HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-03 City Council (9)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Summary Report
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1997 CMR:131:97
SUBJECT:Appeals of Zoning Administrator Approval of Conditional Use
Permit 96-UP-5 at 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto, California
REOUEST
This report addresses an appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision approving a conditional
use permit (CLIP) with 22 conditions, allowing live entertainment, including music and
dancing, at an existing eating and drinking and commercial recreation establishment with the
on-site sale and consumption of liquor, beer and wine (restaurant and billiard facility).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffand the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeals and
uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval, with modifications to conditions of approval
based on the attached findings, conditions and amended mitigated negative declaration. Staff
supports the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions of approval, with the
exception that staffrecommends condition # 13, requiring an internal vestibule to be built to
ensure a closed-door condition, remain a condition of approval and the Planning Commission
recommends that it be removed ....
POLICY IMPLICATIONS ........
Two Comprehensive Plan policies relate to this project. Policy 14 of the Housing Element
of the Comprehensive Plan calls for supporting "the mixing of residential uses in commercial
and industrial areas." The approval of the use permit, with conditions, furthers that policy
by allowing a commercial recreation use in a mixed-use area, provided conditions.which
address potential conflicts are satisfied.
Program 20 of the Urban Design Element states: "Require street frontages that contribute to
the retail vitality in shopping districts." The (P) overlay zoning designation also requires a
CMR:131:97 Page 1 of 17."
pedestrian orientation for buildings downtown. Although physical improvements were not
proposed as part of the original application or the amendment, the original and amended use
were determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy and zoning designation
because they would increase vitality and pedestrian activity in the area.
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is not a policy document, but is intended to provide
guidelines for development. The Guide specifically references the mixed-use nature of the
Alma Street District. Page 42 of the Guide encourages mixed-use buildings that incorporate
ground floor pedestrian related uses with residential uses on second and third floors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Q Cafe is located mid-block in the 500 block of Alma Street in Downtown and has operated
under Use Permit 94-UP-33 since September 1994. The original use permit did not allow
live music. The owners of Q Care applied for a minor amendment to their existing use
permit in February 1996. The requested amendment was to allow live entertainment,
including live music and dancing, seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. In August
1996, the Zoning Administrator granted approval of a modified use permit amendment, with
22 conditions, allowing live entertainment including music and dancing, three nights a week,
Thursday, Friday and Saturday, from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Conditions were imposed
regarding security, noise attenuation and litter removal.
Two appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision were received. One appeal was from
a resident in the downtown area, who did not believe that live entertainment and dancing is
an appropriate use downtown and that noise levels and crowd control had not been
adequately addressed by the Zoning Administrator. The second appeal was from the owners
ofQ Cafe who did not believe that an internal vestibulewas needed for noise attenuation and
’ that live music would be necessary on two additional nights of the week, Tuesday and
¯ Wednesday, to make the business financially viable.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeals on two evenings. The
hearing on November 13, 1996 was continued after taking public testimony and reviewing
the noise analysis in detail. The Commission required additional noise data from the
applicant to correct errors in the original analysis. The Commission held a continued public
hearing on January 8, 1997, at which Commissioners took further public testimony and
reviewed the revised noise analysis. The Planning Commission concluded that all three
findings could be made to approve the use permit, as outlined in the attached full report, and
recommends denial of both appeals and approval of the use permit amendment, based on a
revised mitigated negative declaration and subject to revised conditions of approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City as a result of any of the above actions.
CMR:131:97 Page2 of 17,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A negative declaration was approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment on June 20, 1996. The additional technical information provided by the
applicant further substantiates the conclusions of the negative declaration prepared for the
proposed project, which has been modified to include reference to the most recent acoustical
report and findings and was renoticed for a second 20-day public comment period beginning
January 13, 1997.
PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City Manager
CMR:131:97 Page 3of 17’
CMR:131:97 Page 4 of 17’
City of Palo Alto
SUBJECT:Appeals of Zoning Administrator Approval of Conditional Use Permit
96-UP-5 at 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto, California
This report addresses an appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision approving a conditional
use permit (CUP) with 22 conditions, allowing live entertainment, including music and
dancing at an existing eating and drinking and commercial recreation establishment
(restaurant and billiard facility).
The owners of Q Care have applied for an amendment to their existing conditional use permit
to allow live entertainment, including live music and dancing seven days a week from 9:00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The existing use permit at 529 Alma Street allows the location and
operation of a commercial recreation use, which is the billiards portion of their use, plus an
eating and drinking establishment with associated on-site sale and consumption of liquor,
beer and wine. Condition #1 of the existing use permit prohibits live music. This
application, which the Zoning Administrator has approved, .would allow for the live
entertainment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeals and
uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval, with modifications to conditions of approval,
based on the attached findings, conditions and amended mitigated negative declaration (see
Attachments 1, 2 and 3, respectively). The 22 conditions include allowing live and recorded
entertainment on Thursday until midnight, and Friday and Saturday nights from 9:00 p.m.
to 1:30 a.m. Staff supports the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions of
approval, with the exception that staff recommends Condition #13, requiring an internal
vestibule to be built to ensure a dosed-door condition, remain a condition of approval and
the Planning Commission recommends that it be removed.
BACKGROUND
The site is a flat, mid-block parcel, located in the 500 block of Alma Street in Downtown.
The brick building on the site is a Category 4 historic structure, with interior dimensions of
50 feet in width and 125 feet in depth. The building has housed Q Care since September
1994, when a use permit was approved for a commercial recreation use (15 billiard tables)
and an eating and drinking establishment (restaurant) with the on-site sale and consumption
of liquor, beer and wine (see 94-UP-33, Attachment 4).
CMR:131:97 Page 5 of 17’
Project Description
Application of Minor Amendment:
The owners of Q Care applied for a minor amendment to their existing use permit on
February 2, 1996. The requested amendment was to allow live entertainment, including live
music and dancing, seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The majority of the live
music was proposed to occur at lunch time and in the evening hours. Further detail and
supporting documentation are attached to this staff report (see Attachment 5 - Application
~ Materials).
Zoning Administrator Approval:
On August 1, 1996, the Zoning Administrator granted approval of a. modified use permit
amendment, with 22 conditions, allowing live enterta’mment, including music and dancing,
three nights a week, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Conditions
were imposed limiting both live and recorded music as well as requiring litter removal, noise
attenuation in the form of an interior vestibule and additional soundproofing around the
existing skylight, as well as a security and safety program with training programs for Q Cafe
personnel (see Attachment 6 for Zoning Administrator findings and conditions).
Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decision:
Two appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision were received. The first was ~om a
resident in the immediate area. His appeal was based on the following four points:
1) appropriateness of the use in a mixed residential/business neighborhood; 2) hours of
.operation; 3) noise generated by patrons when coming to or leaving the site; and 4) noise
¯ levels in general. He stated that no specifications were included in the conditions of approval
about noise levels being generated inside the building to determine noise ordinance
¯ compliance during testing (see Attachment 7 m letter of appeal from Mr. Remy Malan, dated
August 11, 1996).
The second letter of appeal came from the owners of Q Cafe.. This appeal was partially based
on the financial necessity of having live music and the hardship which would be imposed on
the business if all the conditions of approval were implemented. The owners particularly
objected to Condition #1, which limits music to three nights a week, and #13, which requires
an interior vestibule for noise attenuation (seeAttachment 8, letter of appeal from Mr. Jason
Tan, dated August 12, 1996). Although not stated in the appeal letter, staff understands that
the business owners are requesting live music on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in addition to
Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and do not want to install a sprinkler system that is
station monitored (condition #21).
CMR:131:97 Page 6 of 17’
Project History_
Q Care has operated under Use permit 94-UP-33 since September 1994. The original use
permit did not allow live music, and the facility did not have live music prior, to
December 14, 1995, when the Zoning Administrator approved a temporary use permit to
allow live music and dancing for 45 days, from December 14, 1995 through January 27,
1996. No complaints were received by the Code Enforcement section of the Building
Division or the Police Department during that time.
On February 2, 1996, the owners of Q Cafe applied for an amendment to use permit 94-UP-
33 to allow live music on a permanent basis, as explained in the project description section
of this report.
During the period between January 28, 1996 and July 18, 1996, when a public hearing was
held for the permanent use permit change, the business continued to have live music without
benefit o£a temporary or permanent use permit from the City of Palo Alto. This situation was
brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator on July 17, 1996, the day before the
Zoning Administrator’s public hearing on the permanent use permit request. It was stated at
the public hearing by a resident in the area that the police had been called in April 1996,
because of the loud noise coming from Q Care. Upon further inquiry, the Zoning
Administrator discovered that the police had been called on April 25, 1996 and that they had
responded, but found no violation of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code).
The owners of Q Cafe continued to have live music and entertainment for approximately
two weeks after the appeals of the decision were made. This fact was brought to the attention
of the Zoning Administrator by the resident, Mr. Malan, who had appealed the decision. In
addition, the police had been called three times with noise complaints after July 18, 1996.
These complaints occurred on July 20, July 26 and August 21, 1996. According to the
applicant, they misunderstood and believed it was legal to operate during an appeal of the
Zoning Administrator’s decision. The police and Planning Division staff verbally informed
the management of Q Cafe that live music could not occur unless and until the appeal was
heard and acted upon by the City Council, a permit amendment approved, and conditions of
the use permit complied with. No live music has occurred to the City’s knowledge since late-
August 1996, when Q Cafe was informed that live music is in violation of their existing use
permit 94-UP-33. A complaint was received, however, on November !, 1996 from Mr.
Malan stating that on October 31, 1996 loud music coming from Q Cafe had disturbed him.
Upon his visual inspection of the premises, he discovered that recorded music was being
played and people were dancing inside the building. His letter does not state whether or not
the police had been called during the disturbance. All correspondence received by the
Planning Division regarding alleged noise ordinance and use permit violations have been
attached to this report (see Attachment 9). Page four of the attached Planning Commission
CMR:i31:97 Page 7 of 17 ."
staff report outlines the pertinent information regarding the applicant, property owner,
Comprehensive Plan designation and existing land uses (see Attachment 10, Planning
Commission Report, dated October 30, 1996, without attachments).
The Planning Commission held public hearings on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s
approval onNovember 13, 1996 and January 8, 1997. Both of these hearings are summarized
in the "Public Participation" section of this report. On December 19, 1996, the applicants
submitted an addendum to the existing noise analysis, which the Planning Commission used
on January 8, 1997 when reviewing the proposal and modifying and adding conditions of
approval to the Zoning Administrator’s original decision (see Attachments 11 and 12 -
Acoustical Engineering Report, Exterior Sound-Pressure Levels due to music inside the Q
Cafe, dated December 19, 1996 and Planning Commission staff report, dated January 8,
1997, respectively).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS ’
Policy 14 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan relates to this proposal. It
calls for supporting "the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial areas." The
approval of the use permit, with conditions, furthers that policy by allowing a commercial
recreation use in a mixed-use area, provided conditions which address potential conflicts are
satisfied.
Another Comprehensive Plan policy that relates indirectly to this project is Program 20 of
the Urban Design Element, which states: "Require street frontages that contribute to the retail
vitality in shopping districts." The (P) overlay zoning designation also requires a pedestrian
orientation for buildings downtown. Although physical improvements were not proposed
as part of the original application or the amendment, the original and amended use were
determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy and zoning designation
because they would increase vitality and pedestrian activity in the area.
Although the Downtown Urban Design Guide is not a policy document, it is intended to
provide guidelines for development. The Guide specifically references the mixed-use nature
of the Alma Street District. On page 42 of the Guide, mixed-use buildings that incorporate
ground floor pedestrian related uses with residential uses on second and third floors are
encouraged.
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
The primary issues raised at the Zoning Administrator’s hearing, in the letter of appeal from
Mr. Malan, and during the two Planning Commission hearings were noise from live and/or
recorded music, noise from patrons leaving the facility late at night, and the general
CMR:131:97 Page 8 of 17.
incompatibility of the live entertainment use in a mixed-use downtown area. The primary
issues in the letter of appeal from the owners of Q Cafe were the need for two additional
nights of music and the difficulty of providing an internal vestibule for noise attenuation. At
the Planning Commission public hearings, the owners of Q Cafe also stated that they did not
believe they should be required to have a station-monitored fire sprinkler system and that
they object to Condition #21, which requires them to have this type of system. A station-
monitored system is one which automatically notifies the Fire Department when the sprinkler
system is activated. It does not rely on someone to individually report a fire. These issues
are discussed below within the context of the three findings that must be made to approve a
use permit in the ground floor overlay area of downtown (Section 18.90.060(a)(1)(2)(3) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code).
Use Permit Finding Number 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.
The Zoning Administrator found that the project would not be detrimental or injurious to
surrounding properties for several reasons. The first was a noise analysis prepared by
acoustical consultant, Vincent Salmon, P.E., which appeared to verify that the noise
standards in Chapter 9, Noise, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code would be met. Upon further
review of the noise analysis by City staff and neighbors, it was revealed that the noise
consultant had used an incorrect standard when measuring the noise impacts. As a result of
this discovery, the Planning Commission continued the November 13, 1996 public hearing ¯
to January 8, 1997, to allow the applicants and neighbors time to further develop the noise
analysis using the correct standard,
On December 19, 1996, an addendum to the noise analysis was submitted for staff and
Planning Commission review. Based on the December 19, 1996 addendum, the Planning
Commission, on January 8, 1997, also found that the noise impacts would not be detrimental
or injurious to surrounding properties, if an additional condition regarding the maximum
interior noise levels generated by live or recorded music inside the building was added to the
Zoning Administrator’s approval (see Attachment 2 - new condition #23 regarding sound
system volume).
Both the original noise study and the addendum to it assumed closed doors and windows. To
ensure that the front doors would always be closed, the Zoning Administrator attached a
condition requiring an internal vestibule to be built that will help prevent both sets of doors
from being open to the outside at the same time. Staff recommends that this condition
remain if the City Council decides to deny the appeals and uphold the Zoning
Administrator’s approval. The Planning Commission recommends that the condition be
CMR:131:97 Page 9 of 17’
removed from the conditions of approval based on the amended noise analysis and the
conclusion that other mitigation measures adequately address noise issues.
Additional information that the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission
considered in making the first fmding was the applicant’s "Security Profile Policy" (see
Attachment 5, Application Materials). Conditions 6 - 10 of the use permit require specific
host/security duties to be implemented, ranging from checking identification, to resolving
potential conflicts between customers and between customers and staff, and require a
significant level of commitment from the applicant to operate the facility in an orderly
manner. The additional conditions that the Planning Commission recommends adding to the
permit further ameliorate concerns regarding the impact the use will have on surrounding
properties (see Attachment 2, new conditions 24 and 25).
Conditions 6 - 10, along with the amended noise analysis and the additional conditions staff
and the Planning Commission recommend~ help ensure that the use will not be a detriment
to the surrounding neighborhood. Seven of the 22 conditions specifically address the issue
of noise. An important aspect of condition # 15, as recommended for modification by the
Planning Commission, is the automatic review of the permit within six months of its
approval. If the business owner is found to be in noncompliance with any of the conditions
of approval or to have two or more official infractions of the noise ordinance, the use permit
could be revoked or modified (see Attachment 2, modified condition # 15).
Other factors that the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission considered in making
the first finding were the number of nights and hours that live entertainment would occur and
the fact that it would be ancillary to the primary billiard/eafe use. The City does not allow
nightclubs as a permitted or conditional use in any zone. The entertainment allowed as part
of Q Cafe’s operation is based on it being ancillary to the operation of a bona-fide restaurant
and billiard facility. The "rule of thumb" employed by staffin defining ancillary use is that
it typically occupies 25 percent or less of the total square-footage of a business or 25 percent
or less of the business activity. Condition #1, which limits live entertainment to three nights
a week and Condition #19, which requires tables to remain in the location shown on the
approved plans, help ensure that live entertainment will remain ancillary to the primary
business.
Resident’s A_~t~eal
The resident’s appeal was partially based on the belief that noise issues were not adequately
considered in the Zoning Administrator’s decision and particularly in regard to the first use
permit finding. The third and fourth items in Mr. Malan’s letter state that noise from patrons
leaving the building and going toparkedears was not considered in the City’s decision and
that specifications were not included as to noise levels being generated inside the building
during testing.
CMR:131:97 Page 10 of 17"
The Zoning Administrator attached conditions 6 - 10 to the use permit approval to ensure that
patrons will act in a responsible manner while in the building and vicinity. These conditions
require a "Host/Security Policy" to be enacted by the management of the business,
participation in the "License, Education, Alcohol and Drug" (LEAD) program, and the
presence of a security guard and a manager on duty.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council add fLrrner conditions
regarding a security plan and off-site patron behavior education to the use permit conditions
to address Mr. Malan’s concerns (see conditions 24 and 25). In addition, the Commission
recommends that the Council amend Condition #15, so that two violations of the noise
ordinance would result in initiation of proceedings to revoke or amend the use permit, rather
than the three originally allowed by the Zoning Administrator.
The issue of parking is addressed through the downtown assessment district. The building.
owner pays into the downtown assessment district. No additional square-footage is proposed
as part of the use permit for entertainment so no additional fee or payment is required. The
City has not traditionally found it necessary to regulate where, on the street, patrons of
Downtown businesses park. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at the January
8, 1997 public hearing and recommended the City Council add a condition requiring that the
owners of Q Cafe establish a plan to educate their 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 (see Attachment 2, new condition 25).
Mr. Malan also disagreed with the Zoning Administrator’s first finding, because
specifications were not included in the conditions for the noise generated inside the building
during testing. During the first Planning Commission public hearing on November 13, 1996,
the Commission responded to this concern by requiring additional noise analysis. As a result
~of the amended noise analysis submitted on December 19, 1996, the Commission
recommends that the Council add a condition which limits the peak decibel level inside the
building to 97 dBA and the average inside level to 90dBA. That limitation will ensure that
the exterior noise levels at the property plane will always be in compliance with Chapter 9,
Noise, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (see Attachment 2, new condition #23).
Additionally, Condition # 16 requires four external noise tests to be conducted in the first year
of operation. Tests to be conducted will be at random and without warning to prevent the
applicant from modifying inside noise levels artificially. Staffbelieves that condition # 16 and
new condition #23 address this aspect of Mr. Malan’s appeal.
At~t~licant Atmeal
The business owner disagreed with the. Zoning Administrator’s first finding, because he
maintains that the noise studies verify that sound levels will not be exceeded during operation
of live music and dancing and, therefore, Condition #13 is not needed to determine that the
ClVlR:131:97 Page 11 of 17 ¯
use will not be a detriment to the surrounding area. In addition, he maintains that if the
conditions ameliorate noise impacts on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, they will have
the same effect on any other day of the week. Modifying Condition #1 to include two more
nights, therefore, would not be a detriment to the surrounding area according to the applicant.
Staff disagrees that Condition #13, is unnecessary because without it there is much less
guarantee that the doors will remain closed during live music and that the regulations of the
Noise Ordinance will be met. Although the business owner has stated that it would be
difficult to construct an interior vestibule, the Building Official has stated that it is possible
and would not be prevented by any existing structural problems with the building.
The Planning Commission, however, recommends that condition #13 be deleted. The
Commission concluded that other noise mitigation adequately addresses noise issues,
specifically, the addition of a condition limiting the interior decibel level. The Planning
Commission agreed that three days a week is the appropriate number of days to allow live
entertainment, but recommended shortened hours so that live music would end at 1.:30 a.m.
on Friday and Saturday and midnight on Thursdays. Alcohol would stop being served at 1:00
a.m. on Friday and Saturday and at midnight on Thursday.
The City has limited the days and hours that live music can be played in other similar use
permits, because it has been demonstrated that live music draws a livelier more animated
clientele than does recorded music. In establishments that have activities similar to those Q
Care proposes, an effective crowd control technique has been to condition the use permit
such that all activity at the site does not end at the same time. Ceasing the sale of alcohol
prior, to ending the live music and dancing, and with all three of these uses, alcohol service,
live music and dancing, ending prior to the closing of the cafe and billiard facility, allows
for gradual dispersal of the crowd and results in a reduced impact on the surrounding area.
The applicant also stated at the November 13, 1996 Planning Commission hearing that he
did not believe a station-monitored sprinkler system should be required, to make the first
finding that the use will not be detrimental to the genera! safety or welfare. Staff has explored
the condition further with the Fire Department and finds that the condition is necessary
because of the unusual exiting condition within the building. The building’s large open.
interior configuration requires the presence of an interior hallway which provides a
secondary means of egress. The Fire Department finds that this is an exceptional
circumstance and, therefore, requires the station-monitored sprinkler system, so that Fire
Department personnelwill be notified automatically and immediately if the spdnlder system
is activated. This automatic notification will assist in getting firefighters to the scene of an
accident or fire more quickly than relyingon someone in the establishment to call in with a
report. It should also be note that this is a condition of the existing use permit and should
already be in place.
CMR:131:97 Page 12 of 17~-
Use Permit Finding Number 2: The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner
in accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Purposes of Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission found that the use would be
consistent with Policy 14 in the Housing Element and Program 20 in the Urban Design
Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the mixed-use regulations in the CD zone district
based on the discussion in the Policy section of this report, in that it would contribute to the
pedestrian vitality and mixed-use character of the Alma Street District. In the Comprehensive
Plan, CD regulations and Downtown Urban Design Guide, mixed-use has been considered
a mix of commercial, retail, office and residential uses and is a desirable land use pattern
close to transit. Live entertainment and billiard facilities are both considered commercial
recreational uses. The use would be consistent with Title 18, Zoning, because commercial
recreation is a conditionally permitted use in the CDC(GF)(P) zone if all applicable
development requirements can be met and use permit findings can be made.
Resident Appeal
Mr. Malan disagrees with the finding that commercial recreation is an appropriate use in a
mixed residential/business neighborhood. He does not provide reasons for his disagreement
in his letter of appeal, but he and several other residents indicated at the Planning
Commission hearings that the type of mixed-use they believe is appropriate in the downtown
would be¯ retail in nature with daytime and early evening hours.
It should-be noted that the neighborhood Mr. Malan references is primarily a retail,
commercial recreation and business area, with limited residential uses. The mixed-use nature
of the area is dominated by non-residential uses with which the proposed use is compatible.
The expectation in a mixed-use area is that there will be more noise and activity than in a
homogeneous single or multiple-family neighborhood. The purpose of many of the City’s
Mixed Use goals and policies is to bring different types of uses together in an urban versus
suburban environment.’ While owners .of retail and commercial businesses need to be
sensitive to residential needs in mixed-use areas, residents also need to be tolerant of the
activity that must be expected when living in all urban areas, particularly those that are
primarily commercial and designated as Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant Appeal
The .business owners do not
Commission’s second finding.
disagree with the Zoning Administrator’s or Planning
Use Permit Finding Number 3: The location, access or design of the ground floor space of
the building proposed to house the use, creates exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
CMR:131:97 Page 13 of 17, ’
or conditions applicable to the property involved that do no apply generally to property in
the same district.
This finding is required for issuance of any use permit in the GF (ground floor) combining
district. The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission found that the design of the
interior space of this building is unusual and exceptional in that it is a large, open space
measuring 50 feet wide by 125 feet deep with a minimal number of windows and other
openings, which makes it especially suitable to the existing and proposed uses and less
suitable for retail uses. The open nature of the space lends itself to live and recorded music
and dancing, whereas more typically sized and configured buildings would be less suitable
to the use. The frontage on Alma Street, facing the railroad right-of.way is also an
appropriate location for live music since the ambient noise will tend to screen any noise that
does escape.
Resident and Applicant Appeal
Neither of the two appellants specifically disagreed with the Zoning Administrator and
Planning Commission’s third fmding.
Resident Appeal in General
Mr. Malan further listed inadequate consideration of the hours of operation as grounds for
appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision. He did not specify why the hours would be
a detriment, but staff assumes that he objects to the length of time music would be allowed
and the days of the week it would be allowed. The Zoning Administrator did consider the
hours of operation and significantly reduced the operating hours from those requested by the
applicant. The Planning Commission recommends further limitation of those hours by
modifying condition #2 to read that hours of operation for live entertainment on Thursday
shall be between 9:00 p.m. and midnight and on Friday and Saturday shall be between 9:00
p.m. and 1:30 a.m. They are also recommending that condition #2 require that alcohol service
end at 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday and midnight on Thursday.
Public Participation
The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on this expanded use permit on July 18,
1996 at which four people spoke in opposition to the use permit application and a petition
with 18 signatures was submitted in opposition to the proposal. The applicant and business
manager spoke in favor of the application. The comments focused on the issues summarized
in this report (see Attachment 13 o Zoning Administrator July 18, 1996 meeting minutes and
Attachment 14 - Petition in opposition, dated June 6, 1996). Letters in Support and opposition
to the use permit amendment are attached to this staff report (see Attachments 15 and 16).
The Planning Commission held a public heating on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s
approval on October 30, 1996. The Planning Commission continued the hearing to
CMR:131:97 Page 14 of 17"
November 13, 1996. On November 13, 1996, five people spoke against the application based
on the incompatibility of the use with the surrounding area. The project applicants spoke in
favor of the application based on the argument that noise impacts could be modified .by
increasing the insulation around the skylight and front doors. Upon taking public testimony,
the Commission again continued the item to January 8, 1997 (see Attachment 17, Planning
Commission minutes dated November 13, 1996). The purpose of the continuance was to
allow the applicant and appellant further time to respond to information received from the
appellant regarding inadequacy of the noise analysis and questions regarding the proposal’s
lack of conformance with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance and to allow the applicant,
appellant and nearby residents to further consider the hours of operation of the proposed
expanded use.
At the January 8, 1997 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the
appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s approval, and approval of the permit amendment with
modifications to the Zoning Administrator’s conditions of approval along with
recommendations for additional conditions of approval (see Attachment 18 - Minutes of the
January 8, 1997 Planning Commission public heating). The modifications and additions to
the Zoning Administrator’s conditions of approval included the following: 1) Modify
condition #2 to require live music and dancing to end at 1:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturdays
and midnight on Thursdays. During discussion of this modification, the Planning
Commission referred to a limitation on the hours and number of days that live music ( and
dancing) could occur, but did not directly discuss recorded music. Condition #2, as written
by the Zoning Administrator, included a limitation on disc jockey recorded music (see
Attachment 6, Condition #2). Staff is unclear as to whether or not the Commission intended
to limit recorded music as well as live music. It should be noted that recorded music has not
typically been limited in other similar types of use permits and is not limited or prevented in
the existing use permit for Q Care (94-UP-33). If the Council supports the Planning
Commission recommendation, it appears that a limitation on recorded music would be in
effect. The Commission did also recommend that condition #2 be amended to include a
requirement that alcohol cease being served at 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights and
at Midnight on Thursday; 2) Condition #5 would be modified to require an automatic review
of the Use Permit within six months of approval, rather than the 12 months allowed by the
Zoning Administrator and the number of infractions of the noise ordinance triggering a
revocation hearing reduced from three to two; 3) Eliminate Condition # 13, requiring the
internal vestibule; 4) Add a new condition #23, which would read: ."Sound system volume
control will be required so that interior average audio levels will never exceed 90 dBA, with
peak audio level 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
0fthe 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,
CMR:131:97 Page 15 of 1%"
and other practical or operational methods of controlling and demonstrating the compliance
with this internal volume requirement"; 5) Add a new condition #24, which would read: "The
business operator shall submit a plan for utilization of security guards outside the
establishment and in the surrounding area 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"; and 6) Add a new condition #25, which would read: "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 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."
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council can take one of the following actions:
Deny both appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval, with 22
conditions.
o Deny both appeals and modify the Zoning Administrator’s approval by adding and
modifying conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission on January 8,
1997 (as summarized under the Public Participation section of this report) or as
determined to be appropriate by the City Council. An option available to the City
Council .as part of this alternative would be to approve the permit for a specified
period of time.
Approve the resident appeal, denying approval of the amendment to the original
permit.
Approve the business owner’s appeal, by approving the amendment to the original
use permit without the condition for the internal vestibule and station-monitored
sprinkler system and with the additional two nights of music on Tuesday and
Wednesday.
FISCAL IMPAC_~
There is no fiscal impact to the City has a result of any of the above actions.
CMR: 131:97 Page 16 of 17.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A negative declaration was approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment on June 20, 1996. The additional technical information provided by the
applicant further substantiates the conclusions of the negative declaration prepared for the
proposed project, which has been modified to include reference to the most recent acoustical
report and findings and was renoticed for a second 20-day public comment period beginning
January 13, 1.997 (see Attachment 3 - Original Environmental Impact Assessment dated June
20, 1996 and Addendum to the Negative Declaration, dated January 8, 1997, respectively).
