he had become skeptical if not cynical about the
ability of noise ordinances such as Palo Alto's to protect residents.
He became particularly concerned when the City started talking about
the high level of base. It was not unlikely that Q Cafe could meet
the ordinance, and the residents would still be annoyed. He wanted
to do something temporary rather than vesting because as he read
the language, an officially documented infraction occurred when the
Police Department conducted noise readings and found the
establishment to be in violation of the noise ordinance. While that
sounded fine, once again from past experience, if Council attempted
to revoke the permit, the first question would relate to the recent
calibration of the instrument and the training the police officers
had in using the instruments. They would be serious questions as
to the technical validity of what Council said justified the use
permit being revoked. He was not sure the process would work and
wanted to leave the balance in the City's favor by attempting to
have a temporary use, and if at the end of six months there were
still complaints, that would be sufficient without having to make
a showing that the noise ordinance had been violated. He was
interested in a substitute motion along those lines and queried what
would be legally acceptable.
Mr. Calonne believed the language he passed out changing the time
to what he preferred would be acceptable. He cautioned that when
he analyzed the temporary use problem, it was more of an analysis
based upon how much nuisance the neighborhood could absorb over a
short period of time rather than how the use could be compatible
as a longer term neighbor. The practical issue was the question
of whether the conditions that called for making the use a compatible
neighbor worked economically on a short-term permit.
Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the economic issue and queried
whether the improvements to be made had already been done.
Ms. Grote said many of the improvements were already made, but one
of the most costly improvements was the vestibule which was not yet
implemented.
03/24/97 −410
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the vestibule was the one the
Planning Commission found not to be necessary.
Ms. Grote said that was correct. The motion on the floor included
the vestibule.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, that
in addition to the periodic compliance review pursuant to Condition
No. 15, this use permit shall expire, and be of no further force
and effect, on the first anniversary (one year) of its effective
date. The applicant shall not acquire any right, vested or
conditional, to conduct the uses permitted under this use permit
after its expiration. The applicant may make a timely application
for an extension of the use permit. If any extension proceedings,
including related administrative appeals, are not concluded before
expiration of this use permit on its first anniversary, the use
permitted shall cease immediately. Delays caused by litigation
shall not be considered to toll, stop, or delay commencement or
expiration of any time period under this permit. Reinstate the
wording in Condition No. 2 “or recorded music may be played by a
disc jockey.”
Council Member Schneider opposed a one-year temporary use permit.
Council was asking the applicant to be a model citizen which was
something Council had not asked of similar businesses in the
community. In exchange for that, Council owed the applicant some
time to work it out. Dr. Salter already offered to work with Mr.
Mills to see if the problems could be worked out, and she saw an
opportunity for great coordination between the applicant and the
residents to work together. She believed Council should give the
applicant the benefit of the doubt and give the applicant the five
years. If people worked together, she believed it would turn out
to be very satisfactory to all. To limit them to one year to work
it out was not enough time. She would not support the amendment.
Council Member McCown said the Q Cafe needed to evaluate whether
it could make the financial investment of changes to the building
that would allow it to be used with live music and not disturb the
neighbors. There were many uncertainties, and Council Member
Rosenbaum was right that the City needed to shade the uncertainties
in favor of the view that success might not be possible without the
neighbors being subjected to an inappropriate level of disturbance.
It behooved the Q Cafe to take advantage of the expertise and
knowledge it already developed through its own consultant and Mr.
Salter on behalf of Mr. Malan to try to make the best possible
decisions about what needed to be done to solve the problems. She
believed a year was a reasonable period of time to give the applicant
a chance at doing it.
03/24/97 −411
Council Member Wheeler clarified that if Council supported the
amendment in addition to what was already on the floor, there would
be a Zoning Administrator's hearing in six months and then another
one in six more months.
Ms. Grote said that was correct.
Council Member Wheeler said it seemed that during the initial
six-month period was when the applicant, the appellant, and their
respective experts needed to get it together and cooperate since
they would see the Zoning Administrator and should be prepared to
have whatever agreements were reached on the table and ready to go.
It was fair neither to the applicant nor the residents to go through
the process in six months and again six months after that. While
she saw the original rationale for having a time limited use permit,
she believed they were now using that device to get to someplace
else which was not appropriate for anyone. She opposed the
amendment.