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
City Council action is final.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
1.Draft Findings for approval of the amended CUP
2.Draft Conditions for approval of the amended CUP
3.Original and Amended Environmental Impact Assessment and Amended Negative
Declaration
4.Use Permit 94-UP-33
5.Application Materials
6.Zoning Administrator’s Findings and Conditions for use permit 96-UP-5
7.Letter of Appeal from Mr. Malan, dated August 11, 1996
8.Letter of Appeal from Mr. Tan, dated August 12, 1996
9.Letters reporting noise and use permit violations
10.Planning Commission staff report, dated October 30, 1996, without attachments
11.Acoustical Engineering Report Exterior Sound-Pressure Levels due to music inside
the Q Cafe, dated December 19, 1996
12.Planning Commission staff report, dated January 8, 1997, without attachments
13.Zoning Administrator meeting minutes, dated July 18, 1996
14.Petition against use permit amendment, dated June 6, 1996
15.Letters in support for use permit amendment
16.Letters in opposition to use permit amendment
17.Planning Commission meeting minutes, dated November 13, 1996
18.Planning Commission meeting minutes, dated January 8, 1997
19.Information submitted at 1/8/97 Planning Commission hearing from Q Cafe
Plans (City Council Members only)
CC:Mr. Remy Malan, 685 High Street, #5B, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr. Jason Tan, Q Cafe Billiards, 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ms. Cheryl Young, 99 Almaden Blvd., 8th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113
Keenan Land Company, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr. Bill McCann, 685 High Street, #2E, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:131:97 Page 17 of 17
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT 96-UP-5
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--rev-~rded 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-nnd-rev’~-d~ music and dancing
should the business operator fall to comply with the conditions of approval or repeatedly
violate the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance.
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 appropriateness of mixed
uses and allows commercial, recreational uses with a conditional use permit.
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--rev*o~ music and dancing whereas
other more typically sized and configured storet~onts would have difficulty
accommodating such uses.
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT CONDITIONS FOR USE PERMIT 96-UP-5
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.
Live music may be performed ~^._~ t.._ ~._^ :__,. and
dancing to live entertainment may occur within the building during the hours of 9:OO p.m.
to midnight on Thursdays, and 9:OO 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. ~, -~’-~--" " , -~- -~ ":"" ~ .
Music or dancing of any kind outside the building shall not be allowed at any time.
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.
The business operator of 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.
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.
The owner of the facility shall insure that one uniformed security guard, licensed by the
State of California, shall be stationed wither 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.
In addition to the security guard, employees of the facility shall perform the
"host/security post" duties outlined in the "Q Care 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.
A."Manager on Duty" shall be present at the facility at all times. The name of the
10.
11.
12.
13.
¸14.
15.
16.
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.
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 !og 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.
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.
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.
,1__:.....A ~. ---- a--" .....1,__ 1: ...........,.1_,.1 ....:_ __-1 ,..1__~.’_~ : ......---=---- -1.,~1!
f~__ ,~_ ...... :t...1_ ~_ ...... :--’",,~,~o~.’-" (Delete pursuant to-
Planning Commission recommendation or retain the condition pursuant to staff
recommendation).
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,
The Zoning Administrator shall hold a public heating within-1~ 6 months of the approval
of this use permit to determine the business owner’s compliance with the sue permit
conditions of approval. If the business owner has not complied with all the conditions or
there have been a total of three or more officially documented infractions of the noise
ordinance within the 12 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 doeurnented
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.
In order to insure compliance with the conditions of this use permit within the first 12
17.
18.
19.
24.
25.
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 persormel 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.
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.
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.
During live music events, tables shall remain in the location shown on the floor plan
submitted as part of the original application for Use Permit 94-UP-.33. Any movement of
chairs shall not obstruct the exit routes from the building.
The one-hour fire corridor shall be kept clear and unobstructed at all times.
The sprinkler system .shall be central station monitored for water flow and control valve
tamper. ,
At no time shall the maximum occupant load for the interior space be exceeded.
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 97dBA, 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, pttrehase 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.
The business operator shall submit a plan for utilization of security guards outside the
establishment and in the surroundings 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. .
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.
Attachment 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Q Cafe
City of Palo Alto, Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Joseph Colonna (415) 329-2451
4. Project Location:529 Alma Street, Palo Alto
5. Application Number(s):96-UP-5, 96-EIA-4
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
7. General Plan Designation:
THKL Group, Inc.
529 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Regional/Community Commercial
8. Zoning:CD-C(GF)(P)
10.
Description of the Project: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to incorporate
live entertainment (recorded and live music, and dancing) into an existing
restaurant/commercial recreational use that currently has a Conditional Use Permit for
the on-site sale liquor, beer and wine.
Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The project site is located in a commercial
area of downtown Palo Alto. The site is bounded by commercial uses on the east
and west and by a vacant lot on the north. Alma S,treet and the Caltrain right-of-
" way border the site on the south. "" -~
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9197
Page 1
1 1., Other public agencies whose approval is required: Alcoholic Beverage Control ,5oard
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY. AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Popu!ation and
Housing
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Cultural Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water X
Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. --
X1find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 2
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning & Community Environment
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Date
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved .(e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as-well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts. - "
"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is m~ade, an EIR
is required.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used wherel pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant a
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? . "
e)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ....
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
I) Unique geologic or physical features?
1 X
1 X
1,5 X
1,5 X
X1,5
1,4
1,4,5
1,5
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2~3
1,2,3
1,2;3
1,2,3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
1,2,3 X
1,2,3 X
1,2,3 X
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
UnlessMitigation
Incorporated
Lass Than
Significant
Impact
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other
typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and
debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals
from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from
landscape maintenance?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body or wetland?
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j) Alteration of wetlands in any way?
4
4,9
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate. any air quality standard or contribute to an
exiting or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
4,9
4
X
X
X
X
X
×
×
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Id) Create objectionable odors?I 4
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a)10
b)4
c)
d)
g)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or .bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
4
4,5
4
4,5
4
Would the PrOPosal result reduction or interference in:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a)
b)
c)
d)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
1,9
4,9
4,9
X
X
X
X
X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?1 X
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 1 X
inefficient manner?
1 Xc) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
b)
c)
d)
e)
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
1,7
4
4
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7,8,
7,8,
X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or
storm drain facilities?
Other governmental services?
11
7
4
4,5 "
X
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
4
4
4
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCes PotentiallySignificant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e). Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
~e).Restrict existing religious or sacred uses witl~in the
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
~)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop. below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
9
9
9
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
4 X
4.X
13 X
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 8
b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
d) Does the proje.ct have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
13
13
13
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-spec.ific conditions of the project. ~
Authority; Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.÷
Reference: Public Resource~s Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of
SuperWsors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES .~
1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Laqd Use Map (1981-1995), Land Use Element (1981), and~Environmental Resources Element (1981).
2 Required Compliance with UBC standards for seismic safety and maximum occupancy.
3 Paio Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology. and Seismic Technical Report; 1994.
4 Review of plans and specifications submitted with application.
5 Field ~investigation.’
6 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Transportation Element.
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 9
7
8
10
11
12
13
City of Palo Alto Police Department, written comments on application; 2/9/96.
Acoustical analysis and supplementary analysis prepared by Vincent Salmon for the proposed project;
1/31/96, 4/26/96
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum.
Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study; March 1990.
City of Palo Alto Fire Department, written comments on application; 2112196.
Revised acoustical engineering report titled "Exterior Sound-Pressure Levels due to Music Inside The Q
Cafe", prepared by James Sidney Mills and dated December 19, 1996.
Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items 1-8.
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 10
19.EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
3
(b,c,
g)
10
(a,b)
Geologic Problems.
The site is located in a seismically active area which is subject to very strong ground shaking in the
event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land is
possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at
the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction will be subject to the
provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at
minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Mitigation: None required.
Noise.
The applicant, proposes to incorporate recorded and live music, and dancing into an existing
restaurant and billiard facility that currently has a Conditional Use Permit for the on-site sale and
consumption of liquor, beer and wine. The applicant has submitted a revised acoustical engineering
report titled "Exterior Sound-Pressure Levels due to Music Inside The Q Care", prepared by James
Sidney Mills and dated December 19, 1996. This report is hereby incorporated into this
environmental assessment by reference.
The report concludes that live or recorded music at an operational sound-pressure level of 90 dBA,
measured at the center of the dance floor, would comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance,
Chapter 9.10. The report assumes that the front door would be closed while music is being played.
It also relies on measures recommended by Vincent Salmon, Acoustical Consultant, to reduce
exterior sound emissions by installing double-paned glass in existing skylights and improving front
door seals. Both of these measures have reportedly been implemented.
With completion of the physical changes to the skylights and front door and implementation of the..
mitigation measures listed below, the project would comply with the Noise Ordinanee and would not
have a significant impact on the environment.
Mkigatioo:
Prior to operation of the expanded use permit for live entertainment and dancing, the applicant shall
provide satisfactory evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the modifications to the skylights and
front door have been completed as recommended by Vincent Salmon and referenced in the project’s
acoustical analysis.
(Continued on next page)
A:\EIA9604.nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 11
10
(a,b)
cont¯
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 the report by James Sidney Mills, dated
December 19, 1996. A plan for accomplishing volume control within the establishment shall be
prepared under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant and 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 sound levels, and other practical or
6perational methods of controlling and demonstrating the compliance with this internal volume
requirement.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATED
REDEVELOPMENT OF
PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 57..-~1 ~ ~" , PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA,
AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIG!~TION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.
Appli’cant’~ Signature/
A:\EIA9604,nod Revised 1/9/97
Page 12
Attachment 1
Addendum to Negative Declaration 96-EIA-4. Prepared for 529 Alma Street,
This addendum is intended to replace the analysis of potential noise impacts contained in section
19 of negative declaration 96-EIA-4, approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment on June 20, 1996. The negative declaration was prepared to analyze and determine
the potential impacts of a proposed conditional use permit to incorporate recorded and live
music, and dancing into an existing restaurant and billiard facility, located at 529 Alma Street,
Palo Alto. The analysis in this addendum is based on the public record and a revised acoustical
report submitted by the applicant but does not alter the conclusion of negative declaration
96-EIA-4, that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment.
Section 19, 10 (a,b): Noise
The applicant proposes to incorporate recorded and live music, and dancing into .an
existing restaurant and billiard facility that currently has a Conditional Use Permit for the
on-site sale and consumption of liquor, beer and wine. The applicant has submitted a
revised acoustical engineering report titled "Exterior Sotmd-Pressure Levels due to Music
Inside The Q Care", prepared by James Sidney Mills and dated December 19, 1996. This
report is hereby incorporated into this environmental assessment by reference.
The report concludes that live or recorded music at an operational sound-pressure level of
90 dBA, measured at the center of the dance floor, would comply with the Palo Alto
Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10. The. report assumes that the front door would be closed
while music is being played. It also relies on measures recommended by Vincent
Salmon, Acoustical Consultant, to reduce exterior sound emissions by installing double-
paned glass in existing skylights and improving front door seals. Both of these measures
have reportedly been implemented.
With completion of the physical changes to the skylights and front door and
implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, the project would comply with
the Noise Ordinance and would not have a significant impact on the environment.
Mitioation:
Prior to operation of the expanded use permit for live entertainment and dancing, the
applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the
modifications to the skylights and front door have been completed as recommended by
Vincent Salmon and referenced in the project’s acoustical analysis.
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 the report by
James Sidney Mills, dated December 19, 1996. A plan for accomplishing volume control
within the establishment shall be prepared under the supervision of a qualified acoustical
consultant and 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 sound levels, and other practical or operational
methods of controlling and demonstrating the compliance with this internal volume
requirement.
Project Planner bate
¯ C_ityof I oAlto
unity E~t
Attachment~4
Application No. 94-UP-33:529 Alma Street
Use Permit 94-UP-33 is approved to allow the location and operation of a
commercial recreation use (15 billiard tables) and an eating and drinking
facility with associated on,site sale and consumption of liquor, beer and
wine, as per attached plans at 529 Alma Street, CD-C(GF)(P) Zone District.
Palo Alto, California. The project is subject to the findings and
conditions listed below.
The proposed use at the proposed location will not be
detrimental or injurlous to property or improvements in the
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare or convenience, in that the building
has recently undergone extensive seismic upgrades, and a llfe
safety fire sprinkler system will be installed along with a
new fire rated exit corridor along the north interior wall.
The proposal will provide a popular and desirable recreational
use in a controlled environment that will add to the vitality
and Interest of the downte~n area. The siteis surrounded by
other commercial uses and will enhance the pedestrian
experience in the area.
The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in
accord with thePaloAlto Comprehensive Plan and thepurposes
¯ of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that
recreational uses, and the on-site sale and consumption of
alcohol are conditionally permitted uses in the zoning
district, and all other zoning requirements are met by the
proposal.
The location, access.or design of the ground floor space of the
building proposed to house the use. creates exceptional or
extraordlnarycircumstances 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
wide by 125 feet deep. The open nature of the space lends itself to
the proposed billiard use whereas other storefronts would have more
difficulty accommodating such a use, The ground floor square footage
allows the care/bar use to function concurrently with the
recreational billiard use without detracting from either of the
uses.
UP.Ig
250~Avenue
P.O.Bo~I(1250
415.3~9.2441
415.~9.2~0Fax
9/29/94
Page I
Application No. 94-UP-33: ~
Use Permit 94-UP-33 is hereby issued to a.flow the location and operation of a
commercial recreation use (15 billiard table) and an eating and drinking facility with
associated on-sits sale and consumption of liquor, b~r and wine, as pgr attached plans
at 529 Alma Street, CD-C(GF)(P) Zone .District, Palo Alto, California. The project is
subject to the conditions listed b~low.
This use permit does not authorize live music at this site. An amendment to this"
use permit shall be required if the owner of this business o~ a subsequent business
wants to provide live music at this site.
Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) prior to imtallation.
The City WIll provide only one service per parcel.
The applicant shall provide electric load details so that s~rvic~ voltage and
equipment size can be determined.
o
Upon verifying the electrical load, the City will confirm whether or not an
easement is required for installing the electrical equipment.
The attached requirements from the Palo Alto Fire Department shall b~ in fur
force and effect. .
6 The attached requirements from the Palo Alto Utiliti~ Department shall be in full
force and effect. ¯
"LISA GROTE
Zoning Administrator
October I I, 1994
UP. Ig
i0111194
Page I
This Use Permit is grimed in ~ccordance with and subj~t to the provisions of Ch~p~er~ 18.~
of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code.
In.any ca~e in which the conditions to the granting of a Use Permit have not been complied
with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such
permit at least ten (I0) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following sucli hearing and if good
cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Use Permit.
A Use.Permit which has not been used within one (I) year after the date of granting becomes
void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, ext¢nd the time for an
additional’year if, an application to this effect is filed with him b~fore the expiration of the first
year.
Joseph M. Colonna, S~nior Planner
Judy Glass, Police Department
Charles Holman/Design Associat, s, 450 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA ’
Charles Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
94301
UP.Ig 10/11/94Page 2.
CAFE
BILLIARDS
Attachment 5
Ms. Lisa Grote
Zoning Administrator
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
December 27, 1995
Re ¯ Minor Change of Conditional Use Permit (94-UP-33) for 529 Alma Street
Dear Lisa,
Based on our several meetings few weeks ago, Q Cafe Billiards would like to
apply for a Minor Change of Conditional Use Permit. (94-UP-33).
¯ The proposed Minor Change of Conditional Use Permit is to provide live
music / dance in addition to the cafe / bar and recreational billiards. Our goal is
to create unique, upscale atmosphere in Palo Alto. Patrons can expand on the
traditional downtown activities of dining and .entertainment. The proposed
changes would enhance our Palo Alto’s reputation as an enjoyable, satisfying
place to spanned one’s time. This concept has been growing throughout the Bay
Area, particularly in San Francisco and San Jose. The proposed hours of live
music / dance will be from 9am to 2am daily.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (415)
322-3311.
Sincerely,
Jason Tan, Owner
529 ALMA STREET .PALO ALTO, CA 94301 ¯(415) 322-33
Q Cafe Billiards
"Security profile policy"
Our security staff is of prime importance here at Q.C.B. We feel
that the level of comfort for our patrons directly coincides with the
level of security that we provide.
Security policy here states that each host/security post must be
maintained throughout the shift. This means that no host/security
staff member may leave his or her position Without the consent of the
manager on duty. If a host/security staff member needs to deal with
an incident or be relieved for any reason he or shemust have a
replacement fill his or her post for the necessary per.iod of time.
Communication between the host/security staff is of prime
importance if we are to maintain a high level of quality in this
department. We require each posted staff member to be equipped
with a signal light so he may catch the attention 0fhis security.cover.
There are four positions for host/security staffhere at Q.C.B.
they are noted in the attached diagram of the floor plan. Each
position is in direct view of the next cover position and this visual
contact is maintained at all times.
In between these positions our patrons are enjoying the
entertainment we provide. We believe that although the securit)’ staff
is there to observe and be helpful they are also there to be an
¯ . extension of our commitment to enjoyable entertainment and are
~" "urged to interact with customers to ensure that they are being taken
care of.properly. This contact is of great importance to us because of
the personal nature of our business. If people feel that we are taking
an interest in the qualit), of their time they are more apt to act and
behave accordingly.
Host/security duties
To process all patrons through the entryway checking I.D. to ensure legal age is maintained.
To be an extension of our commitment to enjoyable entertainment.
Provide any assistance necessary (i.e. information, getting the attention of a server, notifying a
manager of any inconsistency in service brought to your attention by a patron, and in general adding
to the safe atmosphere of Q Cafe.
Making rounds of all public access areas of the building at regular intervals.
Make sure your post is covered at all times of your shift either by your cover or M.O.D.
If any bottle is dropped or another hazard to our customers arises you are to intervene and bring
about an orderly solution to the problem.
If there is any complaint in between customers or aggressive energy of an)’ kind you are to get the
manager on duty and consult with him/her of the problem prior to taking action.
You are to be a host at all times for our patrons. This means being honestly attentive to any patrons
needs.
If you are involved in a dispute or are trying to even out an unstable situation you should always have
your cover position on hand to ensure that no statements are made that could endanger your position
or anger the customer.-
If a patron is abusix, e you are not to respond in kind. You must.always keep your head and allow the
patron to calm down. The best way to do this is to agree with the patrons complaint and try to find
the most convenient and timely solution to his/her problem.’
If you ’find that you are not able to keep your temper you are to allow you cover position to take
over the situation to allow yourself time to regroup this is why you need your cover position present
when you are trying to resolve a problem. Never let your emotions dictate your actions!
It is of prime importance for you to understand that the position that you hold is one that is very
necessary in order to run the business properly. The access that you have and the freedom of
movement that goes with this position needs to be used properly. You are a multi-purpose employee.
If anything needs to be done in the facility and you are the closest one to the problem it is your duty
to either take care of it or inform the proper dept. so a timely solution can be found. Remember your
employee team is what makes this place run smoothly if you back up your co-workers they will make
your job easier by returni.ng the favor~ Remember, you are always in a better position if you make
yourself indispensable.
Your job is vital so don’t-take it lightly!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE ’
ON-SALE GENERAL EATING PLACE
VALID FROM ,EXPIRES
T H K L GROUP INCMAR 03, 1995 934" KRISTIN RIDGE WY FEB 29, 1996
MILPITAS,CA 95035
TYPE NUMBER DUP ¯
47 301784
AMENDED
TFR o 47-168440
AREA CODE
4312 25
BUSINESS ADDRESS DBA: Q CAFE BILLIARDS
(IF DIFFEFEENT) .529 ALMA ST
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
T H K L GROUP INO .~:~ ~ .’" . .
EFFECTIVE PERIOD This license is effective only for the opera~ng pedod sho~ above. A new license will be sent to you within ~0 days of the
expira~o~ date 0n.your license If .::,: .: : ...... ; ¯ :’. .....
RENEWAL ~ ~eci~v~ 30daysL _
RENEWAL DATES
late r~’ A penai~ Is charged for
"AND XX ~HERS’~ey ~11 be indicted by
NO~E: CO’ACT YOUR LocAL ABd’O~E I~Y;~ ~CENs~D PR~I~S Wl~
Cityof Palo Alto
Departn~t ofiPlanning a~wl
Communi~Environment Attachment 6
Application No,. 96-UP-5:529 Alma Street
Use Permit 96-UP-5 is approved, with 22 conditions, to allow dancing and the playing of
live and recorded music, at an existing restaurant and billiard facility, which is currently
operating under Use Permit 94-UP,33 for the on-site sale and consumption of beer, wine
and liquor, as per approved plans at 529 Alma Street, CD-C(GF)(P) Zone District, Palo
Alto, California. Project approval is based on the following findings and is subject to the
conditions listed below.
Planning Division
The proposed use at the proposed location will hot .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 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 on the surrounding
neighborhood. In addition, the conditions provide for a mechanism to review and
revoke the UsePermit 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.
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 that the "Purpose" section of the Downtown Community Commercial Zone
District specifies the appropriateness of mixed uses and allows commercial,
recreational uses with a conditional use permit.
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. 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.
250Harnill~nAvenue
P.O.Box 10250
PaloAl~,CA 94303
415.329.2441
415.329.2240Fax
.CONDITIONS
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.
Live music may be performed, or recorded music may be played by a disc jockey, and
dancing may occur within the building on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights only,
between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. only.
Music or dancing of any kind outside of the building shall not be allowed at any time.
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.
J
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.
All employees responsible for serving liquor, beer or wine shall participate in "LEAD"
(license, education, alchohol, and drug) program activities at a minimum of once a year.
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 livemusic or recorded music is
played to discourage v.andalism, 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.
In addition to the security guard, employees of the facility shall perform the
"host/security post’: duties outlined in the "Q care Billiards Security Profile P01iey". 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 inthe Office of the City of Palo Alto
Planning Division.
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
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
private individuals or the Police Department. He or shee 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.
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.
All doors and windows shall be kept dosed at all times when live or recorded music and
dancing is occurring to prevent noise from escaping through these openings in the
building..
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 reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and the Chief Building Official, or their
designees. At no timne when live or recorded music and dancing is occurring shall both
sets of doors that comprise the vestibule be open simultaneously.
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
shal! implement these measures at his/her expense.
The Zoning Administrator shall hold a public hearing within 12 months of the approval
of this use permit to determine the business owner’s compliance with theuse permit
conditions of approval. If the business owner has not complied with all the conditions or
there have been a total of three or more officially documented infractions of the noise
ordinance within the 12 month period, Use Permit 96-UP-5.may be revoked or modified.
Officially documented infractions means that the Palo Alto Police Deaprtment has
conducted noise readings and found the establishment to be in violation of the Palo Alto
Noise Ordinance.
In order to insure compliance with the conditions of this use pemait within the first 12
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 resdt of private
complaints.
Compliance shall be required with all applicable codes and ordinances, including Titles 9
18.
19.
20.
(Peace, Morals and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Aito Municipal Code.
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.
During live music events, tables shall remain in the location shown on the floor plan
submitted as part of the original application for Use Permit 94-UP-33. Any movement of
chairs shall not obstruct the .exit routes from .the building.
The one-h0ur 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 maximumoceupantload for the interior space be exceeded.
LISA GROTE
Zoning Administrator
August 1, 1996
This decision doesnot constitute final action on the Use Permit for which application was made.
This decision may be appealed by any aggrieved person, firm or corporation on or before August
12, .1996 by filing a Written letter of appeal,appeal form and appeal fee with the City of Palo
Alto Planning Division and City Clerk. The appeal will be heard by the Planning Commission
and City Council. If no appeal is received on or before the above-mentioned date, the applicant
shall receive a final decision letter in the mall. A copy of the final decision letter should be
presented to the Building Division when applying for any building permits associated with the
project.
Applicant:THK Group, Ine./dba Q Care Billiards
529 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Property Owner:Keenan Land Co.
700 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Martin Bemstein, P.O. Box 1739, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Bill McCann, 685 High Street, #2E, Paio Alto, CA 94301
Remy Maim, 685 High Street, #5B, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Steven F. Joyee, President, Paio Alto Plaza. Homeowners Association, 685 High Street,
Paio Alto,’ CA 94301
Lt. Donald Hartnett, City of Paio Alto Police Department
Watch Commander, City of Paio Alto Police Department
Steven Player, 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410, Paio Alto, CA 94306
CITY OF PALO ALTO Attachment 7Office of the City Clerk --
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ,n,of Zoning Adm" "st.~.~o$ ~9~’To be filed in duplicate within ten days from da~e of decision :’~m,.-
Appli~tionNo. ~" UP~ ~Receipt No. ~-~- ’ ......
Name of Appellant ... ~ ~~Phone ~/~)
Street City Zip
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. I~o- 2.~ ~ ~ ~.
Street Address ~9
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) k~--,/~,/~,/~ L.~/~
Property Owner’s Address
Street "- City
Zone District
The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated
¯ wherel:)y the applic&tion of "T’~
(variance/use permit)
(origin&l applicant)
was
(approved/denied)
, is hereby appe&led for the
reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate).
Date ~/ll [% S!gnature of Appellant
I.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
Date Approved Denied.
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Approved Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans
2.Labels
: 3.Appeal Application Forms
4..Letter
5.Fee ’
1,2/89
Remy Malan
685 High Street #5B
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RECE.~vED
p, oa 199
Oopartrnent r.,t ; ..... :
August ll, 1996.
Zoning Administrator
,City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Zoning Administrator,
I am appealing the City of Palo Aho’s decision regarding Use Permit 96-UP-5. I do not -
believe that this use of property is appropriate in a mixed use neighborhood: Specifically, I
am not satisfied that the City has adequately addressed the issues raised by myself and
other nearby residents of:
a) Appropria{~ness of use in a mixed residential/business neighborhood.
b)
c)
Hours of operation.
Noise generated by the patrons. No consideration is apparent in the City’s decision’
regarding the noise generated by patrons of 529Alma Street. This is a serious problem
for me as many of the patrons park outside my home along High Street. I do not want
to be subjected to inebriated or noisy behavior outside my home when I am trying to get
to sleep nor do I want to be awakened by such behavior¯
d)Noise generated by the intended on-site use of the property; fo~ example, no
specifications are made as to noise levels being generated in the interior of the building
to determine noise ordinance compliance during testing.
Attached please find the relevant appeal form.. If you have questions, I can be contacted by
phone at (415) 786-4935 (days) or (415) 321-2420 (evenings).
Yours sincerely,
A. Remy M’Xlan
copy 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Attachment~8
To be filed in duplicate within ten days from date of decision of Zoning Administrator
Name of Appellant "~]/3i’Z
Street
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. 12o- ?_.~-- ~ Z. Zone District
Street Address ,,~’2~’/ ~,,~,,,~ ~-~ /’~) /~/~ ~- ~ ~J u /
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) .#~_~p"/’J,~--A~ //~.-~4--~/~
Property Owner’s. Address "~ 0 ~/~’~.,,#~£,,~ ~ ~brf_..O,~..~7~ ~
Street "-City Zip
The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated
where.by the applicatioh of .... "~J ~/~ ~,;f2
.(original dpplicant)
(variance/use permit)(approved/denied)
__, is hereby appealed for the
Date /~/#’/-,~~= /27 t/~’~’~" Signature of Appellant f/O~,~,4._ ~
.
PLANNING COMMISSION. RECOMMENDATION TO T~E/~ CITY COUNCIL:
¯ Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Approved Denied
R E CR~’~:w r"
AUG 1 ~ 1996
Oep::r
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans
2.Labels
8.Appeal Application Forms
4.Letter
5.Fee
By:
By:
By:
By:
12189
Palo Alto City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94503
CAFE
BILLIARDS
Appeal of Use Permit 96-UP-5
529 Alma Street
August 12, 1996
To the City Clerk:
The undersigned does hereby appeal to the Planning Commission the decision of the
Zoning Administrator approving Use Permit 96-UP-5 with 22 conditions which decision was
mailed on August 1, 1996.
The decision is to allow dancing and the playing of live and recorded music at Q
Restaurant located at 529 Alma Street, which is currently operating under Use Permit 94-UP-
33 for the on-site sale and consumption of beer, wine and liquor, as per approved plans at 529
Alma Street, CD-C-(GF)(P) Zone District, Palo Alto.
The grounds for this appeal are based upon business necessity and the hardship which
will be imposed upon the undersigned by certain of the conditions set forth in the use permit. "
Specifically, the condition limiting live music to three nights only combined with the expense
and practical difficulties of full compliance with some of the other conditions imposed, such as
Condition 13, will severely impact the financial viability of the continued operations of the
business at that location. The undersigned will make agood faith ~ffort to .comply with all
.reasonable conditions and be responsive to the concerns raised by its neighbors and the City,
but feels that such conditions should be of such nature as to allow for the continuance of a
viable business.
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned hereby requests that you .notify your Zoning
Administrator and Chairman. of the Planning Commission of this al3peal and forward this
appeal to the Secretary of the Planning Commissiori.
co:Zoning Administrator
Stephen W. Player
Jason Tan, President
THKLGroup, Inc. dba Q Care
529 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 ¯(415) 322-3311
Page: 2 From: Malan Prepared: Wed, Aug 21, 1996 12:13 PM
Attachment~
Remy Malan
685 High Street #5B
Palo Alto, CA 94301
August 21, 1996.
Zoning Administrator
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Zoning Administrator,
I would like to bring to your attention an event that disturbed my sleep recently. Live
entertainment (i.e., dancing) was conducted at 529 Alma Street (Q Care Billiards) during
the evening hours of August 17 and the early morning hours of August 18 until after 1AM.
Since I was unable to sleep, I verified this activity by a visual inspection of the premises at
529 Alma Street.
I am not aware that any Use Permit is currently in effect to allow dancing. Even your
proposed Use Permit for 529 Alma Street, 96-UP-5, assuming for a moment that it was
approved and in effect, would have been violated since no double door vestibule was in
place (see your letter of August 1, 1996, page 3, item 13).
Please consider this letter to be a written complaint. I am becoming extremely disturbed by
the apparentpattern ofbehaviorI am witnessing at 529 Alma Street. Earlier this year I
brought infractions of Use Permit 94-UP-33 to your attention and I am now bring another,
similar infraction to your attention. Apparently, neither the City of Palo Alto’s due proc.ess
nor its Use Permits have meaning t° some organization,s.
I would be grateful if you ~vould look into this situation and let me know your findings. If
you have questions, I can be contacted by phone at (415) 786-4935 (days) or (415) 321-
2420 (evenings).
Yours sincerely,
A. Remy Malan
Page: 2 From: Malan Prepared: Fri, Nov 1, 1996 07:20 AM
Remy Malan
685 High Street #5B
Palo Alto, CA 94301
November 1, 1996.
Zoning Administrator
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Zoning Administrator,
I would like to bring to your attention an event that disturbed my sleep recently. Live
entertainment (i.e., recorded music and dancing) was conducted at 529 Alma Street (Q Cafe
Billiards) during the evening hours of October 31 and the early morning hours of
November 1. Since I was unable to sleep, I verified this activity by a visual inspection of
the premises at 529 Alma Street.
I am not aware that any Use Permit is currently in effect to allow live entertainment at 529
Alma Street. Even your proposed Use Permit for 529 Alma Street, 96-UP-5, assuming for
a moment that it was approved and in effect, would have been violated since no double
door vestibule was in place (see your letter of August 1, 1996, page 3, item 13).
Please consider this letter to be a written complaint. I am becoming extremely disturbed by
the apparentpattern ofbehaviorI am witnessing at 529 Alma Street, Earlier this year I
brought infractions of Use Permit 94-UP-33 to your attention and I am now bring another,
similar infraction to your attention.
I would be grateful if you would look into this situation and let me know your findings. If
you have questions, I can be contacted by phone at (415) 786-4935 (days) or (415) 321-
2420 (evenings).
Yours sincerely,
A. Remy Malan
NOV-1-96 ~RI 8’15 AM Malan
TO:
PLANNING
Attachment 10
COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
:!
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT: Planning
¯ AGENDA DATE: October 30, 1996
SUBJECT:Appeals of Zoning Administrator approval of Conditional Use Permit
96-UP-5 at 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto, California
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
Deny the appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a CUP (conditional
use permi0, with 22 conditiom, allowing live entertainment, including music and dancing
at an existing restaurant and commercial recreation (billiards) facility, based on the
attached negative declaration and findings and conditions, presented in the Zoning
Administrator’s August 1, 1996 approval with minor amendments (see Attachment !).
The site. is a fiat, mid-block parcel, located in the 500block of Alma Street in Downtown.
The brick building on the site is a Category 4 historic structure with interior dimensions
of 50 feet in width and 125 feet in depth. The building has housed ,,Q, Billiards since
September 1994, when a use permit was approved for a commercial recreation use (15
billiard tables) and arestaurant with the on-site sale and consumption of liquor, beer and
wine (94-UP-33, see Attachment 2).
Application for Minor Amendment:
The-Owners of "Q" Billiards applied for a minor amendment to their existing use permit
on February 2, 1996. The requested amendment was to allow live entertainment, including
live music and dancing, seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The majority of
P:~SR~529Alma.sr 10.-24-96
live music would occur at lunch time and in the evening hours. Further detail and
supporting documentation are attached to this staff report (see Attachment 3 - Application
Materials). It was determined to be a minor amendment because a use permit for the
recreational use was already in place and the addition of live music would be ancillary to
the primary recreational use of a billiard/cafe facility.
Zoning Administrator Approval:
On-August 1, 1996, the Zoning Administrator granted a modified approval of the use
permit amendment, with 22 conditions, that allowed live entertainment, including music
and dancing, three nights a week, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30
a.m. In addition, conditions were imposed upon the approval requiring litter removal,
noise attenuation in the form of an interior vestibule and additional sound-proofing around
the existing skylight, as well as a security and safety program with training programs for
"Q" personnel (see Attachment 1 for findings and a full list of conditions).
Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decision:
Two appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision have been received. The ftrst is from
a resident in the immediate area. His appeal was based on the following, four points: 1)
appropriateness of the use in a mixed residential/business neighborhood; 2) hours of
operation; 3)’ noise generated by patrons when coming to or leaving the site; and 4) noise
levels in general. He believed that no specifications were included in the conditions of
approval about noise levels being generated inside the building to determine noise
ordinance compliance during, testing (see Attachment 4 - letter of appeal from Mr. Remy
Malan, dated August 11, 1996).
The second letter of appeal came from the owners of "Q" Billiards. This appeal was
partially based on the financial necessity of having live music and the hardship which
would be imposed on the business if all the conditions of approval were implemented.. The
owners particularly objected to Condition #1, which limits music to three nights a week,
and #13, which requires an interior vestibule for noise attenuation (see Attachment 5 -
.letter of appeal from Mr. Jason Tan, dated August 12, 1996). Although not stated in the
appeal letter, staff ,understands that the business owners are requesting live music on
Tuesdays and Wednesdays in addition to Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.
"Q" Cafe and Billiards has operated under Use Permit 94-UP-33 since September 1994.
The original use permit did not allow live music, and the facility did not have live music
P:\PCSR~529AIma.sr 10-24-96
prior to December 14, 1996, when the Zoning Administrator approved a temporary.use
permit to allow live music and dancing for 45. days, from December 14, 1995 through
January 27, 1996. No complaints were received by the Code Enforcement section of the
Building Division or the Police Department during that time.
On February 2, 1996, the owners of "Q" applied for an amendment to use permit 94-Upo
33 to allow live music on a permanent .basis as explained in the project description section
of this report.
During the period between January 28, 1996 and July 181 1996, when a public hearing was
held for the permanent use permit change, the business continued to have live music
without benefit of a temporary or permanent use permit from the City of Palo Alto. This
situation was brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator on July 17, 1996, the
day before the Zoning Administrator’s public hearing on the permanent use permit request.
It was again stated, at the public hearing, by a resident in the area, that the police had been
called on April 1996 because of the loud noise coming from "Q". Upon further inquiry,
after the public hearing, the Zoning Administrator discovered that the. police had been
called on April 25, 1996 and that they had responded, but found no violation of the City’s
Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code).
The owners of "Q" continued to have live music and entertainment for approximately two
weeks after the appeals of the decision were made. This fact was brought to the attention
of the Zoning Administrator by the resident, Mr. Malan, who had appealed the decision.
In addition, the police had been called three times with noise complaints after July 18,
1996. These complaints occurred on July 20, July 26 and August 21, 1996. According to
the applicant, they misunderstood and believed it was legal to operate during an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator’s decision. The police and Planning Division staff verbally
informed the management of "Q" that live music could not occur unless and until the
appeal was heard and acted upon by the City Council, a permit amendment approved, and
conditions of the use permit had been complied with. No live music has occurred to the
City’s knowledge since late-August when "Q" was informed that live music is in violation
of their existing use permit 94-UP-33.
Table 1 summarizes the pertinent information regarding the site,
P:~SR~529Alma.sr
Applicant:
Appellants:
Property Owner:
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
.Zoning District:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
THKL Group, Inc./dba Q Cafe Billiards
Remy Malan, resident
Jason Tan, THKL Group !nc.
Keenan Land Company
120-26-092
Regional/Community Commercial
CDC(GF)(P)
Commercial Recreation
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial
Commercial
Parking/Commercial
Major arterial/railroad
Policy 14 of the Housing Element of the General Plan relates directly to this proposal. It
calls for supporting "the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial areas."
The approval furthers that. policy by concluding that a commercial recreation use and
residential uses can coexist in a mixed-use area, provided conditions which address
.potential conflicts are adhered to.
One other Comprehensive Plan policy that relates indirectly to this project is Program 20
of the Urban Design Element, which states: "Require street frontages that contribute to
retail vitality in shopping districts." The (P) overlay zoning designation also requires a
pedestrian orientation for buildings in downtown. Although physical improvements were
¯ not proposed as part of the original application or the amendment, the original and
amended use were determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy and
zoning designation because they would increase vitality and pedestrian activity in the area.
Although the Downtown Urban Design Guide is not a policy document, it is intended to
provide guidelines for development. The Guide specifically-references the mixed-use
nature of the Alma Street District. On page z~2 of the Guide, mixed-use buildings that
P:\PCSR~529AIma.sr .10-24-96
incorporate ground floor pedestrian related uses with residential uses on second and third
floors are encouraged.
The mixed-use provisions and incentives in the CD regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
also support commercial recreation uses in the downtown area. The Specific Purposes
section of Chapter 18.49, CD Commercial Downtown District Regulations, of the
Municipal Code states that the downtown district is specifically created to accommodate
a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service
needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs. In
addition, Section 18.49.050, Permitted and Conditional uses, of the Municipal Code
permits single-family and multiple-family residential uses in the downtown and
conditionally permits commercial recreation uses in the downtown.
The primary issues raised at the July 18, 1996 Zoning Administrator hearing and in the
letter of appeal from Mr, Malan were noise from the live music and patrons leaving the
facility’late at night and the general incompatibility of the proposed live music use in a
mixed-use downtown area. The primary issues in the appeal from "Q" Billiards were the
need for two additional, nights of music, Tuesday and Wednesday and the difficulty of
providing an internal vestibule for noise attenuation. These issues are discussed below
within the context of the three findings that must be made to approve a use permit in the
ground floor overlay area of downtown (Section 18.90.060(a)(1)(2)(3) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
: 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.
The Zoning Administrator found that the project would not be detrimental or injurious to
surrounding properties for several reasons. The. first is a noise analysis prepared by
acoustical consultant, Vincent Salmon, P.E. Sound levels were measured on two separate
nights, January 24, 1996 and January 25, 1996. The test on January 24, 1996 occurred
when recorded music was in operation and the test on January 25, 1996 occurred when live
music was in operation. Both tests concluded that the noise levels on property, 25 feet
from the subject site, did not exceed the decibels allowed above ambient noise levels in the
area and that requirements of the Noise Ordinance (Sections 9.10.040 and 050 of the Palo
P:\l~2SR~529Alma.sr 10-24-96
Page 5
Alto Municipal Code) were met (See attachment 6 for the full noise analysis).
The noise study assumed closed doors and windows in its analysis. To ensure that doors
would always be closed, the Zoning Administrator attached condition number 13, which
requires an internal vestibule to be built that will help prevent both sets of doors from
being open to the outside at the same time.
Additional information that the Zoning Administrator considered in making the In’st
findihg was the applicant’s "Security Profile Policy" (see Application Materials in
Attachment 3). The duties described in the Policy and in the accompanying "Host/Security
Duties’, which include 12 specific responsibilities ranging from checking identification,
to resolving potential conflicts between customers or between customers and staff,
indicated a significant level of commitment from the applicant to operate the facility in an
orderly manner.
The applicant’s operating policies in addition to the noise analysis and the additional
conditions the Zoning Administrator attached to the modified approval helps ensure that
the use would not be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Six of the 22 conditions
specifically address the issue of noise (Conditions 11-16). An important aspect of
Condition 15, is the automatic review of the permit within 12 months of its approval. If
the business owner is found to be in noncompliance with any of the conditions of approval
or to have three or more official infractions of the noise ordinance, the use permit could
be revoked or modified (Condition 15).
Other factors that the Zoning Administrator considered in making the finding that live
music would not be detrimental to surrounding properties, was the number of nights and
hours that it would occur and the fact that it would be ancillary to the primary billiard/care
use. The City does not allow nightclubs as a permitted.or conditional use in any zone. The
entertainment allowed :as part of "Q" Billiards operation is based on it being ancillary to
the operation of a bona-fide restaurant and billiard facility. The "rule of thumb" employed
by staff in defining ancillary use is that it typically occupies 25 percent or less of the total
square-footage of a business or 25 percent or less of the business activity. Condition #1,
which limits live entertainment to three nigh~ a week and Condition #19, which requires
tables to remain in the location shown on the approved plans, helps ensure that live
entertainment will remain ancillary to the primary business.
The resident"s appeal is partially based on the belief that noise issues were not adequately
P:WCSR~29AIma.sr 10-24-96
Page 6
considered in the Zoning Administrator’s decision and particularly in regard to the first use
permit f’mding. The third and fourth items in Mr. Malan’s letter state that noise from
patrons leaving the building and going to parked cars was not considered in the City’s
decision and that specifications were not included as to noise levels being generated inside
the building during testing.
The Zoning Administrator relied on the proposed "Host/Security Policy" to be enacted by
the management of the business, participation in the "License, Education, Alcohol and
Drug" (LEAD) program, the presence of a security guard and a manager on duty
(Conditions 6-10) to ensure that patrons will act in a responsible manner while in the
building and vicinity.
Although the Zoning Administrator believed these conditions would be enough to ensure
responsible behavior, the Planning Commission may want to add firmer conditions, such
as those used at the "Edge" on California Avenue, which required a security plan
indicating parking lots to be used and off-site patron behavior education. In addition, the
Commission may want to strengthen Condition #15 so that it does not allow for any
violations of the Noise Ordinance instead of the three violations permitted by the Zoning
Administrator. These alternatives are included in the "Alternatives" section of this report.
The issue of parking is addressed through the downtown assessment district. The building
owner pays into the downtown assessment district. No additional square-footage is
proposed as part of the use permit for entertainment so no additional fee or payment is
required. The City has not traditionally found it necessary to regulate where, on the street,
patrons of Downtown businesses park, although a condition encouraging the establishment
to educate their patrons to park away from residential uses is part of the use permit for the
"Edge" in the California Avenue Business District where residential uses are more
.prevalent.
Mr. Malan also disagreed with the Zoning Administrator’s first finding because
specifications are not included in the conditions for the noise generated inside the building
during testing. The noise ordinance is designed to .regulate the impact of noise from a
source onto a recipient. To determine that impact, sound level readings are conducted
certain distances away from the noise source. The level of noise inside the building is
irrelevant if it can be attenuated to such a degree that it complies with the noise ordinance
outside the building. Condition #16 requires four external noise tests to be conducted in
the first year of operation. Tests to be conducted will be at random and without warning
to prevent the applicant from modifying inside noise levels artificially. Staff therefore
believes that Condition #16 addresses this aspect of Mr. Malan’s appeal.
P:\PCSR~529AIma.sr
Applicant Appeal
The business owner disagrees with the Zoning Administrator’s first finding because he
maintains that the noise study verifies that sound levels will not be exceeded during
operation of live music and dancing and therefore Condition #13 is not needed in oi’der to
determine that the use will not be a detriment to the surrounding area. In addition, he
maintains that if the conditions ameliorate noise impacts on Thursday, Friday and Saturday
nights, .they will have the same affect on Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Modifying
Coiadition #1 to include two more nights would, therefore, not be a detriment to the
surrounding area.
.The Zoning Administrator disagrees that Condition #13 is unnecessary because without it
there is much less guarantee that the doors will remain closed during live music and that.
the regulations of the Noise Ordinance will be met. Although the business owner has stated
that it would be difficult to-construct an interior vestibule, the Building Official has stated
that it is possible and would not be prevented by any existing structural problems with the
building.
Although the Zoning Administrator agrees that the noise attenuation included in the
conditions of approval will work on any night of the week, she disagrees that a
modification to Condition # 1 is.warranted. Allowing live music five nights a week would
suggest that the use is not ancillary to the business, but is rather a main function of the
business. The Zoning Administrator’s approval of the use permit amendment is in large,
based on the fact that this facility is not a nightclub, but rather a restaurant/commercial
recreation use (billiard/cafe)that has some live entertainment.
The applicant has also stated that limiting live entertainment to only three days a week will
present an economic hardship for the business. Economic hardship is not included in the
three findings required for approval of a use permit.
: The proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title
18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The Zoning Administrator found that the use would be consistent with Policy 14 in the
Housing Element and Program 20 in the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive
Plan and the mixed-use regulations in the CD zone district based on the discussion in the
Policy section of this report and that it would contribute to the pedestrian vitality and
mixed-use character of the Alma Street. District. In the Comprehensive Plan, CD
P:WCSR~529AIma.sr 10-24-96
Page 8
regulations and Downtown Urban Design Guide, mixed-use has been considered a mix of
commercial, retail, office and residential uses and is a desirable land use pattern close to
transit. Live entertainment and billiard facilities are both considered commercial
recreational uses. The use would be consistent with Title 18, Zoning because commercial
recreation is a conditionally permitted use in the CDC(GF)(P) zone if all applicable
development requirements.can be met and use permit findings can be made.
Mr. Malan disagrees with the finding that commercial recreation is an appropriate use in
a mixed residential/business neighborhood, although he does not provide reasons for his
disagreemerit~ It should be noted that the neighborhood Mr. Malan references is primarily
a retail, commercial recreation and business area, with limited residential uses. The mixed-
use nature of the area is dominated by non-residential uses with which the proposed use
is compatible¯ The expectation in a mixed-use area is that there will be more noise and
activity than in a homogeneous single or multiple-family neighborhood. The purpose of
many of the City’s Mixed Use goals and policies is to bring different types of uses together
in a urban versus suburban environment. While owners of retail and commercial
businesses need to be sensitive to residential needs in mixed-me areas, residents also need
to be tolerant of the .activity that must be expected when living in all urban areas,
particularly those that are primarily commercial.
The business owners do not disagree withthe Zoning Administrator’s second finding.
¯-- _er3: 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.
This finding is required for issuance of any use permit-in the GF (g~ound floor) combining
district. The Zoning Administrator found that the design of the interior space of this
building is particularly suitable in that it is a large, open space .measuring 50 feet wide by -
125 feet deep with a minimal number of windows and other openings. The open nature of
the space lends itself to live and recorded music and dancing whereas more typically sized
and configured buildings would be less suitable to the use. The frontage on Alma Street,
facing the railroad rightoof-way is also an appropriate location for live music since the
ambient noise will tend to screen any noise that does escape.
P:~K~SR~529Alma.sr
Neither of the two appellants specifically disagreed with the Zoning Administrator’s third
finding.
Resident Appeal in General
Mr. Malan further listed the inadequate consideration of the hours of operation as grounds
for appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision. He did not specify why the hours would
be a detriment-, but staff assumes that he objects to the length of time music would be
allowed and the days of the week it would be allowed. The Zoning Administrator did
consider the hours of operation and significantly reduced the operating hours from those
requested by the applicant. Limiting the hours to between 9:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. on
Thursday, Friday and Saturdays is consistent with limitations placed on similar
establishments in commercial/retail areas...
At the Zoning Administrator hearing on July 18, 1996, four people spoke in opposition to
the use permit application and a petition with 18 signatures was submitted in opposition
to the proposal. The applicant and business manager spoke in favor of the application. The
comments focused on the issues summarized in this report (see Attachment 7 - Zoning
Administrator July 18, 1996 meeting minutes and Attachment 8 - Petition in opposition,
dated June 6, 1996).
The Planning Commission can recommend the following alternatives to the City Council:
Deny both appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s modified approval, with
22 conditions.,
Deny both appeals and modify the Zoning Administrator’s approval by adding such
additional conditions as were included in the ".Edge" use permit, including the
following:
a)The business operator shall submit a plan which addresses line control,
and the processing and dispersal of patrons waiting to enter the facility.
The plan shall be reviewed and approved by both the Police Departmentand Zoning Administrator.. The plan must identify methods for controlling
P:\PCSRk529Alma.sr
b)
and dispersing the crowd waiting to enter the establishment and will
include quantitative objectives such as the maximum allowable length of
an outdoor waiting line before and during events, and a time limit for
achieving the objective once a crowd forms. The plan shall be submitted
no later than 15 days after the issuance of this use permit and implemented
immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified.
The business operator shall submit a plan for the utilization of security
guards in directing patrons to designated public parking lots for the
purpose of reducing noise levels and vandalism in the Downtown. This
plan shall be reviewed and approved by both the Police Department and
Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify the number of guards
necessary for specific event types and days of the week, the boundaries
and specific areas the guards will patrol, specific public parking lots to
which patrom will be directed and the manner in which the guards are to
approach and direct motorists.
c)
d)
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 designated 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 the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall be submitted no later than
15 days after the issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately
upon approval unless otherwise specified.
Amend Condition #15 of the Zoning Administrator’s approval so that no
violations of the Noise Ordinance .are allowed, instead of the three
allowed by the Zoning Administrator.
Approve the resident appeal, which would result in a denial of the amendment tO
the original use permit.
.Approve the business owner’s appeal, which would result in an approval of the
amendment to the original use pe .rmit without the condition for the internal vestibule
and with the additional two nights of music on Tuesday and Wednesday.
There is no fiscal impact to the City has a result of any of the above actions.
P:WCSR~529AIma.~r 10-24-~
l~e 11
ENVIRONMENTAL AS~
A Negative Declaration was approved by the Director of Planning and Community:
Environment on June 20, 1996 (see Attachment 9).
S.TE__P_S FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Proceed to the City Council on November 18, 1996 for fina! action on the appeals.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
12.
Plans
Zoning Administrator Decision, dated August 1, 1996
Use Permit 94-UP-33
Application materials from applicant
Letter of appeal from Mr. Remy Malan
Letter of appeal from Mr. Jason Tan
Noise Analysis submitted by Vincent Salmon, P.Eo
Minutes from July 18, 1996 Zoning Administrator hearing
Petition in Opposition to application
Negative Declaration
Location Map
Letter of Support from Mr. Andrew Mitchell
Letters in Opposition to Amendment
[Commission members only]
Mr.Remy Malan, 685 High Street, #5B, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr.Jason Tan, Q Cafe Billiards, 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr.Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real, Suite 410, .Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr.Steve Joyce, Palo Alto Plaza Homeowners Association, 685 High Street, Palo Alto,
CA 94301
Keenan Land Company, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Bill McCann, 685 High Street, #2E, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Lt. Donald Harmett, City of Palo Alto Police Department
Watch Commander, City of Palo Alto Police Department
Prepared by: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Project Planner: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Division/Department Head Approval:
!
/~." ~--~.
Nancy Maddox Lyric, Chief Plmmin. ¯ g Official
P:\PCSRX529AIma.sr 10-24-96.
Page. 12
Attachment 11
INDUSTRIAL NOISE ACOUSTICAL SERVICES
(I.N.A.S. ENGINEERING)
Noise Control Specialists
P. O. BOX 3074
Santa Clam, CA 95055
Voice: 408 241 0901. FAX: 408 241 0270
Acoustical Engineering Report
Exterior Sound- Pressure Levels
due to music inside
The Q Cafe
Prepared for:The Q Cafe
529 Alma Street
Palo Alto, California
Attention: Mr. Jason Butler
Operations Manager
Prepared by:James Sidney Mills, Engineer
Date:19 December 1996
The Q Cafe 19 December 1996 Mr. Jason Butler
Operations Manager
Summary
This study resulted from our visit to the Q Cafe, our acoustical sound-pressure .level
measurements at various locations, inside and outside the Q Cafe, and our review of
the pertinent documents involved to a use permit application modification by the Q Cafe
to the city of Palo Alto, California. The Q Cafe management will operate an audio
system at an average level of 90[dBA] with the peak audio levels not to exceed
97[dBA]. We have supervised this kind of noise control for the Louden Nelson
Community Center in the city of Santa Cruz, for the California Rodeo, in Salinas, and for
the Monterey Jazz Festival in Monterey, California for example. Sound system
loudness control is a very effective way to limit neighbor noise levels. By operation of
inside average level at 90[dBA] will serve to keep the neighborhood noise levels very
near background noise levels. Dr. Vincent Salmon is an acoustical consultant for the Q
Cafe, and he has presented very important neighbor noise measurements and noise
reduction recommendations which are now in place at the Q Cafe.
During our visit to the Q Cafe, located at 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto, California, sound-
pressure level measurements were made on the roof top at a property line nearest to a
skylight, and at the front doors, both at the nearest potentially offended property lines.
All of the skylights have been modified according to Dr. Salmon’s recommendations,
making them double pane skylights. For the skylight sound leakage measurement the
recorded music was adjusted to an average sound-pressure level of 85[dBA], at the
center of the dance floor, variations in those music levels ranged from about 80 to as
high as 92[dBA]. The loudest sound-pressure levels due to the music from the Q Cafe
at this rooftop point, in the plane of the property line, was 50[dBA] even during the
maximum-sound-pressure levels inside the Q Cafe. This was the combined sound-
pressure level, combined with background at a maximum interior level of 92[dBA] while
this music was being played. For the background noise level of 49[dBA], this maximum
sound-pressure level from the Q Cafe music alone could only have been 43[dBA] or
¯ 6[dBA] below the ambient noise level of 49[dBA], which was required to increase the
local ambient noise level to 50[dBA]. If the interior level was say 97[dBA], the noise
level from music alone would be a of 48[dBA] due to Q Cafe music alone, or when
combined with a background sound-pressure level of 49[dBA] would produce a property
plane noise level of 52[dBA], and therefore will meet the limits established by the City of
Palo Alto noise ordinance section 9.10.040 (52 -~19 = 3[dBA] < 8[dBA]) see noise
ordinance section, below.
For the front door noise leak test the intensity of Q Cafe recorded music sound source
was increased to 95[dBA] average, and ranged from around 80 to 100[dBA]. The
reason for this increase in sound-pressure level of the recorded music was to enable
detection of the sound from inside the Q Care outside and one meter away from these
doom (about the plane of the property) due to the background noise levels there; higher
than on the roof. These background noise levels ranged from 60 to 95[dBA]. The
maximum sound-pressure level measured one meter away from just inside the front
doom, was 82[dBA] due to music being played as high as 100[dBA] measured at the
center of the dance floor. The noise reduction due to the front door was about 20[dBA],
i.N.A.S. Engineering -1-Potentially Offended
Property-Line Noise
The Q Care 19 December 1996 Mr. Jason But,!er
Operations Manager
which was correct considering the improvement of the door seals, according to Dr.
Salmon’s recommendations. On the outside, one meter away from those doors (about
the plane of the property), due to Q Cafe music combined with the background sound-
pressure level was a maximum of 63[dBA]. If this level was equal to the background,
both background and music would each be 60[dBA]. Thus, for an operational average
sound pressure level of 90[dBA], the sound-pressure level from the Q Cafe music alone
would be 55[dBA] -- 5[dBA] below the test maximum level. The combined level, if
combined with 49[dBA] background, would be 56[dBA], therefore this noise level will
meet the limits of the City of Palo Alto noise ordinance section 9.10.040.( 56 - 49 =
7[dBA] < 8[dBA].)
Dr. Slamon’s reports on this application are very clear and correct. Also his
recommended modifications correct the chief problems, skylight leakage and front door
noise leakage of sound to the exterior if allowed to operate including music at an
average 90[dBA] measured at the center of the dance floor there and which may range
as high, for short audio excursions to as high as 97[dBA] during a musical trill, for
example. It is clear from these additional on site observations that if allowed a use
permit modification, under these conditions, the Q Cafe music will not result in levels
higher than 8[dBA] above an ambient noise level of 49[dBA] at any of the potentially
offended property lines with their front doors closed.