Council Member Fazzino understood if neighbors complained of two
violations, the City had to conduct noise tests to ascertain whether
there had, in fact, been violations.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct.
Council Member Fazzino queried whether the City would need any
additional evidence to revoke a permit as opposed to letting the
permit lapse.
Mr. Calonne said yes. It was harder to revoke a permit by an order
of magnitude than it was to let one lapse. If Council's intent with
Condition 15 was to indicate that two or more infractions constituted
an automatic revocation, the wording could be better. Condition
15 said if there were a couple of violations, the City would conduct
a hearing and prove there were grounds to revoke or modify the use
permit at that hearing. Staff could work on tightening Condition
15 to put in some automatic triggers. He believed if Council were
concerned about the use compatibility, it made sense to choose a
period of time that was short and reasonable as a trial operation,
use the time limiting condition he suggested, and choose a number
of months or years that would satisfy Council about whether the use
could work well.
Council Member Fazzino asked about the optimum initial trial
period.
Mr. Calonne said the six-month review was already built in, and if
Council combined some of the concepts discussed and asked the
applicant and appellant consultants to meet during that six-month
03/24/97 −412
period and provide feedback to the Zoning Administrator about what
was determined with the random tests, it would present more
information than what was currently available.
Council Member Fazzino asked if at that point the City Attorney would
be able to build into Condition 15 some trigger points or some
tightening of the language.
Mr. Calonne said in six months if there were violations, the City
would have the authority to go ahead with the revocation. If the
Q Cafe needed to contest it, it would. He would look for some sort
of safety valve to take away the incentive to contest the six-month
decision by saying the permit would not live much longer than six
months anyway. He suggested somewhere between a year or two as a
lapse period if Council was concerned the use might ultimately be
incompatible.
Council Member Fazzino clarified Council should go six months with
the trial period and then something like two years for the permit.
Mr. Calonne said yes, with the neighbors recognizing the City was
not without power during the period of time.
Council Member Fazzino recommended the City go for six months and
then two years because it did not make sense to return the matter
in a year, six months after there was a full public hearing.
Council Member McCown suggested six months and then one year after
that. She saw in six months there would be a reality check with
data about whether the Q Cafe was on or off track. If it were on
track, there would be another year to see if it were still on track,
and at the end of that time, the City could decide to give a time
specific, further extension. If the Q Cafe were off track in six
months, she did not know why it would be given more than one more
year to see if Q Cafe could make other changes. If at the end of
that year Q Cafe had not been able to make the case that the permit
should be extended further, then it would stop. She suggested the
six-month review as already recommended by the Zoning Administrator
and then a year’s time after that if Q Cafe was still on track in
six months.
AMENDMENT REVISED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to revise
the period to 18 months.
Vice Mayor Andersen said he was going to hold out for a three-year
period.
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-4, McCown, Rosenbaum, Wheeler “yes,” Huber, Kniss
absent.
03/24/97 −413
AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to
approve in addition to the periodic compliance review pursuant to
Condition No. 15, that this use permit shall expire, and be of no
further force and effect, on the second anniversary (two years) of
its effective date. The applicant shall not acquire any right,
vested or conditional, to conduct the uses permitted under this use
permit after its expiration. The applicant may make a timely
application for an extension of the use permit. If any extension
proceedings, including related administrative appeals, are not
concluded before expiration of this use permit on its second
anniversary (two years), the use permit shall cease immediately.
Delays caused by litigation shall not be considered to toll, stop,
or delay commencement or expiration of any time period under this
permit. Reinstate the wording in Condition No. 2 “or recorded music
may be played by a disc jockey.”
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-2, Andersen, Schneider “no,” Huber, Kniss absent.
Vice Mayor Andersen was impressed with Commissioner Schink's
comments in the Planning Commission minutes that if mixed uses were
going to work in Palo Alto, the City needed to be cognizant of the
residents and neighbors in the mixed use area. That concern was
reflected in Council's dialogue.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-1, Wheeler “no,” Huber, Kniss absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS
15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Vice Mayor Andersen announced that the Policy and Services Committee
Meeting would commence at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 25, 1997,
instead of 7:00 p.m. and that Wednesday, March 26, 1997, would be
the Adjourned Meeting of the City Council regarding the Stanford
Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo
Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council
and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose
03/24/97 −414
of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings.
City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90
days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for
members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.