Sound-Pressure Level Measurements
On Friday 13 December 1996, at 1100[hrs], day time, the author of this report visited
the Q Cafe at 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto, California. Two analog precision, ANSI type 1,
sound mon!tom, GenRad model 1933 sound-pressure level monitors, serial numbers
1011 and 2107, calibrated with a pure-tone microphone calibrator, before and after the.
data discussed in the above summary was obtained using them. The local noise levels
were monitored using fast response A-weighted settings on these meters, to comply
with the local city noise ordinance requirements.
The loudest sound-pressure levels due to the music from the Q Cafe, observed from the
rooftop, in the property plane with the dance floor level set at the center of the dance
floor to an average of 85[dBA] (range from 80 to 92[dBA]), was 50[dBA]. This level was
very reproducible and we suspect that it was the lowest day-time background noise
level at these particular locations with or without music inside the Q Cafe.
The front door sound-pressure level, at the potentially offended property line -o a public
street (sidewalk), were measured by elevation of the planned interior sound-pressure
level,, an average of 90[dBA], by 5[dBA] at the center of the Q Care dance floor to an
average of 95[dBA] (ranging from about 80 tO 100[dBA]). The empty room, clientele not
present, average sound-pressure level reduction for 95[dBA] sound-pressure level on
the dance floor at one meter away from the inside of the front doom was 13[dBA], thus,
the interior maximum sound-pressure level there was 82[dBA]. Just outside these
doom and one meter away (about the plane of the property) the maximum just barely
measurable noise level from the interior sounds was 63[dBA]. If the exterior
I.N.A.S. Engineering -2-Potentially Offended
Property-Line Noise
The Q Cafe 19 December 1996 Mr. Jason Butler
Operations Manager
background level was 60 then the sound-pressure level at this exterior property line
would be 60[dBA], a day-time low background noise level. This would result in a
sound-pressure level from the Q Cafe music alone of 55[dBA] for planned operational
level of 90[dBA]. A combined level of this 55[dBA] with background of 49[dBA] results
in a level of 56[dBA].
City of Palo Alto Applicable Noise Ordinance
Ordinance 2664 Paragraph 1 (part), 1972 (City of Palo Alto, California)
9.10.040 Commercial and industrial property noise limits.
No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or
device, or and combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level
more than eight dB (decibels) (8[dBA]) above the local ambient at any point outside of
the property plane.
9.10.050 Public property noise limits.
(a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by an machine or
device, or any combination of same, on public property, a noise level more than fifteen
dB (decibels) (15[dBA]) above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or
more, unless otherwise provided in this chapter.
Comments
Dr. Salmon’s two reports dated "96-01-31" and "96-04-26", supplied important noise
level data about the Q Cafe. It is noted in .Dr. Salmon’s first report that "live music" was
found to be quieter than "recorded music", thus, our tests would prove to be the loudest,
or limiting sound-pressure levels for possible neighbor intrusive level conditions during
operation of music inside the Q Cafe. The interpretation of the Palo Alto City Noise
Code, may be disputable, but never-the-less, it was found here that the Q Cafe meets-
the code for commercial property in the city of Palo Alto. Dr. Salmon, in private
communication, indicated that he supervised the modifications to the Q Cafe, which has
brought it into compliance with the strictest of the city of Palo Alto code for noise at a
potentially offended property line.
Conclusions
It is this investigator’s considered opinion that the sound-pressure levels on the exterior
of the Q Cafe will not interrupt the acoustical privacy of any citizens of Palo Alto
California if allowed to operate with either recorded or live music in a manner described
to me by the management of the Q Cafe; an operational average sound-pressure level
of 90[dBA] at the center of the existing dance floor. This opinion is based on the
following observations: First the operations management of the Q Cafe have in their
LN.A.S.= "= : "~n~,neer,nu - 3 -Potentially Offended
Property-Line Noise
The Q Care 19 December 1996 Mr. Jason Butler
Operations Manager
possession a digital sound-pressure level monitor which is adequate for ascertaining the
sound-pressure levels there; Second the operations manager, Mr. Jason Butler (he
claims to be reflecting the owners’ wishes), indicated his sincere interest in maintaining
a desirable clientele in the Q Cafe,and for this reason is not interested in loud music;
Third the modifications to the skylights and the front doors are certainly adequate to
maintain a desirable non-interfering Q Cafe background noise level for all of the
neighbors of the Q Cafe; Fourth the indicated responsibility of the operations manager,
Mr. Jason Butler, his knowledge of the operation of the "house" sound system, and
possession of a sound-pressure level monitor to control the intedor A-weighted sound-
pressure level will guarantee conformance with the city of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance
2664 Paragraph 1 (part), 1972 section 9.10.040 Commercial and industrial property.
noise limits. It is; therefore, our opinion that proper building modifications now being in
place, the Q Cafe qualifies for a negative declaration with regard to sound emissions
from it if allowed to operate including music at an .operational average sound-pressure
level of 90[dBA] measured at the center of the dance floor there.
Respectfully submitted,
California Electrical Engineer
James Sidney Mills, Engineer
I.N.A.S. Engineering -4 o Potentially Offend~_d -~
Attachment 1_~
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO:
FROM:
STAI~ REPORT
Planning Comission
Nancy Lytle DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1997
Appeals of Zoning Administrator Approval of Conditional Use Permit
96-UP-1 at 529 Alma Street
REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The owners of "Q" Billiards have applied for an amendment to their existing conditional
use permit in order to allow live entrertainment, including live music and dancing, seven
days a week from 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. The existing use permit at 529 Alma Street
allows the location and operation of a commercial recreation use (billiards) and an eating
and drinking facility with associated on-site sale and consumption of liquor, beer and wine.
Condition 1 of the existing Conditional Use permit prohibits live music.
RE~
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
Deny the appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a conditional use
permit allowing live entertainment, including music and dancing at an existing eating and
drinking and commercial recreation establishment, based on the negative declaration, as
amended, and findings and conditions presented in the October 30, 1996 staff report and
as modified in this report.
This application was the subject of a previous Planning Commission staff report, prepared
for the October 30, 1996 agenda. The policy implications of the application are described
on pages 4.and 5 of that report.
ZBINML-11529AIma.s i~e 1
i.~2-97
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This application was the subject of a previous Planning Commission staff report, prepared
for the October 30, 1996 agenda. The project was described and issues were discussed
in that report. On October 30, 1996, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing for this item to November 13, 1996. Upon taking public testimony, the
Commission again continued the item to January 8, 1997. The purpose of the continuance
was to allow the applicant and appealant further time to respond to information received
from the appealant regarding inadequacy of the noise analysis and questions regarding the
proposal’s lack of conformance with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, and to allow the
applicant, appeallant and nearby residents to further consider the hours of operation of the
proposed expanded use.
The applicant has submitted an acoustical engineering report titled "Exterior Sound-
Pressure Levels due to Music Inside The Q Cafe", prepared by James Sidney Mills and
dated December 19, 1996.
The acoustical engineering report concludes that when the sound system is controlled
inside the establishment and the front door is closed, the noise levels at the property plane
conform with the Palo Alto noise ordinance. The report relies on measures recommended
to reduce exterior noise impacts by Mr. Vincent Salmon, which have reportedly already
been implemented, specifically double parting .the skylight and improvement of front door
seals.
Staff further recommends that a conditions be added to the use permit which requires that
the internal noise levels be controlled to levels specified by the report from I.N.A.S.
Engineering. Suggested wording for the additional condition is:
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 the report by
LN.A.S., dated December 19,1996. A plan for accon~lishing volume control within the
establishment shall be prepared under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant
and 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 and self-
monitoring of interior sound levels, and other practicle or operational methods of
controlling and demonstrating the compliance with this internal volume requirement.
There is no fiscal impact to the City as a result of the above actions.
ZBINML-11529Alma.s Page 2
I-2-97
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A negative declaration was approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment on June 20, 1996. The additional teclmical information provided by the
applicant further substantiates the conclusions of the negative declaration prepared for the
proposed project, although staff recommends that the negative declaration be modified to
include reference to the most recent acoustical report and f’mdings.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
A.Staff report of October 30,. 1996, including findings and conditions and all other
attachments previously distributed
B. I.N.A.S. Engineering Acoustical Engineering Report, Exterior Sound-Pressure levels
due to Music Lnside The Q Care, December 19, 1996
C. Minutes of the November 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
COURTESY COPIES:
Mr. Remy Martin, 685 High Street, #5B, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr. Jason Tan, Q Cafe Billiards, 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr. Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real, Ste. 410, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. Steve Joyce, Palo Alto Plaza Homeowners Association, 685 High Street, Palo Alto,
CA 94301
Keenan Land .Company, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Bill McCan, 685 High Street, #2E, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Lt. Donald Hartnett, City of Palo Alto Police Department
Watch Commander, City of Palo Alto Police Department
Prepared by:
Project Planner: Lisa Grote
Division/Department Head Approval:
Nancy Madd0x Lytle
ZBI lqlvlL-I I J29Alma.s Page 3
I-2-97
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
July 18, 1996
529 Alma Street
THK.L Group, Inc.
96-UP-5
96-EIA-4
Attachment 13
Ms. Grote: This is a use permit for live entertainment. It would be for live and recorded music
and dancing at an existing restaurant and billiard facility. It is currently operating under a
separate conditional use permit for on-site sale and consumption of liquor, beer, and wine. So
they would be amending that to allow live entertainment. We will hear from the applicant.
Shawn Naughton. 529 Alma St., Manager. O Billiards: Right now, we have been doing a testing
period of live music and recorded music for dancing. So far, it has been going really well. There
have been no operational problems, and we really feel that especially in the Palo Alto area, for
entertainment of this kind and caliber, we are pulling a lot of the entertainment down from the
city and from San Jose. There is really an upscale place where you can go and enjoy that.and
have also have food in a pretty controlled environment. I understand that the only other place is
The Edge, which is for all ages, and gets a little out of control at times.
Ms. Grote: I have a couple of questions about your hours of entertainment. When would you be
in operation?
Mr. Naughton: We intend to expand on our present schedule. Right now, we have it scheduled
for Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
Ms. Grote: What time does it start?
Mr. Naughton: On Tuesdays, it starts at 8:30 p.m., and on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, it
starts at 9:30 p.m. It goes until approximately 1:00 or 1:30 a.m.
~: You would be held to those hours of operation, and I take it that the hours are stated
in your letter of application.
Mr. Naughton: That is fine. Would it be possible to extend that, because what we were hoping
to do at some point is to provide some sort of live entertainment five to seven nights a week in
varying degrees, like Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
doing a more low-scale like folk music on Tuesday, jazz, blues, and the bigger acts on Thursday,
Friday and Saturday.
Ms. Grote: If that is what you are.anticipating, you should say so now, and we can write that into
your conditions of approval, letting anyone here who is interested in that know now. Otherwise,
you would have to come back and amend your use permit.
That is what we would forecast as happening. So we.could say seven nights a
KIT I PCMINS-31AA529ALMA.ZA
7-18-96
Page 1
week, and generally from 8:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
~: Would it be acoustic music or folk music in the early part of the week?
~: Exactly, and on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, we would go to the bigger full-
scale bands and shows. .
.~: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application?
Remy Malan, 685 High ...Street, #5B, Palo Alto: In’ the four years I have lived in Palo Alto, this is
the first time that I have come to be a part of the civic planning process. I have some
documentation, and I do not "know exactly what your procedures are like, but I would like to
make some submissions to you. In the interests of time, I will just highlight them rather than
read it all to you. Let me begin with saying what some of my own personal experience has been
in the recent past. IfI begin on July 12th at 12:45 a.m., I actually got out of bed and got dressed
and went to my ear and droveon Alma Street to see where a loud noise was coming from. In the
past, I had heard noise, but I had not actually connected itwith 529 Alma Street. When I got the
planning card in the mail, that connected for.me what was going on. So I got out of bed to see
what was going on, and discovered that at 529 Alma Street, the glass doors to the establishment
were propped open. They were not intermittently opened as patrons entered. The band was
playing music facing towards the street, and there were a’lot of people milling around on the
sidewalk in front of 529 Alma Street and generally in the block between Hamilton and
University Avenue. I went around the corner and waited a couple of minutes, and then drove by
again. The situa.t.ion was pretty much the same, and I assumed this was the same noise that had
awakened me originally and was going constantly. So I went back home, and at 1:05 a.m., I
called 529 Alma Street and asked how long the music was going to be playing.. The waitress or
hostess who answered told me it would be until about 1:30 a.m. At 1:10 a.m. on July 12, I ealied
the Palo Alto Police Department and asked them what I could do about the noise. The answer I
got was, "Why don’t you call Judy Glace in the morning." "They did not go out and do anything
active at the time. The person I spoke to did not seem to be particularly bothered by the
situation. So on July 12th during normal business’hours, about ten hours later, I went and spoke
with Judy Glace, and got educated as .to what conditional use permits were. I then went up to the
fifth floor to the planning department, and in the result of my investigation, I could only discover
permit 94-UP-33 which, upon closer scrutiny, did n6t include, and in fact specifically prohibited,
live music from being played at 529 Alma Street. So with more due diligence, I discovered that
they have a conditional permit that ran from mid-December to the end of Januava’ but expired,
and then conditions reverted to 94-.UP-33.
The same thing happened on the evening of July 12 and July 13. At this point, I was sufficiently
concerned by the process that I went to 529 Alma Street early in the morning of July 14th, at
about 12:45 a.m. I shot some video tape of what the situation looks like. I have the tape with
me, and I would be happy to show it or leave it with you,
Ms. Grote: You can enter it into the record, but we do not have a place to show it here. I can
view it later.
~: So after talking to Judy Glace during the business hours of July 12, she suggested
7-18-96
KIT IPCMINS-31A:~529ALMA.ZA Pa, ge 2
that I call the watch commander. I called the watch commander at 1 : 15 a.m. on July 14th, and
"there was no ans~ver. At 1 : 18 a.m. on July 18th, I called the main after-hours number and asked
someone to take a noise reading. Also having done due diligence on Section 9.10 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code,i was concerned not only about conditional use infractions but also
municipal code infractions. At 1:45 a.m., a Sgt. Venable called me and said he was very son),,
but he had not been able to take a noise reading because they were too busy, it being a Saturday
night, they had more urgent things to do. So far, the Palo Alto Police Department is batting zero
to four. I called four times, and not once have I had anything happen. Even ifI call the next
time and they do something, it is still a 20% hit rate. On July 15th, I went back and did some
more searching of the active files, and still could not find any use permits. Q Cafe is advertising
in the Palo Alto Weekly. For example, if you look at the June 28th issue, Page 23, they advertise
and say, "Live bands most Thursdays and Fridays; DJ music dancing Wednesdays and Fridays."
Condition use permit 94-UP-33 says, Condition #1, this use permit does not authorize live music
at this site. So the question I have is currently whether 529 Alma Street is in violation of the
current, pertinent use permit. If that is the case, then I would like to lodge a formal, written
complaint that the establishment is not living up to its current use permits. Furthermore, I am
very concerned that if the applicant is not living up to current use permits and is perhaps not
living up to Section 9.10 of the municipal code, what could I expect if this additional permit were
approved? The current bel~avior seems to suggest that the conditional use permits have no
particular relevance to the applicant, because they appear to be not too concerned with them. I
am very, very concerned about introducing live music into the neighborhood. We have a mixed
use neighborhood. There are both homeowners, residences and families, as well as businesses in
our neighborhood. Further to that effect, we enter the following into the record. The following
is a letter signed by 18 individuals and owners who live at Palo Alto Plaza, and we object to the
approval of 96-UP-5. The pertinent issues are that it is a mixed use neighborhood, we hold
daytime jobs, and a lot of us go to bed between 9 and 10 p.m. We are people who get up early,
and We are concerned about Section 9.10.060(a) of the municipal code and the noise levels,
particularly noise levels outside the hours defined in that code section. We are concerned about
the applicant’s behavior; we are concerned about violations of Section 9.10 of the municipal
code, and we are concerned about the ability of the police department and the zoning process to
effectively deal with complaints we might have.
In closing, I would like to refer you to Section 9.10.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code which
states, ’It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the peace, health, safety and welfare
of the citizens of Palo Alto require protection from excessive, urmeces~ary and unreasonable
noises from any and all sources in the community.’ In light of the above items, the only dear .
course of action for the city is to reject conditional use permit 96-UP-5." That has been signed
by 18 of us. Finally, the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Plaza Homeowner~ Association, as
homeowners concerned not only with the peace and quiet but with the valuation of their
properties and the effect on the neighborhood, would also like to lodge a complaint against 96-
UP-5. I am submitting this on behalf of Stephen F. Joyce, President of the Palo Alto Plaza
Homeowners Association. I am also submitting this video tape.
Ms. Grot~e: I have a question. Whai were the dates on which you actually called the police?
You mentioned July 12th.
:Mr. Malan: It was on July 12th and July 14th.
KIT[ PCMINS-3 [A:\529ALMA.ZA
"7-18-96
Page 3
Ms. Grote: Have there been any other disturbances that you are aware of?.
]VIr. Malan: Yes, there was at least one call in April. I think a lot of people, particularly at 685
High Street, have heard the noise. A lot of people have not "known where it was coming from,
but they have heard and have been as’king, have you heard noise? Have you been disturbed?
There are people who say, "Yes, but I was not sure what it was." Not having had any zoning
input nor having had any postcards or coupon saying something is happening in the
neighborhood, people have not been sure. I think that for most people, they were upset but did
not know what was going on. It was not until I saw your postcard that I understood what, in fact,
was happening, and actually became quite angry that the use of the premises, as currently stands,
was being violated. As far as I can tell from lo0 "king at the optical and active files, music is not
allowed. Period. Not to test, not to do anything. Music is not allowed. I don’t want music in
the neighborhood. We have families, and I don’t want people who are going to violate their use
permit in the neighborhood. I don’t want that situation.
~: Is the disturbance from music and loud noise from people out on the sidewalk?
Mr. Malan: The continuous noise is music.. In my submission, you will find that one of the other
sources of irritation is that in the 1:30 to 2:00 a.m timeframe when patrons disburse, there are
people who stand in the street on High Street and yell and scream. As sobriety goes down,
noisiness goes up. That is more intermittent, but it can be disruptive, as well.
Ms. Grote: Did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Nau~: Of course, he has brought up some primary concerns to the community, and by ¯
no means do we intend to ignore those complaints. I remember the night that he called, and I did
not "know Who it was. Now that he has stated the time, I remember the phone call. We do not get
a lot of phone calls like that. We do not get a lot of phone calls about noise disturbances. We are
not looking at making this eafe a place to break rules. It goes against the nature of the
community, and we want this to be an interactive pan of the community. If the noise pollution
seems to be the biggest issue here, or if we are violating our conditional use permit, we have had
a few temporary permits, and Jason probably has the proper paperwork to show you when those
expired. To me, it seems that the noise pollution level and disturbing people who live nearby is ..
the main concern. We have already discussed in-house having a decibel limit so that we can
control it during that time period. By no means do we want to have a business that seems out.of
control. It clearly has not, in our experience, been something that is a major problem. We would
have received more phone calls asking us to keep the noise down. We would have been more
responsive if we had.
Mr. Malan: I can understand the applicant saying, if no one complains, it must be.okay. What if
I said, I am going to go through red lights, and if no one sees me, it is okay. There is a
fundamental issue of rule of law, which is that Palo Alto is a city oflaw. Palo Alto is not a city ¯
where I cab do whatever I want provided no one complains, irrespective of whether what I am
doing is breaking the law or not. I do not see that as being a pertinent issue.. I furthermore would
caution the applicant that a lot of us, being in a mixed use neighborhood, try to accommodate
businesses. The reason I do not have a hair trigger and am not on the phone every day to the
Palo Alto Police Department or that I am not in the office of the compliance manager every day
KIT! PCMINS-31A:~529ALMA.ZA."
7-18-96
Page 4
is that I try to get along with people who are around me, particularly with the businesses around
me. So for example, when Gordon Biersch might play music in the afternoon one weekend,
xvhich they did last weekend, I am sure that ifI had wanted to, I could go and find something in
the conditional use permit, 91-UP-12 1 believe, about live music at their premises. For me, the
issue became clear when I discovered where the noise was coming from. I must remind you that
this is the first time that I have actually tried to exercise my rights as a citizen, using due process
with the city. This is the first time I have tried to call the police department, and tried to go up
and look up what people are allowed to do and not allowed to do. The lack of response and the
lack of infrastructure has greatly concemed me. Compared to Thursday a week ago when, for
me, this started, I have moved from being a relaxed person to now being on edge. I am going to
document infractions; I am going to bein here; I am going to call the police department. If it
gets to the point where I have to, I will take my documentation, records of phone calls, video
tapes, and will start proceedings in other venues to get satisfaction. I have now moved from
being laid back to very much on edge, and I. want the applicants to understand that I am very
upset that they did not follow due process. I can’t believe it. It says to me that you are treating
me, YOur neighbor, with contempt. You don’t have to follow due process. You can just play
music. That says, you don’t care about my feelings. You never came and said, Remy, do you
mind if we play music? You just did it. So I take this as a very grave issue. I take this as an
affront to me, to my neighborhood, to the due process of the city, and I am adamant that 96-UP-5
not be approved..
Ms..Grote: I wotild like to explain that applicants can add to their existing use permit by
amendment. In the existing use permit, live music isn’t allowed. They did get approval for one
temporary use pe.rmit for live music from December 14 through January 27.
Mr. Malan: But it is now July. Six months ago, that permit expired.
Ms. Grote: So in answer to your question, yes, there have been some violations of their existing
use permit, or at least, it appears to be so. I think what they are doing now, however, is coming
to you, as well as to the rest of the neighborhood, to ask what if we were to do this on an ongoing
basis? They are hearing your response. They are asking for that permission,
Mr. Malan: The answer is absolutely not. May I ask, in closing, what is the current situation as .
of tonight? Is 94oUP-33 in effect or not?
Ms. Grote: Yes, that is their existing use permit. It allows them to serve beer, wine, and alcohol.
It does not allow them to play live music.
Mr. Malan: Yesi Condition #1 says, no live music.
Ms. Grote: Correct, and that is in effect now.
Jason Tan: After we got our use permit, and we were in operation for a while, we realized live
music would help our business. We applied for an amendment to our use permit, but the
application was incomplete because we didn’t have a noise analysis. We had to do sound ratings,
and that is why the process was slowed down. We’ve submitted two sound ratings in regards to
:noise. We do all we can to accommodate our neighbors and also follow the rules, but the city
K|TI PCMINS-3 t AA529ALMA.ZA
7-18-96
Pag~ 5
has a certain way of scheduling and processing applicationS, I do not see that that is our fault.
Ms: Orote: It is true that you were given a notice of incomplete saying that you needed to give
us more information on the sound levels and the sound study. However, that did not give you
any kind of implied approval to continue having music in the interim at all. That was to letyou
"know that you did not have a complete application and that it would not be processed until, you
did have a complete application.
Mr. Naughton: I think it is also important regarding the amount of response we get from people
directly in the community, we do get a good turnout for a lot of these shows. A lot of people
really enjoy them, and that is also a part of the community. I definitely think there is a feasible
resolution to all aspects of this problem. If the noise infractions are a primary concem, then of.
course we can turn things down and control it better so that it is satisfactory to the people around
us. I definitely do no~ want to wake people up in the middle of the night. I understand that this
is my schedule. I work until late, but that is not everyone’s schedule. I am not looking to push
anyone’s buttons. I feel there is a good solution that we can reach.
Ms. Grote: We will hear from another member of the public. Pleasestate your name and
address.
Samuel Kalinsky. 685 High street, Apt. 5A, Palo Alto: I agree with everything that Mr. Malan
has said. I.have an additional comment. I have been living here for 15 years. During that time,
Gordon Biersch came in. They also promised lots ofthi-ngs, and they g0t extens.ions on their
hours, and they.were supposed to do certain things. One of them was that they were supposed to
clean the alley every three weeks. I think they have done it about three times in the last year.
Complaints to the city have not resulted in any punishment at all to them. They are told that they
are inviolation, or they are not told, and they have ignored it. It does not seem to have any effect
on them. Now you have asked why more people did not Complain. I will tell you that it is
because it has been our experience that complaints do not bring any results from the city. We
experience th~ noise, and we ha~,e been awakened by it..It is not only their playing of the music.
People come out into the street at the end of the playing, yelling at each other, b!owing horns,
and that wakes us at 2 a.m. even if we had slept up until that time. Another point I would like to
make is that Gordon Biersch hasgotten temporary permits’ for live music. They have played
Saturday and Sunday recently. I don’t know if they got a permit for that.
Ms..Grote: They did. It was a temporary use permit for two days.
Mrl Kalinskv: Well, I don’t think it is proper to have people playing live music on Sunday night.
So even if they got a temporary permit, I don’t think it is proper. What if Gordon.Biersch learns
that some other establishment has gotten a live music permit. They might ask, why shouldn’t we
have a live music permit? .Why shouldn’t the restaurant across the street have a live music
.permit? Why couldn’t all four restaurants that are on that street have live music? i think it
would set a bad example. Thank you.
Martin Bemstein. P.O. Box 1739, Palo Alto: I also live in the 600 block’ofHigh Street. I heard
something today that was kind of shocking. Is it true that music is not allowed today?
KITI PCMINS-3 [ A:L529ALMA.ZA
7-18-96
page 6
Ms. Grote: Live music is not allowed at the establishment.
Mr. Bernstein: I am a frequent customer at the Q Cafe, and I was there Monday, July 15th, and I
heard music. So I am shocked that it is not allowed. It was live music. A woman was singing. I
also believe that this is a land of laws, and laws in the public interest should not be violated. But
what I also want to mention is that if the applicant could explain whether he would be willing to
add a narrow layer of plastic on the skylights, that is a source of sound. Another question is,
could the applicant be willing to have the doors closed while there is live music?
~: We will continue taking public testimony and then return to your questions.
Bill McCann. 685 High Street, #2F, Palo Alto; I have been a resident here since 1984. I do not
want live music in the neighborhood. I have to get up at about 5 in the morning and am at work
by 6:30 a.m. I go to bed about 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. I went through the Gordon Biersch thing
several years ago with the live music. They wanted live music, and their permit did not allow for
it. From the standpoint of reasons, it has to do with the noise from the music itself. It is
disruptive and keeps me awake. I feel we are all entitled to a good night’s sleep. We were in the
neighborhood first. It is a mixed use neighborhood. Palo Alto Plaza went up in 1982. When
Gordon Biersch came before the City Council, one of the things that one of the City Council
members mentioned was the fact that if they were going to open their restaurant and their
brewery, they had to be good neighbors. They were not allowed to play live music. That is part
of their permit. In that regard, they have been a good neighbor. They were supposed to clean the
alley on a weekly basis, not every three weeks, as I recollect. They do not do it On a regular
basis. Late at night, we have to put up with the individuals who are out and about from having
too much to drink. They are loud; they are obnoxious. They urinate in the planters. They vomit
in the plaza, and we live there. In terms of adding live music to the Q Cafe, absolutely not. I am
dead set against it. Everyone I have spoken to who lives in the complex is dead Set against it. I
\vould like to second everything that Remy Ma!an had to say and everything that Sam Kalinsky
had to say. Thank you.
¯~: I now will return to Mr. Bemstein’s comments and ask the applicant, if you were to
have conditions on your use permit, if this were approved, to close windows and keep doors
closed, and somehow to attenuate noise coming from skylights, would that be something you
would be willing to do?
Mr. T~in: Yes, definitely. We try to be good neighbors, as we mentioned earlier. So I w~ll
\~a’ite, based on the noise ratings and also, on the permit conditions, which should be based on the
municipal code,that I will alternate all impacts possible. I would also add that this is a great
buildinbg for live music because of its design, and the fact that it has very fe~k, windows. I never
thought about the skylight being a sound source. If that is the ease, we are willing to do anything
to accommodate that point of view to reduce the sound coming from the premises.
Mr. Naug_h!.o_n.: I definitely do not want to devalue what anybody here has had to say and act like
we are ignoring them. I really do not think that is where we are coming from with this.
Anything that we need to do to enforce control or sound output, decibel levels, or whatever is
under the legal limit, we are willing to conform to those rules so that we can still provide this
form of entertainment and comply with their complaints. I reallydo believe that their complaints
KIT [ PCMINS-31A:\529ALMA.ZA -
%18-96
Page 7
are valid. I would also encourage direct contact with our establishment. I am totally open to
hearing their complaints and dealing with them personally. With our closing doors and
insulating skylights, whatever we need to do, we will do.
~____~rote: Would that be acceptable to you?
Mr. Tan: I think I’ve heard that there is a lot of anger. I heard a lot of anger related.to Gordon
Biersch. We have nothing to do with Gordon Biersch~ We are totally unrelated.. In terms of
cleaning the alley, I have nothing to do with that.
~: Yes, you’ve heard anger here today. I also think that some of the things you have
done have eroded your neighbor’s faith in your ability to comply with conditions placed on a
Use Permit. That iswhat the neighbors are concerned about. That is something I have to take
into account in considering your application. How willing would you be to live with conditions?
How able are you to live with the conditions that you have now? It does not appear that there is
a good record there. ...
Mr. Nau~ht0n: I will take the responsibility for that negligence. I am the general manager. But
again, a large portion of that was in being overzealous and bringing in the best people we
possibly could, and not obeying the letter of the law. That is my fault, and I apologize for that.
Any measures that are taken we will of course comply with in the future." I do not want to have a
problem with the neighbors, with the community, with law enforcement or anybody. I want a
nice even playing field where it is beneficial and enjoyable for everyone.
~: Is Sere anyone else who would like to comment.
Mr. Kalinsky: Part of our complaint is not against the establishment but with the city and the
enforcement of its regulations. People are worn down bythe city’s lack of response to their
complaints. They are saying, nobody has complained, but actually, it is the wearing down of the
neighbors. When they say they are not concerned with Gordon Biersch, Gordon Biersch has
been an example of how the city listens to our complaints. When the City Council decided
originally that there would be no live music, they had good reason for that. At that time, we had
a roomful of people here. It wasn’t just three people. There was a roomful of people here who
said they did not want live music. The City Council agreed to that, but then, as you said, they
just got a temporary permit. Then they will get another temporar7 permit. "Then they will get a
permanent permit.
Ms.’Grote: I understand what you are saying.
Mr. Malan.: The thrust of what we are saying is, we do not want live music in the neighborhood.
That is the thrust of what we are saying. We do not want noise in the neighborhood. We don’t
want noise in the neighborhood until Two a.m., with or without live music. We are saying, we
don’t want noise in the neighborhood.
~: I am g~ing to very quickly read these names that have signed the letter in opposition,
and then I will close the public hearing and issue a written decision within ten working days.
Please fill out a form if you would like to receive a copy of the decision. People in opposition to
KIT I PCMINS-31AA529ALMA.ZA
7-18-96
Pa.ge 8
the application are Samuel Kalinsky, Leslie Kalinsky, Tim Dirks, Karen Seymour, Ann Lyons,
Leslie M. Davis, Remy Malan, Yuko Malan, Kathy Jordan, M. K. Atkinson, P. F. Atkinson, W..
B. McCarm, F. Dave Roberts, Sarah Elder, Dimitrios Dimitreus, Robert G. Hall, Denise Daniels,
and Susan Smith, as well as the other two letters that Mr. Malan entered into the record. Thank
you for coming.
KITI PCMINS-31A:k529ALIdA.ZA
7-18-96
Page 9
Attachment 14
July 17, 1996.
The Zoning Administrator
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Zoning Administrator,
We, the home owners and residents of Palo Alto Plaza, being citizens of Palo Alto, would like to
express inthe strongest possible tenus our opposition to the approval of the proposed Conditional
Use Permit 96-UP-5, 96-EIA-4 pertaining to the business at 529 Alma Street (Q Cafe Billiards).
Our Objections are the following:
Our neighborhood is a mixed-use neighborhood consisting not only of businesses but
also of residences. This is where our families live. This is not a "commercial strip"
where no one lives. The proposed operation Under proposed Conditional Use Permit
96-UP-5 of allowing live music is not consistent with a mixed-use business/residential
neighborhood.
Most of us hold regular daytime jobs and, like many people these days, many of us
also work at least 40 hours per week. We cannot afford to be kept awake at night since
we typically have to be at our jobs bet~veen 8am and 9am every weekday morning.
Many people here start going to bed at 10pro. The hours of operation for 529 Alma
Street are stated as being from 9am to 2am, seven days a week in a letter from Holman
Designrecei.ved by theCity on 21 July 1994.
3.Of particular concern to us is tl~e noise level outside the hours defined in Section
9.10.060(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
We are concerned with the Applicant’s apparent behavior. Research of the City’s files
indicates that there is no cun’ent live music pemait in effeci at 529 Alma Street.
However, these last few weeks there have been regular live music events and
advertising to that effect in the Palo Alto Weekly (e.g., P.A. Weekly, 7-12-96, pg. 24).
¯ We believe that the Applicant is not following due process and is not living up to the
conditions of their current Conditional Use Pemait, 94--UP-33. Therefore, we have
absolutely no basis on which to believe that the Applicant would follow any of the
conditions specified in Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-5 should any such Conditional
Use Permit be approved.
5.The Applicant’s behavior of propping open the establishment’s doors during business
hours also leads us to dot,bt th:~t Section 9.10 (Noise) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Would be complied with should this Application be approved.
Zoning Administrator, Page 2
Our recent experience in reporting noise incidents to the City of Palo Alto Police
Department shows that it is sometimes difficult for the Police Department to respond
effectively (e.g., takes too long to respond) to noise complaints due to the fact that our
complaints must compete for attention with more serious matters. In addition, our
recent experience with the City of" Palo Alto on other zoning issues does not give us
confidence in the City’s enforcement capabilities. Therefore, until the City of Palo Alto
can, to our satisfaction, demonstrate that it has both the ability and the will to respond
to noise complaints and that it has both the ability and the will to enforce infractions we
believe that approval of this Application would lead to rampant un-enforced infractions.
In closing we would like to remind the City of Palo Alto that we, citizens of Palo Alto, expect the
City to uphold Section 9.10.010 of the Palo Alto Municip.’d Code which states:
"h is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of Palo Alto require protection from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises f.rom
any and all sources in the cotrununio’."
In light of the above items, the only clear course of action for the City of Palo Alto is to reject
Conditional Use Permit Application 96-UP-5, 96-EIA-4.
Yours sincerely,
Palo Alto Plaza Home Owners and Resktents
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Signature
Signature
¯ Si :ure
S
Si
Signature [/ " -
Sigl
¯ Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Name
Pri ntcd Name
Address
Address
Address
Address
~kddress
Address
ddress.
Address
Address
S~nature,
Signature
O.
Signat~
Sign
Si
nature
Zoning Administrator, Page 3
Printed Name Address’
Printed Name Address
Printed Name _Address
Printed Name Address
Printed Name Address
Printed Name Address
Printed Name Address ’
Ihinted Name Address
Prinled Name Address
Attachment 15
Letters in support of use permit amendment
~ I VED
oct 08 996
[Jepar~rli~t~ ot Planning and
Community Environment
514 HIGH STREET,PALO ALTO, CA 94301
TELEPHONE 415.328.7383 ~’FACSIMILE 415.327.3675
September 27, 1996
Planning Commission
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
This letter is sent in support of"Q" Cafe’s appeal to the Planning Commission to amend its use
permit to allow live music at the "Q" for more than three nights, and to be able to do so subject
to reasonable conditions. I am a frequent patron of the "Q" and work in the nearby area. I have
been consistently impressed with the quality of their management and the provisions the "Q"
makes for its customers and concern for its neighbors.
I feel that.the "Q" offers a level of quality entertainment that is much needed in the downtown
Palo Alto area. The "Q" has attracted customers from all over the Bay Area which has resulted
in increased business in the downtown area. I request that the Planning Commission allow the
"Q" to continue to offer live music on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday
.nights.
Sincerely,
Andrew S. Mitchell
Director Brand Management
ASM/If
November 19, 1996
The Planning Commission
City of Palo Alto
5th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RECEIVED
NOV 1 9 199B..
Department ot Planning an~
Community Environment
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to you in support of live music at the Q Cafe and Billiards.
I am a thirty five year old Palo Alto resident living within four blocks of the Q Cafe.
I, like many of my friends, had been enjoying the existence of a local friendly place,
with a mixed age group, where we could dance to excellent live music on a
reasonably large wooden dance floor.
In all my experiences going to the Q Cafe I never saw anyone being abusive, rude,
¯ or urinating in the street. In contrast, everyone was exceptionally friendly.
After the Q Cafe was stopped from having live music I personally visited their
immediate next door neighbour, Fasani Carpets, and asked their staff if they’d ever
been bothered by people from Q Cafe. Not only had they not been bothered, they
were pleased that the Q Cafe had brought so much more life and foot traffic to an
otherwise neglected part of downtown. ..
The Q Cafe attracted a high calibre of live bands to downtown Palo Alto, including
the renowned Pride and Joy. This is exactly the sort of place that downtown Palo
Alto is in dire need of for the many people of my generation. We lost the
opportunity to have a first rate place to enjoy live music and dancing when the
Varsity Theater became a book store. It seems a tragedy that now yet another
opportunity is being lost. The Q Care, in practical effect, is being put out of business
due to the complaints of a vocal minority.
I speak for a substantial number of Palo Altans who wish to see the Q Cafe have
live music once again. Please restore their permit for live music prior to the
Christmas holiday season.
Sincerely
Jeremy Sutton
245 Everett Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel. (415) 325-3493
Copy: Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Daily, San Mercury News Peninsula Edition
October 2, 1996
Mr. Stephen Joyce
685 High St. # 2c
Palo Alto CA. 94301
Dear Mr. Joyce,
This letter is in regards to the sound levels at Q Care:
Our intent is to better understand the levels of discomfort that you and your
renters/owners have experienced through the practices of Q Cafe. We would like if possible to
make some sound readings (by a certified Acoustic Engineer) from the properties of Mr. Milan
and your units on Forest Street. We have already done so on two separate occasions at Q Cafe
and have had some very informative results.
We hope to achieve an agreeable safe volume level to establish and maintain a friendly
relationship with our community and more importantly the neighbors directly surrounding our
business. If you would please consult with Mr. Milan and your other tenants so that we may set
aside an agreeable time to make these readings I would much appreciate the effort.
Thank you. Looking forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Shaun Naughton
General Manager
Q Cafe
Palo Alto
cc Lisa Grote
Nancy Lytle
Remy Milan
Attachment 16
Letters in opposition to use permit amendment
SUSAN K. SMITH
685 HIGH ST. # 2C
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
(415) ~ 321-6518
The City of Palo A~to
Planning Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Planning Commission Members,
RECEIVED
00T 0 1996
Departmen~ oi Planmng ar~Community Environrnem
This letter is a protest to the proposed granting of a use
permit to the owners of ~’Q" Billiards at 529 Alma Street to
allow live music at their establishment.
My concern is focused on the late night noise thatis generated
by the patrons of "Q" Billiards after midnight when they are
leaving the establishment. We have had our sleep, disturbed on
several occasions with patrons noisily returning to their cars
after an evening at "Q" Billiards.
We can clearly hear conversations, often.obscene referring to
the evening at the "Q" billiards. This situation was
particularly noticeable when the "Q" Billiards had a band until
late in the evening.
I have lived at this location for over seven years and
understand that this is a mixed use locationr but usually the
area is quiet after about ten o’clock PM, even on weekends. The
addition of a band by the "Q" Billiards changes that scenario.
Why didn’t the ~’Q" Billiards tell us that they wanted a band
when they applied for a use permit in. the first place? The
owners of the "Q" Billiards obviously do not live in this area
and do not have to expose members of their family to this
intrusion.
I hope that you will consider the rights .of the residents of
this area over the desires of a tavern owner who wishes to make
more money
I may be reached at (415) 321-6518 if you have any questions.
Thank You
Susan K. Smith
M. Louise Brobander
165 Forest Avenue #4A
Palo Alto, CA 94301
October 25, 1996
Dear Commissioner Cassel,
As a Palo Alto resident I am writing to let you know that I am not in favor of the City of
Palo Alto approving Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-5 for live entertainment at 529 Alma
Street. Live entertainment will change the character of my neighborhood in a way that is
undesirable to me. I don’t want people on.the streets in my neighborhood until 2:00AM
as proposed in permit 96-UP-5.
My current experience with Gordon Biersch being so close is that from time to time I
have been awakened and offended by late-night clientele yelling, arguing, vomiting and
urinating in the Palo Alto Plaza, in the alley behind my unit, and/or on High Street. I
hold a regular daytime job and I need to be able to sleep at night.
Please do not approve Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-5.
Yours truly,
M. Louise Brobander
Kathy Jordan
685 High Street #5C
Palo Alto, CA 94301
October 25,1996
Dear Commissioner Cassel,
I am writing to you because I do not want to see my; neighborhood’s chara~i~r degraded.
Q Cafe Billiards at 529 Alma Street has applied to have live entertainment. Thisentertainment would last until 1:30AM in the morning with the business staying openuntil 2:00AM. Since I live about a block from Q Care Billiards I am very concerned thatthe noise from the business and the noise in the streets"from.the patrons going back totheir cars between 1:30-2:00AM is going to be very disruptive.
A. Remy Malan
685 High Street #5B
Palo Alto, CA 94301
October 24, 1996
Phyllis. Cassel
621 Wellsbury Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Commissioner Cassel:
I am writing to you because I am not in favor of the City of Palo Alto approving
Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-5 for 529 Alma Street (Q Cafe Billiards). Palo Alto has a
unique downtown area that is highly regarded for its livability. The downtown area has
been kept unique because it is not just a commercial strip; it is a place where people live
too. This is reflected in the City’s zoning-of downtown as an area which allows single
family, multi-family and businesses throughout the downiown .area.
Permit 96-UP-5 would allow for live entertainment until 1:30AM within one block of
established residences. In this neighborhood we have already "run the experiment" with
Q Cafe Billiards. I have been subjected to disturbances created by permit violations at Q
Cafe Billiards and I have had to call to police on more than one occasion because my
sleep was being disrupted (see enclosure). I do not want the current situation sanctioned
by the City.
There is no reason for the City to approve 96-UP-5.
Sincerely,
A. Remy lVl~lan
enclosure
Phone/Event Log with Palo Alto Police Department re: 529 Alma Street
A. R. Malan, 685 High Street #SB, Palo Alto
8/23/96. 12:05 AM
8/22/96, 11:22 PM
8/22/96. 12:30AM
8/21/96. 11:55PM
8/18/96. after midnight
7/26/96. after midnight
7114/96. 12:30AM
7/12/96. 12:48A~M
Spoke with Officer S. Pdess re: 96-UP-5 and background.
Called PAPD re:. live music at Q Cafe Billiards:
Officer Martin left message on home office machine
cont"mating Use Permit infraction and that letter would be sent
to Planning Department.
Asked for ETA on someone to discuss Use Permit issue.
Live band playing. Called PAPD for help with infraction of
Use Permit. Was asked "have you spoken with the Planning
Dept.?"
Loud music and dancing.
Loud music playing.
Live band playing, I:15AM called watch commander number -
no answer, 1:18AM called main nurhber and asked for noise
check.
Loud, continuous noise coming from Q Cafe Billiards.
Bill McCann
685 High Street #2F
Palo Alto, CA 94301
October 20, 1996
Phyllis Cassel
621 Wellsbury Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Commissioner Cassel:
I’ve been a resident of Palo Alto Plaza since 1984 and I know the difficulties of mixeduse neighborhoods. I am in the investment business and this requires that I be up earlyin the morning, which means I go to bed early at night. Live bands and late night noisedo not allow for a good night’s sleep. We were residents here before Q Care Billiardsmoved in.
I want to bring to your attention that many residents in Palo Alto are not in favor of the
City approving Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-5. In July 1996 eighteen residents signeda petition expressing their disapproval and citing a number of reasons, first and foremostbeing the appropriateness of live entertainment so close to established residences.
I have attached a copy of the petition for your review. Please do not approve permit 96-UP-5. We don’t want live music at Q Cafe Billiards and we don’t want late night noise.
Sincerely,
Attachments
July 17, 1996.
The Zoning Administrator
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Zoning Administrator,
We, the home owners and residents of Palo Alto Plaza, being citizens of Palo Alto, would like to
express in the strongest possible terms our opposition to the approval of the proposed Conditional
Use Permit 96-UP-5, 96-EIA-4 pertaining to the business at 529 Alma Street (Q Cafe Billiards).
Our objections are the following:
o
o
-4.
Our neighborhood is a mixed-use neighborhood consisting not only of businesses but
also of residences. This is where our families live. This is not a "commercial strip"
where no one lives. The proposed operation under proposed Conditional Use Permit
96-UP-5 of allowing live music is not consistent with a nfixed-use business/residential
neighborhood. ~.
Most of us hold regular daytime jobs and, like many people these days, many of us
also work at least 40 hours per week. We cannot afford to be kept awake at night since
we typically have to be at our jobs between 8am and 9am every weekday morning.
Many people here start going to bed at 10pm. The hours of operation for 529 Alma
Street are stated as being from 9am to 2am, seven days a week in a letter from Holman
Design received by the City on 21 July 1994.
Of particular concern to us is the noise level outside the hours defined in Section
9.10.060(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
We are concerned with the Applicant’s apparent behavior. Research of the City’s files
indicates that there is no current live music permit in effect at 529 Alma Street.
However, these last few weeks there have been regular live music events and
advertising to that effect in the Palo Alto Weekly (e~g., P.A. Weekly, 7-!2.-96, pg. 24).
We believe that the Applicant is not following due process and is not living up to the
conditions of their current Conditional Use Pemait, 94-UP-33. Therefore, we have
absolutely no basis on which to believe that the Applicant would follow any of the
conditions specified in Conditional Use Pemfit 96-UP-5 should any such Conditional
Use Permit be approved.
The Applicant’s behavior of propping open the establishment’s doors during business
hours also leads us to doubt that Section 9.10 (Noise) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
would be complied with should this Application be approved.
Zoning Administrator, Page 2
o Our recent experience in reporting noise incidents to the City of Palo Alto Police
Department shows that it is sometimes difficult for the Police Department to respond
effectively (e.g., takes too long to respond) to noise complaints due to the fact that our
complaints must compete for attention with more serious matters. In addition, our
recent experience with the City of Palo Alto on other zoning issues does not give us
confidence in the City’s enforcement capabilities. Therefore, until the City of Palo Alto
can, to our satisfaction, demonstrate that it has both the ability and the will to respond
to noise complaints and that it has both the ability and the will to enforce infractions we
believe that approval of this Application would lead to rampant un-enforced infractions.
In closing we would like to remind the City of Palo Alto that we, citizens of Palo Alto, expect the
City to uphold Section 9.10.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code which states:
"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of Palo Alto require protection from excessive, tmnecessary and unreasonable noises from
any and all sources in the commttnity."
In light of the above items, the only clear course of action for the City of Palo Alto is to reject
Conditional Use Permit Application 96-UP-5, 96-EIA-4.
Yours sincerely,
Palo Alto Plaza Home Owners and Residents
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Signature
Signature
Si
Signature
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Sig?atu~~~,~Printed Nanle
~!~:~l-g~ature 0 Printed Name
Address
Address
Address
Address
Address
Ad~ess
Address
Address
Si~,nature,
$i
Signature
Signatt
Si
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name _
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed Name
Printed
Printed Name
Zoning Administrator, Page 3
Address
Address
Address
Address
Address
Address
Address
Address
Address
STEPHEN W. PLAYER
September 3, 1996
-- You have indicated to me that you wished to talk with ~rtaln individuals befor~ you
would be willing or able to me~t, and I have yet to hear back from you with your r.pons~. I ¯
fe~l that it is in the best interest of all parties to try and reach some agreement on tbe issues
which .have be~n raised prior to any hearing or other public discussions on the matter. I think
that tbe City would be appreciative of our effo~ to do so, and Nancy Lytle and Lisa Grote
have each indicated their willingness.to sit in on such a m~ting to help facilitate tha process.
I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest possible date for a time that is
convenient for all parties to me~t.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
SWP:pw
~: St~pl~n F. Joyce .
Pale Alto Plaza Homeowners’ Association-
2600 EL (3AMINO REAL. ~UITE 410
PALO ALTO, (~A 1)4:~06
STEPHEN F. JOYCE
685 HIGH ST. # 2C
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
(415) 321 =6518
September 15, 1996
Stephen W. Player
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Mr. Player:.
This con’espondence is in response to your letter of September 3, 1996 to Mr. Reme
Malan with a copy to me (copy attached).
As the President of the Palo Alto Plaza Homeowners’ Association, I have been very
aware of the issue regarding your client, The "Q" Care and t_h. eir request for a
modification to their use permit which would allow them to have live entertainment.
First of all, please note that the reason that the Homeowners’ Association did not
appeal the decision of the Zoning Administration was one of pure expediency. Reme
Malan was kind enough to take the time from his employment to file an appeal, so we
felt that one appeal was. enough to get our issues heard. The homeowners stand
solidly behind this issue.
Your letter was surprising to me, which probably illustrates my naivet~ regarding the
workings of our city government. Our thought process lead us to believe that the issue
was between your client and the City of Palo Alto. Your client was requesting a use
permit which, we believe, will infringe on the present multi-use environment of the
University Avenue area. In the past eight years that I have lived in Palo Alto Plaza, it
has been obvious that the nature of the neighborhood has been one of =hustle -
bustle’-in the early morning (5:00 AM trash trucks, street cleaners and trains) all day
and into the early evening. The growing number of.restaurants in the area all slow
down about 10 PM and the streets are very quiet by about 10:30 PM. Your client is
seeking to change the nature of that environment. We would, if the nature of the
neighborhood changes as your client proposes, face noise from 5:00 AM to 2:00 AM.
When do we sleep?
When your client applied for a use permit, live entertainment was not requested or
mentioned. Your client’s unilateral decision to begin live music was a complete
surprise to us. The loud music at the =Q" Care is a Serious intrusion into our private
lives. We at Palo Alto Plaza can hear clearly, the music and lydcs at your client’s
location as if it were in our living rooms.
Additionally, it appears that most of the patrons that frequent your client’s
establishment after 10:00 PM are not residents of the area, but drive into the area
from someplace else. This fact is important because the patrons returning to their cars
to drive home are often loud and verbally profane. I experienced this at 1:50 AM this
morning on High Street which included loud cursing and horn blowing. The individuals
involved left no doubt that they had been in the "Q" Care.
Finally, I am very puzzled that you would suggest that "...# is in the best interest of all
parties to try and reach some agreement on the issues which have been raised prior
to any hearing or other public discussions on the matter. / think that the City would be
appreciative of our efforts to do so and Nancy Lytle and Usa Grote have indicated
their willingness to sit in on such a meeting to facilitate the process".
My thought was that the issue in question was between your client and the City of
Palo Alto. Your client, in violation of existing use permits, employed live entertainment
which dis~rb~.d the neighborhood. Your client did not botheJ" to ask anybody for a
variance to the existing use permit to do so. After the hearing in which the Zoning
Administrator did approve the use of live entertainment on Thursday, Friday and
Saturday nights (although this permit was not yet effective because an appeal had
been filed) your client promptly employed live entertainment on a Wednesday night, in
clear violation of the existing and pending permit.
My opinion is that this matter is between the City of Palo Alto, who is charged with the
enforcement of zoning regulations, both existing and contingent, and your client. I can
not understand how the representatives of a group of homeowners can negotiate
zoning violations and future zoning regulations with a bar owner, or his legal
representative. We are not elected nor appointed to do so.
At this time neither I, Reme Malan or any other representatives of the Palo Alto Plaza
Homeowners’ Association are prepared to meet with you for two reasons: 1.) We feel
that this is a matter between the officials of the City of Palo Alto and your client. 2.)
¯ You are anattomey and an ex member of the Palo Alto City council, we are neither
and would be at a severe disadvantage in any negotiations. We feel that is up to the
officials of the City of Palo to represent our best interests and to protect the multi use
environment of our Uniwrs~ty Avenue neighborhood.
Should you have any questions, I may be reached at 510.505.4415 during working
hours.
Very Truly Yours
Stephen F. Joyce
cc: A. Reme Malan (with attachment)
Lisa Groute, City of Palo Alto (with attachment)
Nancy Lylte, City of Palo Alto (with attachment)
NOV-13-1996 13:49 FROM JULIE BAIGENT OFFICE FAX TO 3292240 P.OI
JULIA M. BAIGENT
ATTORNEY AT LAW
13 Woodleaf Avenue
Redwood City, California 94061
415 364-7800
Fax415 364-9131
TO:Ms. Lisa Grote/Ms. Nancy Lytle;
TO:Mr. Bernard Beecham; 322-7059
TO:Mr. Owen Byrd; 833-0299
TO:Mr. Victor Ojakian; 851-3151
TO:Mr. Jonathan Schink; 322-0298
TO.:Ms. Kathryn Schmidti 327-0757
COPY TO:Mr. Remy Malan; 336-2374
329-2240
FROM:Julia M. Baigent, Esq.
DATE:November 13, 1996
FILE NO:M001-00100
NUMBER OF PAGES: 7 (including cover sheet)
ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL:YES X NO
THIS MF.SSAGE IS rNTENDI~D ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY" TO WHICH IT IS
ADDF.P..~ED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORM.AT/ON THAT IS PRIVILEGI~D, CONF]DBqqTIAL OR EXEMFT FROM
DISCLOSURE UN’DEI% A.PPI/CABLE LAW. I~ THE lt.EADER O1: THIS MI~SSAGE IS NEITHER THE INTENDED
RECII’Hg~T NOR THE EM]’LOYEE OR AGENT RESI’ONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE
INTI~ND~D RF~IPIL~T, YOU" A/~ HL~T,J~Y NOTII~D THAT ANY DISSI~IINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR
COPYING OF. THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITISD, IF YOU HAVF~ 17,ECEIVF..D THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ILq.KOR, PLF.,ASE NOTIFY US LMMKDIATELY ~Y TELP..,PHONE, AND RETURN THE
O~IGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA TH~ U.$. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
MESSAGE/COMMENTS
We will be submitting this letter to the Planning Commission this
evening, and would like to give you a chance to review the letter
and the referenced documents and code sections in advance. Thank
you.
NOV-l~-96 WE.") 2:40 PI~I 415 364 9131 ?,
NOU-13-1996 13:58 FROM JULIE BAIGENT OFFICE FAX TO 3292240 P.02
Phone: (41~) ~-7800 Julia M. Baigent
Attorney at .I.aw
13 Woodieaf Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94061
November 13, 1996
The Planning Commissioners
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Appeal from Decision of Zoning Administrator, 96-UP-5
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I represent Mr. Remy Malan in.connection with his appeal of the Conditional Use Permit that
was conditionally issued by the Zoning Administrator to the owners of the "Q" Care to allow live
music and dancing at their establishment on Alma Street.
For the following reasons, Mr. Malan’s appeal should be approved and the Conditional Use
Pexmit should be denied.
1. The Use Proposed Under the Conditional Use Permit Doe~ Not Meet City Noise
Ordinance Requirements. The record before the Planning Commission shows that the proposed
live music and disc jockey music use does not meet the requirements of City Ordinance
9.10,040, and therefore Use Permit Finding Number 1 is erroneous.
The Zoning Administrator relies on a report performed by Mr. Vincent E. Salmon, acoustical
consultant, done in January, 1996, which is attached as Attachment 6 to the Zoning
Administrator’s report. In the acoustical report, Mr. Salmon measured the noise impacts at the
from of the building proposed to house the live music use (the "subject building"), but
erroneously applied City Ordinance 9.10.50 noise standards (not more than 15 dB’s above
ambient at 25 feet from the site.). Section 9.10.050 sets forth requirements for noise emanating
from a public use. The applicant’s use is a private commercial use, and therefore, Section
9.10.040 is the standard that applies (not more than g dB’s above ambl.ent from property piano).
When the proper standard is applied to the measurements taken by Mr: Salmon at the curbside,
the results are that disc jockey music on Thursday, January 24 is 13 dBA above ambient (62
maximum dBA less 49 dBA ambient= 13 dBA above ambient), and live music on Friday,
ffanuary 25 is 10 dBA above ambient (60 maximum dBA less 50 ambient= 10 dBA above
ambient). Accordingly, the evidence before the Planning Commission shows that the sound
levels at the from of the establishment are ~ar in excess of the required 8 dBA maximum allowed.
by the Zoning Code. ’
Ms. Grote’s November g, 1996 memorandum does nothing the rectify the failure to meet City
Code, because she incorrectly quotes the acoustical report, therefore reaching an incorrect
NOV-I -96 WED 2:40 PM 415 364 9131 P. 2
HOg-13-1996 13:50 FROM JULIE BAIGENT OFFICE FAX TO 3292248 P.03
November 11, 1996
Palo Alto Planning Commission
Page 2
conclusion in her memorandum. She quotes the report as stating that "the impact on public
property within 25 feet from "Q" Care wh~ recorded music is played is 8 dba above ambient
and 5 dbaabove ambient when live music is played". In fact what the report says is that at
curbside, 13 feet from the building, the recorded music is 13 dBA above ambient and live music
is 10 dBA above ambient. Mr. Salmon then undergoes a S dBA reduction to obtain the dBA
above ambient at 25 feet from the "Q" Care to arrive at the 8 and 5 dBA above ambient figures.
As we point about above, the dBA at 25 ~e~ is not relevant here. The use must not generate
noise above 8 dBA above ambient at any point outside the property plane, and it is clear that this
is exceeded at curbside from Mr. Salmon’s report, so it must necessarily be exceeded at the
property plane on the sides of the building as well.
Further, Mr. Salmon conducted subs~uent analysis ~rom inside the buildings adjacent to the
subject property, and determined that the noise levels through two walls inside those buildings
did not exceed the requirements of Section 9.10.040. The subject property has windows and
skylights that are above the roof of the buildings that Mr. Salmon was in when he did his second
analysis. Mr. Malan’s residence is on the fifth floor, and his living room and bedroom windows
face directly to the windows and skylights of the subject property, so the sound emanating from
these windows and skylights is c~rtainly of paramount importance tO Mr. Malan. Mr. Malan
asserts that’the measurements should have been taken at the roof level of the adjacent buildings,
where there are windows and skylights that allow noise to escape directly across to Mr. Malan’s
residence. Code Section 9.10.040 requires that there not b~ more than 8 dB’s over ambient "al
anypoint outside of the property plane°’. Section 9.10.020(0 defines proper~y plane to be a
vestal line up from the property line, and therefore clearly encompasses the window and
skylight areas above the roof of the buildings that are adjacent to the subject property. Therefore,
in addition to the fact that the tests already submitted show that the proposed use fails to meet
Code requirements as discussed above, without conducting tests at the window and skylight
locations, the finding that there is 8 dB’s or less above ambient at all points outside the p.roperty
plane cannot be accurately made. Logically, if the noise is 13 dBA and 10 dBA above ambient
13 t~et firom the building, the uoise outside the property plane dixecfly adjacent to the building at
these locations must be at [cast that or greater.
2. An EIR or Further Environmental Analysis is l~equired for the Use Permit. To the
extent the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the application for the use permit relied on
the January, 1996 report of Mr. Salmon, or failed to consider the points raised in paragraph 1
above, it is erroneous and/or incomplete, There isnew information because it has become
apparent that the wrong Noise Ordinance was applied by Mr. Salmon, which was felled on for
fmding that noise was less than a significant impact in the environmental review checklist, and
more information needs to be obtained. Therefore ~lditlonal environmental analysis needs to be
prepared to study the noise impacts and possible mitigations, if any, to reduce the noise impacts
to insignificant. Again, Ms Grote’s November 8, 1996 memorandum uses incorrect figures for
amending the Mitigated Negative Decimation, as discussed above..
NOV-l~-96 WE9 2:4!PM 415 364 9131 ?.
NOU-13-1996 13:51 FROM JULIE BAIGENT OFFICE FAX TO 3292240
November 1 I, 1996
Palo Alto Planning Commission
Page 3
3. ~’h¢ Location, Access and Design of the Subject Property Should Lead to Denial of the
Permit. The Zoning Administrator states that the w-axehonse-style openness of the building floor
plan exceptionally lends itself to live music and dancing. To the contrary, it is exactly this kind
of configuration that makes t~s an exceptionally poor place for the proposed use. There are no
wails or insulation to help absorb and buffer the sound f~om the building, and there is no internal
roof structure to keep sound from emanating from the upper windows and roof skylights.
Although it is logical that there needs to be some open floor space for dancing, wc submit that it
is a great leap of logic to conclude that because the entire building lacks interior walls and does
not have the normal wall and roof insulation, that this creates "extraordinary circumstances or
conditions" to house the proposed use that do not apply generally to propeITy in the same district.
There is no requirement that there.be open ceiling and no interior walls to provide suitable live
music and dancing. And although the Zoning Administrator points out that there are occasional
t~ns that mute the sounds while the Izains are going by, this occurs only sporadically, and does
nothing to screen the vast majority of the time that the noise from the music can be heard. The
axguments made by the Zoning Administrator axe unsubstantiated and tenuous at best, and are
clearly not supported by the Mr. Malan’s own experience with music at the proposed location.
4. The Proposed Use Is Not Constctent with the Palo Alto C~mprehensive Plan and the
Municipal Code, The Zoning Administrator makes the statement in her Finding Number 2 that
the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Titie 18 of the Municipal Code
without any real analysis, other than an unsubstantiated statement that it will "contribute 1o the
pedestrian vi~aliD, and mixed use character of the Alma Street District". This is incorrect/’or the
following reasons:
a. The Proposed Permit Does ls Not Consistent With Urban Design Program 20.
The "Q" care applicant has made it clear that the reason it wants the conditional use
permit is to keep its patrons in the premises longer, and to draw more patrons to the
establishment in the late evening and early morning hours. The objective is to provide
patrons with an excuse to come, stay and drink until closing time. What this eontrlbutes
to is noisy, drunken pedestrians who will get into their cars when they leave, and not
pedestrians who will meander the streets during normal commercial business hours and
patronize o.ther commercial establishments as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
This is evidenced by what has happened with respect to the "Edge", where there have
been extensive probl~rts with drunken patrons on the streets at late hours. The
Comprehensive Plan did not contemplate within it stated goals encouraging drunken
pedestrians on the street and roads in the wee hours of the morning. In program 20 of the
Urban Design Element, the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that "retail vitality"
refers to encouraging shoppers to walk to several stores before returning to their
automobiles, and that the pedestrian zone combined with the ommercial zone is intended
to create visual interest and attractiveness to pedestrians, These goals arc not met by the
proposed use permit.
NOV-12-96 WE3 2:42 PM 41£ 364 9131 ?. 4
NOU-13-1996 13:52 FROM JULIE BAIGENT OFFICE FAX TO 3292240 P.05
November 11, 1996
Palo Alto Planning Commission
Page 4
b. The Proposed Permit is Not Consistent With Urban Design Program 22. The
proposed use permit comqiets with Program 22 of the Urban Design Element. Program
22 states that the GF overlay zone is to maintain shopper interest by "restricting new uses
at ground floor locations to retail businesses or personal services". Live music mad
dancing are neither of these uses.
c. The Proposed Permit Conflicts .With The Environmental Element’s Noise Section.
As noted above, the proposed use is not consistent with the Noise Sections of the "
Environmenta! Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This seetionofthe Comprehensive
Plan reiterates the detrimental effect of noise and calls for strict enforcemem of the Noise
Ordinances, including Ordinance 9.10.10, which states:
"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the peace, health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Pale Alto require protection from excessive, urmeeessary.
and unreasonable noises from my and all sources ha the community"
As discussed in Paragraph 1 above, the proposed use does not meet this policy, or the
stated maximum noise levels.
d. The Proposed Permit Conflicts With Policy 14 of the Housing Element. Contrary
to the Zoning Administrator’s assertion, the proposed use conflicts with Polley 14 of the
Housing Element, which provides "support the mixing of residential uses in commercial
and industrial areas". The mixing of uses that is encouraged by the Comprehemive Plan
~md Title 18 clearly gives deference to residential uses, which are far more sensitive uses,
than to commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan clearly seel¢~ to make the
environment ha commercial and industrial zones more conduciveto residential uses in
ordei~ to encourage more residential uses ha these zones, not the other way around.
Program 33 of the Housing Element is instructive, az it requires the City to evaluate
"disincentives that diseomage residential use on land zoned for commercial and industrial
use, and if necessary, eliminate or mitigate such disincentives". Disturbance from
excessive noise ~ffter 10:00 or 1 h00 p. m. is certairdy a disincentive to the desirability of
residential uses in these zones. Since residential uses are permitted uses, and the
proposed use is a conditional use, the residential uses are clearly intended to have some
priority when the proposed commercial uses will be intrusive, as the one proposed here
will be.
The Zoning Administrator states that the residential uses must tolerate this type of
intrusion firom commercial u~es. However, this is not contemplated by the
Comprehensive Plan,. which specifically sets forth standards to provide that commercial
uses in mixed use areas cannot expect the full panoply of uses that they might enjoy in a
purely commercial area. It should be noted thin Mr. Malta is not complaining about the
}IOV-l~-96 ~IED 2:43 PM
NOU-13-1996 13:52 FROM JULIE BAIGENT OFFICE FAX TO 3292240 P.~6
Novemberll, 1996
PaloAlto Planning Commission
Page 5
commercial use of the "Q" Cafe as it was permitted by its previous permit that was in
effect before the requested conditional use permit (which originally expressly prohibited
live music and dancing). Mr. Malan puts up with a higher degree of noise and intrusion
by virtue of living in a mixed use are~ and is not requesting, and does not expect, the
same living conditions as he might enjoy in a purely residential area. He does have an
expectatiou under the City’s zoning to not be subjected to an unreasonable leve] of
intrusion by commercial uses. Mr. Malan was living in the mixed use area before this
proposed use was requested, and the applicants cannot be said to have had the same
expectation that they could have live music when they moved into their premises, since
their original use permit specifically prohibited this use. In weighing these competing
concerns in the current circumstances, the residents’ concerns should prevail.
e. The Proposed U~’e Violates Section 18.50. 020 of Tide 18. Section 18.50.020
limits the uses in the GF zone to those stated in Section 18.50.020(a), none of which
allow live music or commercial recreation. Section 18.50.020 does allow 25% of the
ground floor area to be used for uses permitted in the underlying zone. However,
commercial recreation is a conditional use in the CDC zone, not a permitted use, so live
music should not be a!lowed on this basis.
f. The Proposed Use Constitues a Prohibited Nightclub Use. In making her first
finding, the Zoning Administrator first states that "The City does not allow nightclubs as
a permitted or conditional use in any zone. We want to know, what constitutes a "night
club"? A night club is a place where people can come at night and drink alcohol, listen to
music and dance. This is exactly what is proposed under this use permit. To decide
otherwise is to vitiate the City’s stated de, re that there not be nightclubs in any zone,
since all one need do to have a night club is to use the night club building for some other
use during the day. This surely violates the spirit, if not the rule, of prohibiting night
clubs.
Further, the discussion in the Zoning Administrator’s report that it considered the fact that
this use would be classified as an "ancillary use" by applyinga "rule of thumb" defining
ancillary use as one that occupies 25% or less of the square tbotage of the business or
25% or less of the business activity is creative, but we find no discussion of’ancillary
uses" or support for this "rule of thumb" in the City Code. Under the Zoning
Administrator’s analysis, any establishment can operate a night club, so long as the
building it houses has some other use during the day, or the night club is only operated
¯ for a few nights a week. Perhaps this section of the report was intended to. address
Section 18.50.020, but as discussed above, this would fail because the proposed use is not
a permitted use in the CDC zone. "
The Zoning Code does address "Accessory Uses", which are defined in Code Section
2’43 415 364 9131 ?,
,. NOU-13-1996 13:5--3 FROM JULIE BAIGENT OFFICE FAX TO 3292240 P.07
November 11, 1996
Palo Alto Phuming Commission
Page 6
18.88.020. Under the definition in Section 18.88.020(c)(4), the accessory use would be a
recreation that is for the use and convenience of occupants, employees and their guests, of
the principal use. All accessory uses under Section 18.88.020 appearto entail uses that
necessarily arise out of or ace integrally related to the permitted use. The applicant’s have
applied for the proposed use permit specifically to generate new and different patrons to
the "Q" Cafeo since by the permit applicants’ own admissions, they are trying to increase
"their patronage by gelxing new customers for music and dancing that are not otherwise at
the "Q" for billiards and dining. Thecefore the proposed additional use is not solely for
the convenience or use of occupants and employees of the principal use, or their guests,
but is to create additional and different occupants and guests, and therefore does not
qualify as an accessory use.
For the above reasons, the proper findings cannot be made in order to issue the proposed
conditional use permit, and issuance of the pemdt would not be legal under CEQA arid the City’s
own ordinances. We therefore request that you approve Mr. Malan’s appeal and deny the
conditional use permit.
~~.Ly yours,
gent
ee: Iris. Remy Malan
Ms. Lisa Grote
NOV-12-96 WED 2’44 PM 41~ 364 9131
TOT~ P.87
Attachment 17
The Planning Commission met in a regular m~eting on Wednesday, November 13, 1996 at
7:05 p:m. in the Council Chambers with Chairperson Cassel presiding.
Commissioners B~cham, Byrd, Cassel, Eakins, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt
Dvbra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Janet Freeland, Real Estate Division
Carl Stoffel, Traffic Engineer
~: I am proud to announce that the City of Palo Alto Planning Division
recently took first pfi~ in an international graphics competition sponsored by GDS Corporation.
The competition was held at the GDS World Users Conforence in Amsterdam, Netberlands at the
beginning of November, and was open to all worldwide users of their of their GIS sofuvare. The
prize was awarded for color maps produced for our Comprehensive Plan by Phil Dascomb and,
Gloria Humble on the city:s geographic information system. The items submitted included large
color maps showing the city’sparcels, typographic and land use designs, also a T-shirt with a
color land use map displayed in miniature. Congratulations to the Planning Department and
other members of the GIS team for tbeir fine work.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
F, ll~i~l:~,ll.~fl: The first item on our ag~da is Oral Communicatiom. At this time, any
member of the public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda. Is thore anyone who
wishes to speak this evening? Seeing none, we will move on to the next agenda item.
AI PCMins41M in I I- 13.drf Page 3
12-02-96
AGENDA CHANGES. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Are there any agenda changes?
" : Considering the expected length of our meeting, I feel that it is
appropriate for us not to consider Item 5 this evening, and continue it to the next meeting.
~: Yes, I would clarify that you would want to continue this item to a date certain, a
special meeting of the Planning Commission on Noveraber 20.
~:~" : Isomove.
~: By Commissioner Schmidt.
~: ~2~oxuC.~l~: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All
those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes tmanimously on a vote of 7-0.
APPROVAL OF ~MINIFFE_ ~
’ _.~assel: We have no minutes to approve.
Item 2.¯ ?,9_~LM~S3~EE~ Appeal of a zoning administrator’s approval of
conditional use permit 96-UP-5, allowing live entertainment, including music
and dancing, at an existing restaurant (Q Care Billiards). File Nos. 96-UP-5,
96-EIA..4.
Are there any staff comments?
~: I would like to introduce Kathy McKenna and Patty Ston~ fxom the police
department, who are here to answer specific questions regarding complaints that may have
been received over the past year regarding Q Care. We are recommending that the zoning
administrator’s approval with 23 conditions be upheld for the reasons outlined in the staff
report.
I w~uld like to draw your attention to the correction in the noise analysis that.staff’issued last
Friday, saying that the correct section ofthe noise ordinanc~ to be applied to this proj~t is
1910.040 rather 1910.050. Also, I would draw your attention to a memo from Julia Baigent
representing Remy Malan who still has disagreements with the noise analysis that was done.
..That concludes the staff report.
Are there any questions of staff?.
A[ PCMins4 [ Mini 1-13.drf Page 4
12.432-96
: Can you tell mewhat a nightclub is?
~: A nightclub is something that exclusively serves beer and wine and has
entertainment, or has be~r, wine and liquor and entertainment. We have traditionally said
¯ that establishments that are associated with restaurants or whose primary purpose is not for
entertainment are not nightclubs. So it is more what it is not rather than what it is.
¯ " : So thinking of other places around town, how does The Edge
compare with that definition?
~: The Edge,.which was a preexisting use to our current ordinances, originally and
historic~dly was considered a nightclub. The use permit under which The Edge now operates
does require it to be an eating and drinking establishment. That was toughened in the
revocation process in which the commission participated several years ago, which led not to
the revocation of the use permit but to its modification of the use permit, due to complaints
that the preexisting permit and preexisting use rights were beyond what the community felt
was acceptable and did tend too much toward nightclub use. They still tend too much in that
direction for what our code permits today. We do not allow nightclubs to establish in the
community. We only allow eating and drinking establishments with live entertainment uses
as accessory uses today..
~: I am a little concerned that in several of the issues we have to look at
tonight, there is expert testimony that is being presented on one side and on the other side.
Unless I am going to be surprised, I don’t know of any of us up here that are acoustical
experts, so I am wondering, is there normally a city process where, if competing sides bring
forward expert testimony, that we can refer an issue to a third expert? Has this been done
before? Can we ask you to go out and get additional expert testimony, pointing us in the
right direction?
~: I am unaware ofits having been done. It does put you in a difficult position,
however, the zoning ordinance in Palo Alto, like other zoning ordinances, relies essentially
upon lay people like yourselves (and I hesitate to use the term "lay people" because you all
have expertise in architecture or in law or in design and in all kinds of areas), but it is not
expected that a decision is made by an acoustical engineer on whether or not a use permit can
be granted. It is your role to weigh the evidence and determine, based on the evidence,
whether or not you can make the findings in the zoning code to issue a use permit. With this
particular project, there was a negative declaration ~ for the project, and certainly, I
think if you were to conclude that the evidence was inadequate to allow you to prove the
negative declaration, that would put us in a position where we would have to look at getting
additional technical information. It would be in that context, r~her than getting a neutral
third party to evaluate the two reports.
Page5
12-02-96
~: Could staff tell us what other establishments downtown currently
have live music played at their locations? In the process of doing so, let us know under what
conditions they are able to do so? "
~: Fanny and Alexander’s has live music with ause permit. That is an older use
permit, so there are not as many conditions attached to that as there are typically today. The
other use permit downtown is Paradis, which used to be 42nd Street, then O’Cormell’s and is
now Paradis. That has probably 18 to 20 conditions that are similar in nature to the ones that
I had attached to the Q Cat’e, such as see.urity guards and hours of operation, etc.
~: How about at other establishments like Maddelena’s and some of
the other restaurants where we have people playing the piano, ere? Where do you draw the
line where it is required to have a use permit, and under what set of cire~ees are these’
operations allowed to have music, playing?
~: There arc several downtown restatmmts that have live music without the benefit
of a use permit. We rely upon a complaint-based code cnfore~aent system, so as those are
brought to our attention as problems, we would then pro’sue it.
¯ " : So for example, under live music, ffthere is a piano playing, does
that require.a permit?
~: Yes, that requires a.use permit, as it is considered live entertainment.
~,~;~;~L~g.~: Seeing no other questious, I will now op~ the public hearing.
~Jl~l~.~l~l_.YflJ~g.99 Almaden Boulevard. San Jose: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
We have passed out to themembers of the staffa brief synopsis ofour presentation. First of
¯ all, live music at Q care, as the staff report indicates, will not be detrimental to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
general welfare or convenience. As.you are well aware, live music has been in Palo Alto for
many years at. places such as Fanny’s, The Edge and Paradis. This is not the fonnn to discuss
whether or not livemusic should be allowed in Palo Alto. What should be found today is
whether or not there is a noise problem at Q Care, and as will be discussed later, you will find
that there is no noise problem.. First of all, the proposed use at Q Cafe isin accord with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and purpose of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Muni.’cipal Code,
which allows live entertainment. Itis also consistent with Policy 14 in the Comprehensive
Plan. ,This area in which Q Cafe is located’is a mixed use area, It is primarily retail,
commercrial and recreational, with very, very limited residential uses. I would like you to
. note in the staff report that staff’s rule of thumb as to whether live music is an ancillary use
versus a main purpose use is 25% or less of square footage of the locationor business
activity. Q C~fe falls within both of those. The live music floor area occupies only 15% of
A[ PCMins4 [ Min I 1-13.drf Page 6
12-02-96
the total area of Q Cafe-Cafe.
The live music hours which we would like the commission to approve would be Tuesday
through Saturday, 9 p.m. to 1:30 am., which accounts for only 22% of the total business
hours. I would also like you to note that the restaurant and the billiards will remain in.
operation during the live music. So it is actually less than 22% of the business activity.
Also, Q Cafe has no intent of becoming a nightclub. The main purpose of Q Cafe is billiards
in a restaurant establishment. Live music and dancing will always remain ancillary to their
operations.
We also found a ghost writing campaign by the residents of Palo Alto Plaza which brings
about a concern, because not only are some residents of Palo Alto Plaza making complaints
of noise, but they are asking people who have no problems with noise, no problems with Q
Cafe to engage in a l~r writing campaign. (The l~ler is projected on the screen) It says,
"Even flit doesn’t bother you" they want the residents to assist tbem in this letter writing
campaign because of late night parking. Patrons of Q Cafe would park outside of their area
and perhaps exhibit dnmken behavior. There is no evidence that people will, first of all, be in
their area, and secondly, that they will be coming fi~m Q Care. Gordon Bierseh is in the
area; a number ofrestamants and establishments are in the area closer to the plaza than Q
Care is.
Q Care has two very large parking lots right by its location. One is right next door, and one
is a~’oss the street at the CalTrain station. Their patrons would in all probability park at
these places, and in all likelihood, would not disturb the Plaza residents. I feel that a flyer
like this distrilsuted to the residents is not for the purpose of whether or not Q Care really
bothers the residents of the Plaza, but basically, they do not want five music in the area,
which the Comprehensive Plan allows.
The acoustic reports that you received from our acoustic consultants indicate that there ~s no
noise problem arising from the Q Care. Also, with 89 decibels of live music inside the Q
Care, the worst ease scenario predicted outside of the Plaza, where the residents are located,
is 53 decibels. That is still below the limit of 55, the requirement for residential property as
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Third, Q Cafe fac~ Alma Street and the railroad. Our
ambient noise will s~reen any noise that will escape. The train station is right azross the
street, and it runs periodieadly through the area, far louder than any other noise that could
derive from Q Cafe. Also, the traffic on Alma Street is extremely loud and would be louder
than any noise originating fi’om Q Cafe.
To our knowledge, the Pl~a has made four complaints, none of which were validated by the
.police department records, to our knowledge. Ae, cording to the staff report, the police were
eadled on April 25, 1996, and no violation was found in ~ea’,ordance with the city’s noise
ordin~ce. On July 20, 1996, a complaint was made, and a pofiee officer from Stanford went
A I PCMins4 [ Min I 1-13.drf Page 7
12-02-96
out and could not hear any music inside the condominium while live music was being played
at Q Cafe. On July 26, 1995, there is a police report.that shows no evidence of a noise
violation. Just as a side note, after these complaints were made, I personally went to Q Caf~
one night when music was being played, walked out to the Plaza, and I could not hear the
music being played at Q Care. I could hear other noises, other music, but I did not know
where it was coming from. For all I knew: it was coming from another condominium in the
area or from a restaurant or from some other establishment.
Lastly, we have not .seen any physical evidence or data from the Plaza indicating that noise
from Q Care is detrimental to their well being. We have t~ied to negotiate with them and
cooperate with them in taking studies of sound measurements inside the plaza, and we have
met with no cooperation from them.
We have received some support letters from our neighbors. First and foremost is Casa Olga
which is 50 feei closer to Q Cafe than the Plaza is. They have stared, "Although we live only
a block away from your facility, w~.have never r~c~ived any complaints from our r~sidents
¯ regarding any noise or disturbances from Q Care.". The Holiday Inn, which is fight across the
street from Q Cafe, and our doors open into that area, state that despite the proximity of Q
Care to the hotel, they had not received any complaints or negative comments about the
establishment regarding any noise, loud music or disturbances of that nature. Them are thr~
other supp.ort letters, one from Pete’s Marine Company, stating that Q offers a level of
quality entertainment much nee.ded in downtown Pale Alto. MacArthur Park basically says,
"Recently we heard that your live entertainment had to cease, and we would like to express
our desire to encourage its speedy remm."~ Nexus T~chnologies, which indicate that Q Care
has consistently gone to great l~n~s to be a good neighbor in the Pale Alto community, and
in ensuring that the music is k~t to reasonable limits. These l~aers am attached to your
¯ packet..
Lastly, Q Care is requesting that the l~mnit be issued with no conditions. We am willing to
accept mostly ~ of the conditions. The ones we would like changed or amended am the
following: Condition #2, w~ would like to add Tuesday and Wednesday nights. These am
far fewer nights than any oth~r similar five music w-ntms in Pale Alto such as Fanny’s and
The Edge and Paradis. They all have daily pc,’rmits, and I und~s’tand that some ofth~n
come under oth~r p~mit rrimria. Again, five music is only anc~ry to the business, malting
up.only 22% of the total business hours in a w~k, which is less ~ the 25% rule of thumb
that staff uses. Condition #13, r~garding the installation of double doors in .the vestibule.
There is no nois~ arising from Q Cafe which reaches the Plaza or any oth~r neighbor, so
therefore, them is no n~l for this’condition. Secondly, there is no oth~r simila~
establishment with this condition. Thirdly, the sound that comes out from the front door
¯faces the Holiday Inn on Alma, so the sound is diss.cminated by the ~ tracks~ by the traffic,
and even the Holiday Inn cannot h~ar it. ~y, to install the double doors would require Q
Care to remove one entire s~’vice station and reconstruct its bar; Thereis a five-foot
A[ PCMins4 [/viin I 1 o 13.drf Page 8
12~02o96
cl~rance for handicap which is r~quimd, and as you can s~, there is a s~rvice station to the
fight. Installing double doors will require cutting out that service station, which is a necessity
for the operation of Q Care. It will also cut into the bar. It will cut offthe use of that bar and
in all likelihood, require destruction of at least a portion of the bar. So requiring the
installation of double doors poses sevorv damage to the business Old’rations. The last
condition we would like r~moved is the one about the sprinkler system being placed on a
central station monitor. The Uniform Fire Code does not require this condition with less than
100 sprinlder heads. The Q Cafe has less than 90. I cannot see any legal reason for requiring
Q Care to be placed on a c~ntral station. With that, I request that the connnission grant the Q
Cafe’s permit, removing both conditiom. That complems my presentation.
Commissioner Schmidt: Would you pm back up the drawing showing the proposed
vestibule? I want to know if you know for sure whether that entire area would be require~,
there is the dotted area going to the sides of the doors g~tting closer to the bar.
]~: I am one of the ownors of the Q C~fe. In order to install th~se double doors,
we checked with a few con~rs and ar~hito~, and basically, it rezluir~s a handicap access,
which rezluires a five-foot ¢loaranc~. Five f~-t from the front door goes into this aroa, plus
the material of the glass. These two are glass, so basically, thore is no stru~ral support from
these two walls. So you have to build it from these other two walls to be able to att~h the
door. These two areas are glass.
¯ " " : I understand the five-foot dimension for the handicap re~lulmmont.
Are you saying that there is no structural element there at the present time?
~: Corw~.
¯ " : What do you expect to be the increase in customers with music
versus without music7
]~I~: Our current operation r~luires a lot of live music. We had a temporary permit
for about three months. During those thr~ months, we had a pretty good business. Right
now, it is in the peak season of the r~mmmt business, andwe suffer t~mendously without
the five music. So we can say that we ~re in the red fight now.
¯ " ’ : I have b~m in your pla~ on~ or twi~, but I have.not noticed if
you have a dan~e floor or anything of that nature.
~: Yes, thor~ is a vory ~z~ll dan~ floor. We cloaned out a l,O00-squ~e-foot ~
and the ~e and dan~ floor ~m~ all withinthat 1,O00-~lum~foot mwa.
: Do you have any plans to remove any of the pool tables and create
A I PCMinsd I Mini 1-I 3.rift Page 9
12-02-96
a large dance floor?
right now.
No, I do not.
The pool tables and the tables for the restaurant area will remain where they are
~: I have three questions, First of all, did you bring your acoustical
consultant with you to answer any questions tonight?
No, he was unavailable to attend tonight.
¯ " " : In regard to the vestibule, is there any time currently that you ke.ep
the doors closed?
~: The doors are closed at all times. As I understood it, there was a complaint by
Mr. Malan that he went past the Q Care and the doors were propped open. Since receiving
the complaints, the doors have always remained closed.
.... : They are closed when music is being played?
all times. Of course, it opens when people are exiting.
’ : You said your business has suffered tremendously. I do not quite
know how to gauge what"tremendously" means. Can you put it into percentage terms?
~: I estimate that it dropped about 25 to 30% without live music. That is over. our
profit margin. - ,,
¯ " " " : You opera.ted for somewhat over a year prior to having any live
music. How .was your business then?
~: The reason why we tried to bring in live music was because the previous
business was not very successful. That is why, at the end of the first fiscal year, we decided
to.bring in live music to see if there was a way to recover the business.
¯ " : I have some confusion on some of the acoustical’issues¯ Without
your expert, I am not su~ how much ~ie can go into that, but in particular, I do not
understand issues surrounding the skylight and the measurements, etc. If you can furnish any
information on that, l would appreciate it.
~:.What is your question on the skylights?
A[ PCMins4 [ Min I 1-13.drf Page 10
12-02-96
: In the report, he talked abom measuring around the skylights. I did
not come away with an understanding of the actual noise that radiates through the skylights.
~: If there is any sound that would affect the Palo Alto Plaza residents, it is
probably coming from the roof. So what we did was to play very loud music on the stage,
and then we made some measurements around the stage, and also up on the roof. Then we
went over to the Plaza and made some measurements over there. The report shows that there
is no way that the sound emitting fi~om the skylight will affect the Palo Alto Plaza residents.
This noise is basically within the audience. It is basically traveling in the air, and we
measured it in decibels. When you are farther out, the decibels will drop. All of this is
basically physics, and you c~n calculate these numbers. That is how he came up with these
Where were you when you made the measurements at the Plaza.’?
~: We were not able to go into their homes, so we made measurements outside of
the Plaza.
¯"" : At what elevation?
~: At street level. The estimate that Vincent made was based on a higher elevation.
Commissioner~chink: I don’t know if you have gotten a copy of a letter written building
Julie Baigent? (No) Then I will give you a copy, and you will have an opportunity to make
a rebuttal. They make some very compelling arguments about the acoustic report and how
the studies were done. I would hope that you could read this and try to respond. That is why
we were hoping your acoustical engineer would be here. (He hands her a copy.) Youwill
have an opportunity to try to address it, and I hope you will.
~liII~:il~lL.C.a~: We will now hear fi’om other members of the public.
"_ t : Good evening. I guess I have been variously
portrayed as an agent provocateur, and other various things this evening. I am quite surprised
and somewhat flattered, as I did not realize that my name had become so well known in Palo
Alto circles. I am, after all, just a resident here, ~
I would like to begin my presentation b.y projecting some slides, This is a #cture that.l took
from my living room window, taken at about 50 ram. What that means is that the
perspective, when you look through the camera lens, is the same ~ve that yourhuman
.eye sees, and there is no blowup or super zoom or super wide angle on this. This is looking
down on High Street, and this is Hamilton. This is the Q Care building. The applicant did
say that sound does travel through the air. -I certainly can testify from personal experience
AI PCMins4lMinl 1-13.drf Page I I
12-02.96
that that is, in fact, the ease. At this particular elevation, I have direct line of sight onto the Q
Cafe building. There are no physical obstructions between me and Q Cafe. So I think that in
particular, for myself and for people who live in my part of the building, there is a particular"
concern. I have noticed that if you do go down to street level, the noise seems to be
somewhat mitigated, beeanse I believe there is a physical effect from buildings in the locale.
But at the line of sight level where I am, there is nothing to obscure or reduce the sound.
For a long time, I guess I was fat, dumb and happy.as a way of describing myself. I have
lived in downtown Palo Alto for four-and-a-half ycars, and it was not until this year, in July,
that I got involved in the city government in any meaningful way. In other words, I have
lived here for four years, and I have never once called the police deparlment, and I have
never one~ written you a letter about any topic downtown. I have seen use permit
applications come and go. For example, the original Q Care permit cam~ b~;, and Beppo’s
came by more recently, for example., people like Higashi West came into my neighborhood,
people like Empire Taproom came into my neighborhood, and Gordon Bi~rsch was there for
me as a legacy. When I moved in, Gordon¯ Biersch was already there. Somehow, during the
four-and-a-half years that I have lived there, I have managed to live with all of these
businesses, and have not been driven to the point where! felt I had to do something about it.
In this partieuiar case, I do feel that I have had to do something about it, because I became
very concerned about thi~. gs I started seeing in the local paper. For example, this was.one,
and one thing that set me off was when I said, this must be the noise I am hearing at night.
So this was actually one of the ads that prompted me to come to City Hall, go up to the fifth
rio’or and ask, how can I tell if someone is allowed to do something, and how can I tell if it is.
too noisy. This was, by the way, before the zoning administrator mailed her postcards for the
hearing. She mailed those on July 4th, and there was a hearing on July 18th to have the
public hearing about should there be live entertainment at this site. Tbere was already pl~nty
oflive entertainment being advertised. I provided the city, through the planning department,
with a video of footage shot at this location in July before the 18th, showing a live band,
showing the doors propped open. Please ch~k with the planning department for a copy of
that video tape if you wish to see it.
So the net for me is that I feel I have had many problems.. I fe~l that my sleep ~ b~n
disturbed at night.’ I f~l that it has ~ v~3’ difficult for me .to.get any engagmnent with the
city because of the lateness of the hour that I call. This is not something where I can call the
code enforcement p~a’son for an appoinlment. I have to talk to p~ple like the police
department, and in their scheme of priorities, this is often not such a high p~ority. I.have
started logging calls to the police department, and you can s~ some of the responses. Some
of them say, have you spoken to Planning, or why don’t you call in the morning, etc. It is
w~’y hard at one am., Ladies and gentlemen, to accept an answer that says, why don’t you call
¯.in the moming~ The problem is not in the morning. The problem is at one o’clock in the
morning when I am trying to get to sleep°
A[ PCMins41Min I l - 13.drf Page 12
12-02-96
The other problem I have with noise in this particular locale is that we already have run an
experiment in Pale Alto at 260 California Avenue. I would like to share information with
you from Chris Durkin, the Chief of Police. This is the disturbance call log at 260 California.
In the eleven hours from one p.m. until midnight, there are this many calls. In the one hour
from midnight to one a.m., there are this many calls. And in the hour from one a.m. to two
a.m., there are this many calls. If you look at this graph, in all of this time, the two hours
between midnight and two a.m. generate more calls than the whole afternoon and the whole
rest of the evening together. So what it says is that all hell breaks loose af~ midnight. What
I have to deal with is that I am a block away fi~m this in line of sight. Even ffthe noise level
in the building is mediated, how do I deal with the people who create noise and disturbances
around me. There is noise in two parts, ladies and gentlemen. There is noise generated
during the commercial activiW, and then there is the noise issue of the patrons and their
activities at two in the morning. That is very concerning to me. It is not just a question in
my mind as to what is going on in that building and what are the measurements on that
building. How do you control the patrons around you? How do you prevent people from
doing things at two in the morning that disturb the peace?
At ~ point, I have gotten to the point where I have learned enough about the noise
ordinances to realize that in reading things in the findings and in reading the municipal code,
I needed an expert opinion. I did not start out that way.. I represented myself in the first set
of hearings, and I felt disadvantaged when a business, which has corporate resources, maybe
not a lot in this case, but certainly a business, which, as a business can work on this and
perhaps deduct it and use business time for it. I am not. I am a resident. I cannot get paid to
do this activity, but I felt that I was at a disadvantage, ladies and gentlemen, up against a
corporation with a lawyer. I.hired a lawyer to ask for a professional opinion on the noise
issues and some of the use issues. I would like to introduce Julie Baigent to you, who has
some comments on my behalf this evening ....
¯ " " : Thank you, Remy. I.didsendal~ter
around to some of you. On the noise issue (and I wish Mr. Salmon w~s here tonight) but I
think it is ~ straight mathemati~ when you look at the acoustical report. The report
originally incorrectly applied Ordinance Section 9.10.050. That has been co~ now, and
we acknowledge that the proper ordinance ti~ applies is 9.10.040, What is critical here is
not so much what the measurements are at the plaza or anyplace else. The city code requires
that noise not be more than eight decibels above ambient at the property plane. -If you look at
Mr. Salmon’s report, what that ~ says is that at ~rbside, 13 feet from .this establishment,
the dbas above ambient are 13 when it is diskjockey music and ten when it is live music. It
is not eight. The property plane is directly between the two buildings. What Mr. Salmon did
was to go iusidt.~e bulldin~ next door and take measurements. Well, those v¢ere below
eight. Our concern is what happens above those buildings, because that is the line that .is
hitting my client. When you are standing there at the skylights, if.it is 13 m~l 10at 13 feet
away on the front of the building, I guarantee it is higher than that right there at the skylights,
AI PCMins41 Mini 1-13.drf Page 13
12-02-96
which is what is impacting the residents. I don’t really think you need to look much further
than what is before you. I think the factual evidence that is here makes it clear that the noise
ordinance requirements are not being met. It is a required finding that they be met in order tO
,issue this conditional use permit.
Further to that, to the extent that the mitigated negative declaration relied on thes~ reports and
the erroneous calculation looking at it 25 feet away, which is the other ordinance
requirement, I think the mitigated negative declaration is faulty. Further study needs to be
made in order to get the mitigated negative declaration done properly. Further to the findings
that you need to make tonight, you need to find that this conditional use permit is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and with Title 18. You will see in my letter a number of points
where I think it is clearly inconsistent. Urban Design Program #20 specifically provides that
what it wants to encourage is pedestrian vitality. That refers to shoppers. That refer~ to ~
drawing people in who will make several shopping stops .before getting back into their cars
and leave. What we have heard the applicant say tonight is that they want people to come in
at late hours and the wee hours ofthe morning and stay and drink. Then when they leave,
they are getting into their cars and goinghome. This is not what the Comprehensive Plm is
trying to achieve. This does not s~’ve the other commercial businesses that provide shopping
in the area, because nothing is ol~n at that hour. I don’t think we can say that that program
of the Comprehensive Plan is being addressed. Also, Urban Design Element Program #22,
the proposed use ~rmit, conflicts with this program, because it states that in the GF overlay
zone, .which the Q Cafe is in, it is required to maintain shopper interest by restri~’dng new
uses at ground floor locations to retail businesses or personal s~’vices. Live entertainment,
dancing, music is not any of those. It also conflicts with the environment element regarding
the noise requiicments. I think I have already ~ed to emphasize h~re that the noise elements
are not met. The Comprehensive Plan makes it very clear that Pale Alto is very concerned
about noise impacts on its citizens. It strictly enforces the noise ordinances, so I don’t think
this element is being addi;essed.either. Further, Housing Element Policy #14, I think that
staff has reversed, and I don’t think it is what the Comprehensive Plan intended. It is clear
from the Comprehensive Plan that the Housing Element is u’ying to encourage more
residential use and commercial uses in commercial zones and industrial zones. What it is
saying is, we want to condition commercial uses; residential uses are a permitted use, and we
want to make it more conducive for residential downtown. We n~ more housing. We need
more affordable housing. It is not saying, make the residents ~ unreasonable impacts from
comrnercial. I think that ffyou read it, you really caunot come to the conclusion that
residents are supposed to bear intrusive activities by connnercial. Please note here that.we
ar~ not complaining about what is already going on at the Q. We are complaining about
elevating that to a use that is obnoxious to residents who live nearby. I don’t think Mr.
Malan would be spending his good time here tonight talking toyou if he was not, in fact,
disturbed by these uses.
I also think there is a problem with compliance with Title 18, Section 18.50.020, which again
A[ PCMinsd]Minl 1-13.drf Page 14
12-02-96
discusses what is required in a GF zone. In a GF zone, there are specific permitted uses in
the GF regulations. Then what it says is that there isan exception to that in that 25% of the
square footage of a business is allowed to have a use that is not one of the specifically listed
uses, flit is a permitted use in the underlying zone. It is a conditional use. The code
language is very clear. It says "permitted use." So I don’t think that in the GF zone, this can
be permitted under the regulations. So again, I don’t think you can make the finding that is
consistent with Title 18. Lastly, I made the point, what is a nightclub. If nightclubs are
prohibited, nightclubs are where people go to drink, danee and listen to music. Basically,
what it seems to me that the city is saying is, so long as you guys use your building for
something else during the day, you can have a nightclub at night. There seems to me to be
some confusion in the staff report as there is no definition that I could find in the code of
ancillary uses. I couldn’t find any support for this rule of thumb that 25% of the time or 25%
of the square footage allows you to do this. What I did find was some description of
accessory uses, but those are specifically uses that serve existing patrons for entertainment.
What we have heard tonight is that we are not talking about existing patrons. We are talking
about trying to create new patrons, different patrons. They want to bring in different
business. I don’t think that qualifies as an acc~-ssory use, and even ff it did, I think it is
prohibited by your GF regulations. It is not very often that I find myself on the resident side
of things. I normally mpre~mt the commercial developer side of things, but I think it is so
abundantly clear by the facts and the law that you cannot make the findings that you have to
make in order to approve this permit. We are asking that you deny the permit and uphold Mr.
Malan’s appeal.
: Good evening. I am the President of the
Palo Alto Plaza Homeowners Assbciation. We represent approximately 32 homeowners who
live either on High or Forest, which is roughly two to four blocks away fi’om the Q Cafe. I
.have.to repeat what Mr. Malan said. Until recently, we had no problem with Q’s. I have
been in Q’s many times, and I have indulged in beer and hamburgers there. We really had no
problem. What happened, though, was that all ofa’sudden, Q’s decided they wanted to have
live music. They wanted to have a band. To the best of my knowledge, at least when Iwas
aware of it, they did not have a permit to do so. All of a sudden, we did hear five music. We
did hear people leaving very late at night, and we have to go to sleep and get up early in the
morning. It is bad enough that we have things like the garbage row.ks, the train station, etc.,
that disturb our sleep, but that comes with the tenitory. We undemtood that, and I -~-
understood that when I moved in here seven years ago. But I did not plan on having a lot of
noisy people leaving Q’s and coming into the area, slamming doors at 1:30 .am., hollering,
screaming, yelling profanities, etc. That is what we experienced. The reality is that this was
recently that we heard this. This was not when Q’s opened. So obviously something
different was going on. I feel that Q’s really has no respect for the ~oning laws and
conditions of Palo Alto. Otherwise they would not have started a band on their own without
applying for a permit. They did have a mmpomry pe~tit, but I am not speaking of that
period of time. It was after that period of time. The condition of their original use permit
AI PCMins41 Ivan ! 1-13.drf Page 15
12~02o96
sa~,s it does not authorize live music, yet they put live music on the site. And they did it
without asking you, without asking me. So we are left to patrol our own city. This is
ridiculous. In talking to one of the representatives from Q’s, they did request that they go to"
¯ Mr. Malan’s apartment and do a noise test. I said, that’s ridiculous. The zoning calls for a
noise test locally. I was told that does not really matter. We are only concerned wihh what
happens at the Pale Alto Plaza location. So once again, there was a disregard for the zoning
of the city, because you have your laws. You just heard (and it was repeated to me) that the
people you are hearing in the middle of the night could not possibly be from them because
they have parking across the ~et. Here is what it says in that parking lot across the street.
’ "Private property. Parking for CalTrans pa~’ons only. One ,vehicle per space, etc. etc." The
rules are enforced seven daysa week. Who gave them the fight to have their patrons park in
the CalTrans parking lot? Did you? This is another example of the fact that they really have
no regard for our zoning laws. They don’t care about the fact that they do not have the fight
to have their patrons park there. Does every business in Pale Alto have the fight to have their
patrons park there after hours, just because tbere are no trains? No, they do not. This is a
perfect example of what these folks are doing.
If we give them a music permit, w~ arc changing the nature of the neighborhood. What is
next7 Gordon Bivrsch7 Empire Taproom7 Bvppo’s7 Are we going to have bands all over
this placeT. We live here. We lived here before they were bere. Do we have to put up with
this? When it comes to 1:30 in the morning, and I am being wakened up in my bedroom,
which is fight otitside where the people park, who do I call? We cannot call you. Can we
call the police7 What do we do about this7 If you think this is comparable to The Edge,
which I do, then I think you ought to t~flk to the police chief. I think there is a problem
coming down the road here. It is not going to stop, and recognizably, these folks nwd to
make more money. Well, I need to have more sl~. Thank you very much. I certainly
appreciate your time.
¯ " ¯ " kit: Iwant to confirm what it sounds like you are saying. Prior to Q
Care instituting live music, did you not have noisy people returning to their cars on Emerson
Street or High Street?
~: No, we really didn’t. I was h~’re when Gordon Biersch opened, and they w~re
probably one of the first bars in the neighborhood. The reality is that by 10 o’clock or 10:30,
it is. over. You don’t hear much around h~’~ at all. All of a sudden it was one o’clock, 1:30
in the morning that we starred heating it.
.... : And ag .ain, it didn’t change until Q C, afe starred having music, evvn
though the number of restaurants in your n~.ighborhood increased significantly?
"~: Exactly. I would invite you to ask the other people h~’e as well, although I have
not discussed it with th~n, that it was a dramatic change. At 10:30, the latest 11:00, even on
AI PCMins41Minl l- 13.drf Page .l 6
12-02-96
Saturday nights, you would not really hear anything.
Bill MeCarm. 685 HiehS ’ : I appeared at the July 18th zoning
administrator hearing and voiced my concern about Q Cafe having live music and dancing. I
do want to say that the letters that you all received were not ghost written. I wrote it myseff.
The concern that I really have is a concern, as Steve does, about getting a good night’s sleep.
I am in the investment business, so I am up early in the morning. I have to get up around
five o’clock, which means I end up going to bed at a reasonable hour, 9:30 or 10 o’¢1ock
being normal for me, about the time that Q Care is planning on firing up a band. I think the
idea of Q Care as a billiard establishment is fine. I have no problem with that at all. I think
the.downtown area is really lively and enjoyable. Palo Alto has done a great job of
establishing the city the way it is. Beppo’s" Star’s, Empire Taproom, Fino’s" Paradies" lots of
livelmusic in the area, and none of it disturbs us. What disturbs me, particularly, is late night
music, 1.~ night noise. The patrons ofQ Cafe do not realize that just on the second floor,
there are actually people living there and are slceping in their bedrooms. There are
conversations that take place late at night with loud voices. I am not blaming the patrons for
this. They have absolutely no clue whatsoeverabout us. The conversations take place abom
30 feet from where I am trying to sleep and where other residents of #695 are trying to sleep.
There have been incidents where there have been especially late night noises where the police
have been called to quell distmbances on High Street. There is a lot of stuff going on there
now which is probably enough, and the idea of adding the potential for more I feel is a
mistake.
- There have been a couple of situations that I wanted to m~ntion to you that I personally
witnessed. This has to do mainly with patrons fi~m Gordon Biers~h late at night after
perhaps having a little bit too much to drink. I personally wimessed women with skirts hiked
up "minating in the alley, and men urinating in the alley. We have had a lot of late night
¯ disturbances. There has been a situation where we have had individuals vomiting in the
plaza, and no one from wherever the source was came over to clean it up. We live there:: We
have to put up with this. What I would like to do is to state that we do. not want the quality of
our neighborhood to decline further, as it surely will if Q Care goes in with five music and
dancing. I would like to read some comments fi’om the city records relating to problems at
The Edge, another five music and dancing establishment in town. I have four examples I
would like to go through with you.. The first is a letter from Agent Mark Vendable of the city
to Mr. Jacek Rosicki at The Edge. "Dear Mr. Rosieid: Since January of this year, there-has
been a steady increase in the number of arrests, disturbances, and oveeall calls, for service
associated with your establishment. Over the last month, I have received a number of
.telephone calls from neighboring residents. Their concerns primarily center around ~
disturbances such as noisy vehicles, blm~ng car radios, loud talking and yelling just prior to
the opening and mediately following the conclusion of.each night’s activities." The
.second example I have looks like a pofice record. It is Cap’s vvport on trouble spots for The
Edge. I will read a couple of phrt~s from each of these. This is dated January 1, 1994.
AI PCiins41 Mini l-! 3.drf Page 17
12-02-96
Arrest at The Edge. January 16, 1994, people from The Edge screaming and making a lot of
noise. August 28, 1994, Sequoia Hospital reporting a victim of violent injury. September
13, 1994, concealed weapon. September 6, 1994, ddnldng alcohol in public. September 4, :
.1994, Joseph F. Brown verbally harassed. There are others which I could go through.
Juvenile urinating on vehicle. Edge car, horns, people yelling in the area. This is. acopy of a
petition from The Edge. We, the undersigned, consider The Edge to be a perpetual nuisance.
Despite The Edge’s efforts to control the behavior of its patrons, the noise and the behavior
problems are a major cause of concern for us. We are.greatly disturbed by the intoxicating
and rowdy Edge clientele who linger in our neighborhood late at night, fighting~ yelling and
forcing us to call the police on a regular basis. I won’t bore you with any ~er details, but I
do want to end up by telling you that as I related to an associate at work what we were going
to be doing here tonight, one of the things she mentioned to me was that she l~.d been to The
Edge when there had been live music. She was there about one o’clock in the m0ming, and
as she approached the front door, three young men came out of the Q Cafe front door, and
one of them had his trousers down around his ankles, and was wearing no underwear. With
that, I will leave you. Obviously, we don’t want this in our neighborhood. This is an
emotionally charged issue for me. We do not want a lot of loud, late night noise in the area.
We don’t want live music. We doh’t want dancing. We don’t want a situation that is going
to be comparable to what has happened at The Edge..
~: Mr. McCann, I would like to ask you a question that I asked Mr. Malan
when he called/fie a couple of nights ago at home to talk about this issue. I want to ask it in
all sincerity. Please do not think I am being flip. We are struggling for a solution. On just
the noise issue, not the other neighborhood issues that you have referenced, have you ever
tried or considered using ear plugs late at night to block the noise?
]~r,.]~.,~: That is a great suggestion. I have not done so. One of the residents that used
to live there but has sine~-iefl went so far as to put in double pane glass on the sliding doors.
It cost about $1,800, and ear plugs would be a lot cheaper. But the answer is no.
---::-: I am a resident and homeowner at
Palo Alto Plaza.. Please bear with me, as this is the first time I am doing this. I am concerned
about the future tone that our neighborhood is taking here. I am not in favor of granting the
permit to Q Cafe for five music. Previous experience with other nearby facififies has been as
though there is music in the unit next door. You cannot figure out where it is coming from,
and then you figure out that it is maybe a block away. Recently, Gordon Biersch had some
special events with five music. You might say, that is right behind you. Of come, that is
going to be loud and noisy, and .this would be before Mr. Malan was a resident at Palo Alto
Plaza. But. down the street at 575 Hamilton, at the comer of Hamilton and High Street,
which is really Q Cafe’s back yard and is right down the street from us, there used to be a
penthouse in a commercial building that had a penthouse and a bar and live entertainment~ I
don’t remember the name of the place. It was about seven yea~s ago, and I could clearly and
A[ PCMins4 [ Min 11 - 13.rift Page 18
12-02-96
easily hear that coming up into my living arva, and I thought, wher~ is this coming from? It
was the first time I could understand why p~ople in Palo Alto have a problem with Shoreline.
That is how loud and how easily I could hear that music. In my neighborhood, I have also
been awakened and offended by disorderly patrons congregating on High Slreet. I have also
witnessed vomiting, urinating, and this been business men in suits as well as what Mr.
McCarm mentioned, ydling and swearing. The later the hour, the more disorderly and
disruptive the conduct is. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reason with p~ople in this
particular stole. It is not just a summer problem when the windows are open more. It is all
year round. Loud music and ydling make it difficult to have a quiet ev~g and a good
night’s rest. This is especially a problem if one of your family members is ill, if somebody is
studying or ffyou have to get up early in the morning for a 7 am. meeting. Would you want
that.in your own neighborhoods or with your own family? I would also like to voice my
concern as to who enfor~s any kind of ~ents that we have made. We have worked
pretty well with Gordon Biersch, but I find that as a resident in the neighborhood, we have to
be the enforeers. I do nOt want to an enfore~ or a complainer or a police person.. I have a
conc~a as to how that is going to be ~Idressed.
"One thing I wanted to bring up is that the pcr~n repres~ting Q C~e mentioned that the
majority of the neighborhood is non-residential, but there, in fact, is a n~v residential
building being built at the comer of Alma Street and Forest, so in fa~ more residents are
moving in.to the neighborhood. Thanks for listening to my
.Chai~:t~u~~: How do you where these people come fi~m who are disrupting your
sleep and behaving inappropriately in your complex?
~£~lI~l~l~: I don’t. They are obviously e~nning out ofplaces late or places where-they
have.had a lot to drink. What I am con~-ned about is, 1:30 in the morning to me, ~y
week nights, is ridiculous. We have enough problems with people coming out at 10 or
11 o’clock having enough to drink~. Remy’s graph on the number of calls coming in a~er
midnight is an excellent example of what we m’e about to introduce into our neighborhood
where we already have some problems.
A~enue #3A~ Palo Alto: My apartment fac~ High Street. I
find it unfortunate that I have to speak on this o~,asion, because when Q Ca~e opened up, I
loved the place. I love to play billiards.. U~fommately, a year ago the place was allowed to
have five music, which, despite my love ofb’dhards playing at night, I hate playing billiards
with the loud music. That was not the only problem, though, as the~ were quite a few noise
problems within my apartment wi~i~ I primarily noticed through guests who are using the
bedroom facing High Street, which is aft .e~l by the area. Therefore I would like to ~
with you two environmental issues whie~h I would like to urge you that unless you resolve
¯ ~hem, not to grant the permit to Q C~ffe. The fit~t issue is the noise pollution issue, ~s I~
mentioned, which needs to be resolved, since on the one side, we have the actual observation
Page 19
.12-02o96
of myself, guests in my place, and some of the other residents you have just heard from,
against .essentially an acoustical report full of feelings and predictions which are not
representative oft.he situation. The report does not describe what noise level was used at thb
source. The report is assuming closed doors. I doubt whether Q Care would like to operate
with closed doors, otherwise, how will their customers get in and OUt of the place, sothis
needs to be resolved. "
Second, another pollution issue is the parking issue and parking pollution. As we just heard,
they are predicting a 30% increase in their business revenue, which I presume will result in a
305 increase in cars parked in the neighborhood. I recommend to most people who visit my
apartment to go and park at the Whole Foods parking lot farther down before they come up,
because it is impossible to park. So unless you find adequate solutions to these three issues,
noise pollution and parking pollution, I urge you against granting the permit.
l=hail~;~;la..~l~: We will now have Mr. Malan give his rebuttal. He will have five
minutes.
~: I will try and keep m~, remarks brief and not use all five minutes. As youhave
heard this evening, the-re are a number of us who live in the neighborhood who are very
concerned about theoperations that have ~ condu~’~exl at 529 Alma Street. The apparent
disregard for the due process of zoning and for the use permits that have b~n in place. We
have tried to bring this to the city’s attention in the past, and we continue to bring this to the
city’s attention. We b~lieve there is an ongoing issue of concern with 529 Alma S~t with
regard to noise and adharence to code. We.also believe there are noise issues related to
parking and residents in the area. In particular, you asked how is it easy for us to tell flit is
from Q or not. If you look at businesses around us, most of them are eating establishments.
They. do finish their business typically by 11:00 or l 1:30. They are not open at one in the
morning. They are not Ol~’n at 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning. Gordon Biersch has been closed
for several hours at 1:30 in the morning. Ifth~ are l~ople staggm-ing around outside, either
they have become terribly lost on the way to their cars or they have come from somewhere
else. There are not other late night establishments that we have experience with. We would
like to reiterate, myself included and oth~rs who have said it, I am not in favor of shutting
down Q Cafe. I don’t want you to shut down Q Cafe. I am perfectly happy with Q’s as a
billiard parlor establishment, and as a bar. I did not oppose their permit when they asked to
b~.that kind of a business. I assumed that as business men, they had made a sound business
decision to open a billiards parlor. I don’t think it is our issue as a city issue.or a zoning issue
whether or not that business turned out to b~ a right decision. They took the risk, and
hopefully, will make the profit. We are not a socialist city, the last time I checked, where we
have to zone or enforce business issues through law.
I am very concerned, ladies and gentlemen, also about some ofthe issues related to zoning
and appropriateness of use. I believe.that on the te~imical areas and the legal areas, the
A[ PCMins4 ] Min I 1-13.drf Page 20
12-02-96
information from Julie Baigent speaks for itself when it says there are a number of areas of
concern about this proposed use. I would urge you to please not approve this permit. Please
don’t do this to us. We have had this experience in the past when live music was playing in
the neighborhood. We have already been disturbed by live music at this very site. We have
run the experiment, ladies and gentlemen. We have been disturbed. We have c~lled the
police. We have data from The Edge, quantitative data, where we can go ba~k and ask, what
was happening at a similar establishment. We do not think this is appropriate, ladies and
gentlemen. Thank you.
Next we will hear the applicant’s rebuttal.
~b~: I will try to be very brief. First of all, with respect to Mr. Malan’s attorney’s
letter, I have been able to only briefly look at it tonight. But if you look at one of
Mr. Salmon’s reports, he does apply the corre~t code at 910.040, and the sound levels taken
at the various estabfishments within a property plane were well within the eight decibels.
Secondly, it ~ that Mr. Malan’s concern is noise coming from the skylights. If you
look at Mr. Salmon’s report, it indicates that the noise, ffany, would be negfigible. Furtlter,
Q Care is w~ng to make adjustments and noise reduction construction within the skylight
and ~.~indow areas, taking into consideration that the noise is coming out from the roof where
most of the noise would be coming from. That would address the residents of Pale Alto
Plaza’s concerns.
Next, there are very many local restaurants in the area, as you know, which are probably
closer to the residents of the Plaza than Q Care is. Gordon Biersch is open until 1 am. Blue
Chalk is open tmtil 2 am., and the Empire Taproom is open until 1 am. I don’t see any
evidence that the patrons which are causing ~oes near the pl~a are coming from Q
Cafe. I would also like to point out that during the time that Q Cafe had a temporary use
pezmit for five music and did play live music, there were no ~ports of complaints whatsoever
from anyone. Also, Casa Olga, again closer, probably more sensitive ~idents residing
there - no complaints whatsoever.
Lastly, I would like to stress that Q Cafe is not the same as The Edge. The Edge is a totally
different establishment. They allow patrons 18 years and up to enter. There is a big
difference in behavior between 18 years and 21 years. Ithink.you all can agree to that. The
Edge is in primazily a residential area. This is a mixed use commercial area. There have
been no complaints about Q Care similar to The Edge that we ram see. We have cbe~ked the
poli~ records. None of the complaints have been confirmed. I understand that they are
looking at their well being and are concerned about their sleep. We understand that, but I
don’t think there is any proof that disturbances are coming from Q Care. From what we have
presented tonight, I hope that the commission will grant the use permit, removing the
conditions we have mentioned. Thank you.
~: That completes the public testimony, and I will bring this item back to
the commission. This is a quasi-judicial issue. According to our bylaws, we need to disclose
any outside contacts which we had which could significantly influence the preliminary view~
on this item. Does anyone wish to make any comments at this time about whom they might
have talked to or what they might have done?
" : I had a brief discussion about this issue with Julie Balgent and
received a letter, from her regarding these issues. I also received a couple of other phone calls
regarding this issue, but I did not talk to anyone else.
~: I had a talk ,0~,ith Julie Baigent this afternoon, but it was just a
procedural item.
took a call from Mr. Malan at home.
~: Are there any questions from the Planning Commission for sta~.
Commissioner Beecham: I would like to ask the police representatives to comment on any
correlations they have between complaints and the operation of live music at this facility.
Kathy MeKenna: For the Q Care, we have had minimal complaints for noise. We show five
complaints for.n0ise while they had the live music. In comparison to The Edge, we had a lot
more. The Edge and the Q are not comparable, as far as the police department is concerned.
.CJ:mmli~merBeeeham: What kinds of complaints were those five?
.]~t,.~]li~: TheY ~ loud music complaints, which are documented in the report.
F,,mnmissioner~eeeham: Did you have any complaints about individuals as they left the
facility?
~tkJ~ca~lI~: We show about five or six that actually talk about patrons that were unnfly,
unwilling to leave, one possible fight, but as far as in the residence and the neighbors
complaining about loud nose, no, we have not.
CommissionerBeeeham: Do you know ifany officers in that area have noti.ced any increase
in any kind of disorderly conduct in that time period?
No.
~: I have a question for Lisa. One ofthe requested modifications by Q
Care concerns this issue of the sprinkler system. They claim that we do not have knowledge
A[ PCaVlins41Minl 1-13.drf Page 22
12-02-96
of what the code requires. What is your justification for this condition?
~: That condition came from our fire department in response to our routing the
application to them for review. So that was their determination, that to meet fire code, those
sprinklers were needed.
~: I am still not clear on what the code requires. The applicant claims one
thing, and I am not sure what the actual code requirement is. Did the fire department make
this condition because of the code, or out of some flexibility that they have?
~: I would assume that it is because of intensification of use. They review all
amended or modified or new use permits. So ffa business is expanding either the square
footage or the use (and in this case it is not square footage, but it is the intensity of use), they
would apply new conditions.
~TA3~nissionerSchink: My question is for Ms. Canble. Maybe you can answer for me how
we deal with this dilemma~ When I readthe acoustical report, it appears to me that the
ambient noise level is about 50. Ac~zrding to the sound x~3~ort, the recorded music at the
property line is in the range of 62. On the face ofit, it doesntt seem that the numbers meet
the ordinance requirement. If those are the facts presented to us, I just do not see how we
would make the environmental findings. Am I missing something here?
~: The permit contains, first of all, a condition which requires compliance with the
noise ordinance. That is important to remember. If this ponnit h ultimately approved by the
City Council, regardless of what Mr. Salmon’s r~rts say, ifthis use does not comply with
the noise ordinance, they are going to have to turn down the volume or shut off the music or
put ininsulation or do whatever they need to do to comply with the noise ordinance, or else
the pofice will be citing them. Obviously, the commission does not want to be in a position ’
to approve the use permit if it is your conclusion, based on evidence before you, that there is
absolutely no way the use could possibly meet the noise ordinance. But realize that if
approved, the acoustical report, like so many other environmental analyses, is in part,
estimates of what is likely to happen overtime and are tests of small bfips in time. They will
need to comply with the noise ordinance. The 2~ming admini~rator did recommend
additional conditions whi~ were not implemented at the time tbe aconstical reports were
taken to try to infer that the noise standards are met. Those include the vestibule and the
additional soundproofing around the skylight area. I would add that it is .eemiuly within
your di~on, should you choose to do so, to continue the hearing and ask that the. ~.
acoustical consultant be here to further address these questions. That is up to the
commission, and it is cem~dy not requi~, but if you continue to have questions about the
report that you feel ~e not ~lequately ~ that would be an option available to you.
~: Let me ~k my question in a little ditfereni way. You answered part
A J PCMins4 [ Min I 1-13.drf Page 2~
12-02-96
of my concern, but I am still struggling with the environmental impact assessment. How do
w~ come up witha negative declaration for a circumstance where the evidence appears to
show noncompliance. :
~: That is the judgment of the Planning Commission, and that is one of the items
before you tonight. If, upon taking everything into account, you feel that the use cannot be
operated even with the conditions as recommended or with other conditions that you might
come up with in a manner that satisfies the noise standard, then it is within your discretion to
conclude that the negative declaration should not be approved.
Commissioner Oiakian: I want to go back ~o the poli~ department representative. Bern
asked questions about the Q establishment. What we learned a little earlier tonight is that we
have some other establishments downtown playing live music. What are the calls for service
like for those operations, especially Fanny and Alexander’s, as that has b~n going for
awhile. ’
~hh.~$~: We tried doing a comparison of all of the different places and the calls for
s~rvice. The Edge has the majority of calls for seTvice, but it is not like any other
establishment, so it is like mixing apples and oranges to compare The Edge. Downtown, you
have Fanny and Alexander".s. It has calls for s~’vice. It has probably more calls for service
than we think it should have. I cannot give you the number, but we do pay very close
attention to Fanny and Alexander’s. Then there is Paradies. We have not had any calls for
s~’vice at Paradies. I think it actually has a lot to do with the type of music that they play.
Paradies plays jazz. I am not sure exa.cfly what Fanny and Alexander’s play, but I think it is
more like rock and roll, and they have a different type of crowd. I don’t know about the type
of music at Q care. I know that when Q Cafa had live music, we did not have the calls for
service.even during that time that was anywhere comparable to Fanny and Alexander’s.
Right, ’but Q Cafe was only in operation for a short period of time
. h~~edlag: It was in December, and we had no calls for s~vice.
C-zanmission~ Oigllig11: The reason why I am bringing up this subject is that The Edge
nightclub use p~mit came before this Planning. Commission a few years ago. I was one of
the.so people who went through all of the calls for service. So I know what is going on a~ The
Edge. We made some modifications to their use permit. We in fact got another nightclub
before us sometime later, La Cumbre, and we pulled the use permit on that particular
operation because of some of the activiti.~s that were going on th~,e. Is it a fair assessment to
say, along the lines of what you just said, that when you have a certain lype of operation with
a particular type of music going on, that in fact, that rezlui~s some action by the police¯ department? They tend to draw you in because of certain activities that tend to happen in
regard to that? = .
A[ PCMins4 [ Min I 1-13.drf Page 24
12-02-96
]~,.~,f~fd~: Correct. I don’t know ifLa Cumbre even had food, but I believe the main
objection of La Cumbre and of The Edge was live entertainment. That is not the main
function of the Q. They are a restaurant with billiards, and have dance music on the side.
Fanny and Alexander’s I a~tually think has both food and entertainment. Paradis is the.same
way.
" " : The interesting thing about The Edge is that it did not start out to
necessarily be what it ended up being, because it was an establishment that a~ually was a
restaurant with music as an ancillary activity.
Actually, Keystone is when it changed.
.~: It started out originally as a G-crman restaurant with an om-pah-pah
band. So I am familiar with its history. To return to my main point, it does require some
police resources, typically when we get into e.smblishments that have live music that are in
existence for long periods of time.
]~[~]~t: Are you saying all music, anytime you have music, or just big
establishments?
Commissioner Oiakian: With establishments where you have live music, we tend to have
some involvement of police resources with them. That has been my experience.
]~i,~ll~: Right, where there is alcohol in combination. That is usually when you have
calls for service.
¯ - _" " : Who pays for that service when you have to go out, answer a call
and deal with the disturbance?
The citizens of Palo Alto.
~: It is not the owner of the business whom we charge back for a
complaint.
"_.~,l~t~mJT.~: There was a question about parking. Can you park at the CalTrans
station across the ~?
]~C~: I befieve it is signed for no parking unless you have a permit, however, many
people do park thc,’re a~r commute hours in the evcnfing ~re o~.
A[ PCMins41Min I l- 13.rid Page 25
¯ 12-02-96
Cliaimerson~: Can a business recommend that someone park there after commute
hours are over?
.~: I wouid think that to be able to do that officially, they would need permission
from CalTrans, the Joint Powers Board.
.Commk~donefB~e~ham: Do you know what the policy is there? Have you ever heard of
anyone being ticketed or cited?
~: I am not aware of anyone being ticketed, but I have not researched that.
~[: Another question I have is, what is parking like in that general area? Is
there lots of parldug in those one or two parking lots right next door throughout the evening?
~: Again, I have not done a parking survey. There are parking spaces available, but
I do not know exactly what is available at what hours.
~: My general impression is that those are heavily utilized parking lots in the
evening. There is a lot of turnover, but they are usually quite full. However, I would also ~
testify to the fact that parking across the street is generally available in the evening hours,
whether it is legal or illegal to use it. It is used as spillover parking, and that is how that strip
area functions interms of availability of parking.
~: One of the conditions we put on The Edge was to tell patrons where
there were spaces to park and to encourage that as part of the education of their patrons.
However, it would not be appropriate for people at this location at Q Cafe to tell people to
park across the street if, in fact, it is posted that there is no parking there.
~.L~: Yes, staff would concur with that. Without approval of the Joint Powers Board,
that would not be appropriate.
" " : I believe Ihave seen signs re,Menlo Square, Kepler’s, etc., who
have signage indicating parking across the street at the CalTrans station there. I am not
100% sure of that, but it might be possible to do that sort of thing.
~hgil:p~f~3fLC.~: We were asked about compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the
designated use in this area, and whether this use was approved, whether it was appropriate in
the zoning and in the Comprehensive Plan requirements. Could you comment on that?
~: ! had found that it was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because it did
increase pedestrian vitality. I did not find that the.Comprehensive Plan limited pedestrian
vitality to shopping only. I think it refers to all kinds of uses that bring people into an area, if
A [ PCMins4 [ Min I 1 o 13.drf Page 26
12o02o96
not on a 24-hour basis, on more than just a daytime basis and into the evening. So I had
found that it did comply with that policy.
~: Relative to that issue, my only comment is that the determination of how the
project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan really is a classic policy application question for
the Planning Commission. I would not care to comment further.
What about the GF zone?
~: That is an interesting argument. This is another example of how our code is
perhaps one of the more difficult ones to decipher. I am hoping, as a Sidelight, that as.part of
our~code cleanup after the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted that we can put like things
together in like places.
As I understand the historic interpretation, the Planning Department, which certainly seems
appropriate to me, considers this as an eating and drinking establishment, which is a
permitted use in the CD-GF zone. In the early to mid-1980s, we did what a lot of
communities are doing, which was to decide to try and control alcohol sales by essentially
doing an overlay requiring a use permit for eating and drinking establishments (and one
would presume that that includes drinking of alcohofic beverages), but we now have a use
permit requirement, which is why this establishment needed to get a use permit: It is not
because it was a conditional use in a GF zone. It was because they sell alcohol. That is in a
separate section hidden away in the zoning ordinance. When that use permit was issued, the
practice of the planning department was to control live entertainment by making it a
condition of that permit for alcohol sales that they needed to come back to m ffthey wanted
to do live music. It is specifically prohibited. In other words, the use permit they are here for
tonight is an amendment to their use permit. It is not a use permit for a nightclub, which is
not a use listed in our zoning code. It is an amendment to an existing use permit for an eating
and d~dg. g establishment, a permitted use, which sells alcohol, which needs a conditional
use permit. That is a long winded way of saying that I do not feel that there is a code
violation in issuing a use permit for an eating and drinking establishment which serves
alcohol where five entertainment is simply an ancillary use.
¯ " " : I am interest~ in the parking lot across the street fi’om the plaza. Is
that used at night? Is that some of the source ofthepmblems? That is the parking lot on
High Street. By day, it is reserved for business use and is posted "No Parking,.
But at night, it .s~ps at six o’clock.
P.lgty._Stox~:~ I know that it is a CalTrans lot, and you are required to purchase a permit for
something like 50¢ a day.
AI PCMins4 [ Minl-1:13.drf Page 27
12-02-96
" : I am talking about the parking lot on High Street across from the
plaza where these folks live. It is a private lot. I want to know if patrons from late night
places who use that lot at night are a source of disturbance.
~ For the record, the lot flint Commissioner Eakins is asking about appears tO be
on High Street associated with the properties addressed 632, 640, 642 and 654 High Street,
all private business establishments.
]~’jf~;~: As far as we know, we do not receive any calls for service to that lot which
are out of the ordinary.
e : I have three questions. First, I want to ask Debbie, as she talked
about the live music being put into the conditionas a use permit came up for use of alcohol,
if there is no necessity for an alcohol use permit, is live music otherwise permitted?
~: Live music on its own would be.classified as a commercial recreation use, which
is a conditionally permitted use. The billiard facility is also a commercial recreation use, ~
which is a conditionally permitted use in that zone.
::- :: So if they did not serve alcohol at the facility, would they still need
a p~rmit for live music?
~: For their billiard facility? Yes, they would need a conditional use permit.
. --. --" "_:_ 0 -: :: :_ : And for having live music there even if there was no alcohol
served?
That is corr~t.
--,’- "-’- ----- : -= _: -_ : Also, Jon asked cartier about the acoustic measurements in the
report, those numbers versus our ordinance. Debbie pointed out that in any case, the
applicant would have ~ome~¢ the ordimmce. I am still curious wh~her staff believes that the
report, as submitted by the applicant, indicates that the noise levels, as measured, do comply
with the current code.
~: I feel that based upon comments that we received in the letter and in discussion
tonight, there is some question as to whether or not it racers the noise ordinate.
: Can you explain more about that?
~: I believe that they may haveused an incorrect location for measurements. They
are still saying that it is less than the ambient, or not more than it can be over the ambient, but
A[ PCMins4 [ Mini 1-13.drf Page 28
12-02-96
they measured that in the wrong location. They did not measure it at the prop~ly plane.
They measured it 13 feet away from the property plane. They need to clarify that.
: As further clarification of that, I assume that the property line goes
up vertically surrounding the lot, and in the case where tbei is a potential problem with
noise coming out of the skylights, one would have to carefully measure up there to confirm,
as well.
That is correct.
¯ " : My third question goes back to Condition #21 and the sprinkler
requirement. You indicated that the fire depar~ent added this because of intensification of
use based upon having live music. Is that intensification of use due to more square footage or
more people to be allowed in the building?
~: It is becau~ of a different occupancy and diffzrent req "mrements for the I~ of
use that would be in there.
.C.,o~~B~zzham: So is there some codification that ffyou have live music, that is a
more intense use and therefore, has a more stringent sprinkler requirement?
~,.1~: I think we ~e spcculafi~ here, but our speculation, without having someone the
from fire department, is that when you have a dance floor, you have the potential for more
bodies to fit into a space than wben you have billiard tables and regular eating and drinking
restaurant type tables. That would’be our guess, but we would need to ask them sp~ifically
what tri~ered that additional condition.
" " l~:m~z~l: I would like to make one comment on this subject. That is that there
appeared to be only two exits from this building. Thee is no back exiL There is a door that
has been blocked off at the bazk. So it ~ to be very limited in its rear access. If one of
those exits got closed ott~ it ould be a real ~ fftbere w~re a fire in there. If there are
no further questions, let’s b~gin the diszus~on.
F.~mznission~Beecham: I have two overall concerns. One concern is that we do definitely
want the downtown to be a viable, ommercial area.. In the past year, in particular, the city
has strongly moved forward to bring in a single-room occupancy (SRO) over.on Almaat a
very-close location to this. Discussions of that appfication brought up a lot of discussion on
whether having additional resid~ts downtown in that location would constrain commercial
activities currently going on (legally) in that area. The biggest cone~-n forthat location is
noise. Also, some concern about odors coming fi’om the automobile repair shops, but
¯ mainly, the concern is over noise. So ~s we talk about this, we n.eed to be very careful ~.
consider our position on this as to how we handle noise fi’om an ongoing ommcrci~d
A[ PCMins4[ Minl 1-13.drf Page 29
12~02-96
establishment and how it impacts the residents who do live downtown and who are
surrounded by commercial establishments. On the one hand, as was pointed out in the staff
report, the city’s policy is to encourage residents to be able to live in commercial locations. :
The mixed use is v~ important to where we want to go. On the other hand, we move in a
very dangerous direction, I think, if by having some residents move in, it th~’eforeplaces an
undue constraint on otherwise appropriate commercial activity. So that is one broad concern
that I have.
The other concern is on the noise, as has been mentioned here clearly, there really are two
kinds of noise that we have to take care of. One is the direct noise from the music coming
out, and We have some numbers that we might look at, although I think we would all
conclude that they are not clear enough for us. But the noise created by the music is one
aspect. The noise created by the patrons as they leave is clearly the other aspect. We do well
know from The Edge that it is the patrons who cause a lot of the trouble. We have had’
comments from our police representatives tonight that they have not, within their purview,
seen any significant problems by the patrons leaving this facility, but I think that may well be
where we need to focus a lot of attention if we do want to go forward with this.
Commissioner Eakins: My concern also is that the numbers are confusing. Perhaps it is
because they are incomplete, not just because they are contradictory. I am not very
enthusiastic about trying to reach a conclusion without a better array of numbers and a better
analysis ofthe~i. If we are using objective ~iteria, it ought to match.
One of the options would be to continue this meeting until we get those
Commissioner B_vr~: ! ~ the big policy issue we are addressing here is mixed use and
whether we want to encourage it or not. If we do, by its very terms, it involves mixing uses
which will occasionally result in incompatibilities. Then the question comes back, how do
we reconcile them? On the one hand, we have impaCu’~d neighbors. I don’t think they would
be here tonight if there were not a real impact. I don’t think they are making it up, and
personally, I hate unnecessary noise. I would restrict leaf blowers and garbage tracks and all
kinds of stuff, but the question is whether it is necessary or not.
Be.m asked just the right question about undul~ restt’i~ng the commercial establishments.
The analogy would be that the commercial use, because this is primarily a c~. mmer~ial
district, seems to me to be more impo .rtgnk Just as we are going to encourage mixed use, we
want to selectively pl~e ~ retail uses in existing residential neighborhoods.. I think the
residential uses will trump and severely, in that c~e, constrict whatever retail uses may be
put there. In this case, this is a direction, ingeneral, in which I would like to see the
downtown go. I would like to see more live music down there, in fa~’t, I am probably the
only person on this commission who went to two of those concerts at Q Care while live
AI PCMins4 [Mini 1-13.drf Page 30
12-02-96
music was being played there. I had a really good time. I would like to see us figure out how
to accommodate live music as part of the mix of the vitality of downtown. So in this case, I
think the zoning ordinance made a good faith effort to construct conditions that balance the
impacts and say back to the applicant, if you are going to do this, ~ a good neighbor. Take
steps to mitigate the noise, to reduce the impacts on the neighborhood, but let’s go forward
with the dominant use in that are~ which is a commercial use. In this case, we have a use
that I think fits.
There has been some talk about what kind of music attracts what kinds of folks. Obviously,
this one attracted me a couple of times. In this case, I think what you have put together at Q,
at least the time I was watching who was playing there and when, is a fairly sophisticated
lineup which, in my experience, attracted the kind of crowd that was not unduly rowdy and
that was not going to ereate an Edge type scene around Q that would impact the neighbors.
So I would like us to uphold the zoning administrator’s de~ision tonight. I don’t think we
need to wait for additional information. There is some conflict in the data, but it comes b~k
to whether or not Q can prove itself to be a good neighbor with these conditions imposed,
and I think they will.
¯ " " : I am coming down in a little different place than Commissioner
Byrd. If we are to hope that mixed use will succeed in our community, we have to go a long
ways in protecting the residents who choose to live in the downtown area. We need to
recognize in this circumstance that the residents of Palo Alto Plaza are, in some ways, the
pioneers of the downtown. It is hard to believe that with all the vitality that we have now,
they were some of the people who moved into the downtown area. Q Cafe has come along
tnt’tly late in the game, and it is really in,unbent upon Q Cafe, in my mind, to prove to us
that they can be a good neighbor. They have to earn the right to play live music. To earn
that, .to me, it means you have to do your acoustical report the correct way and prove that you
can really keep your sound contained within your space. It is something that the fa~ we
have before us now do not seem to support. For that very reason, I have trouble going with
their appeal, and I am inclined to support the neighbors’ appeal.
I also come at this from some personal experience. My wife used to own the Gatehouse
Restaurant. We had live music, and we had neighbors. Many of the neighbors came meter we
were there, and we talked often about how we thought it was unfair that they moved in and
we had live music, with all of the same discussions that the Q Cafe people probably are
having. But the reality was that no matter what we tried to do with the business, we could
not keep the music quiet enough nor the patrons under control enough for live music to be
acceptable to the neighbors. We finally made the de~ision that we had to stop playing live
music. It just ~’eates an environment that you cannot control and still be a good neighbor.
So I am somewhat cynical about their ability to be a good neighbor with five music.
Finally, I have to say that I.visited the site on three occasions since the application was
A[ PCtviins4 [ lVlin 11 o 13.drf Page
12-02-96
agendized the first time. On all three occasions, the-front door was propped open, despite the
comments that the applicant has made. I think that is a situation you can expect that is
common in the restaurant business. I am troubled that comments that the applicant is makin~
to us do not hold up to my personal experience. So I would encourage us to uphold the..
neighbors’ appeal.
_" " : I, am in agreement with Commissioner Schink, and I think he is
talking about Alternative #3. That is the alternative I have more preference towards going to.
I have difficulty making Finding #l, especially the part that says, "...will not be detrimental
"to the public health, safety, welfare or convenience..." The reason why I have that difficulty
is what I was alluding to before when I asked questions of the representative from the police
department. My experience has been that live music, depending upon what type it is, is a
difficult situation to control. In fact, what we end up doing is putting a burden on our police
services, and that is something I donor particularly want to see, because I ~ they should
be used in other-ways. That is why I am not dwelling on the noise issue or the rights or the
wrongs about it, although I would go back.and rely upon the people who live in the
neighborhood. I imagine a lot of them would not be down here, especially for the first time,
if in fact, this was not a great disturbance to them. That is enough evidence for me to say that
I have enough concern on the noise end that I do not particularly need some additional
studies being done to indicate that to me.
To respond to.Commissioner Byrd’s comments, both in the case of The Edge nightclub area
and even, I think, if we looked at where La Cumbrewas, we could make an argument that
says both of those areas are mixed use areas. In my own case, I am not one who objects to
most of the activities that go on in both of those particular areas, but two specific activities I
think acted as a detriment, in many ways, to the people who lived there, so as Jon says, I
think it behooves us to try and fall on the side of the residents and provide some protection
for them. So I have difficulty .wanting to grant some sort of change to the original use permit
~erSchmidt: This is a difficult issue, and I can see both sides, as I think we all
can. I would go along with the gen~’ral views of Commissioners Beecham and Byrd. I feel
that the zoning administrator has indc~l conditioned ~ conditional usein a way to try and
keep the use in the realm of being a good neighbor. In order to have this use, the applicant
must, indeed, meet all of these qualifications. I agree that I don’t think we have accurate
information about the acoustics, but I do believe that once the acoustics are.clearly looked at,
there.are architecUn~l solutions through increased insulation around skylights, additional
glazing of skylights, and adding the extra pair of doors in the vestibule at the front. The
things that have been conditioned can do that.
On the other side, we do have evidence that the applicant has not necessarily done what they
say they are doing, like Jon saying the doors have be~ propped open. If there are two pah~
A[ PCMins4 [ Iv[in I l - 13.drf Page 32
12-02-96
of doors, it is less likely that they all will be propped open. Also, the applicant’s continuing
to have live music after the test period was over is not exactly e good faith effort. However, I
do think that given the conditions, given that this is a conditional use, if the conditions are
not met, it can be taken away. This is not a permanent granting of live music. If’there are
problems, they will no longer be allowed to operate. So I would go along with what the
zoning administrator has ruled.
: If the Chair is willing to entertain a motion, I will try
to craft one that may bring some of the concerns together. I would very much like to work in
a way to keep the vitality downtown. For myself, I am not an advocate of live music, and I
have a lot of concern not so much about the music but about what the patrons do afterwards,
as we have all seen. I do have concerns that the data submitted by the acoustic engineer
either are simply not comprehensible to me or not adequately done, .one or the other. Also, in
terms of where the people are having the problem, which is behind the facility, the front
doors are not the problem. Noise coming out of the front door goes off" onto the train tracks,
bounces up, and I don’t suspect that it comes back, causing a problem for the residents in the
area. As we have heard from the Holiday Inn, it does not cause a problem over there, so I am
notconeemed about the front doors or the vestibule.
So the motion I will make is to give a three-month permit to the facility. During those three
months, they would need to perform additional acoustical testing to be done in conjunction
~ with the city, and in particular, the testing needs to verify what is coming out of the skylights.
If those tests indicate that soundproofing needs to be put into the skylights, that the applicant
is to do it or cease playing live music. Also, during this three-month period, if we can have
the pofice department make a special effort to watch the patrons as they depart to determine if
there is any problem that the patrons are causing, then we can address that at the end ofthree
months. This would come back to the planning department at that time, who will perhaps
have the option of bringing it back to the commission or proceeding with it themselves.
~: By Commissioner Scbmidt.
~: Bern, is it your intention that they install the vestibule doors and do
the fire monitoring improvements before they implement this .three-month test?
~:m~mer~eecham: Regarding the vestibule doors, not prior to this. The testing would
prove the necessity of that or not. Regarding the condition on the sprinlder~., that would be
included. Dance halls have a unique fire.problem, and I would support that.
~lig~tl~.Q.ig~: Although I am not going to vote for the motion, ~e you also
.suggesting under Condition # 2 that other days of the week be added, other than what the
¯ zoning administrator sta~s?
A I PCMin~4 [ Min 11 - 13.drf Page 33
12-02-96
~munission~~: No, that it be limited to what the zoning administrator conditioned.
So the motion is working off oftbe zoning administrator’s conditions. I am working toward
a way to make this work out for all concerned. I think that there probably is noise coming
out of the skylights, and I believe that to be the main source of the music problem for the
residents. Regarding the patrons, I believe we simply need to watch and get more data to
find out how that really works for patrons coming out from this location.
" : I feel it is reasonable to try.this for a short period of time to see if
.the noise can adequately be taken care of. I believe that it can, and this would be a
reasonable way to test it. In looking at the other conditions, I thought there was one in there
requiring customer education, but I cannot find it.
~: It was mentioned in the alternatives section.
¯ " " " : I would suggest adding that as a condition for this three-month trial,
similar to what The Edge does. I believe there is a customer education requirement, whether
it be leaflets or something stating that customers should be aware that there are residents in
the neighborhood, and to please act appropriately when you leave.
¯" : I accept that as a friendly amendment.
.... : Since this is an experiment, would the maker of the motion consider
requiring that the live music end at 11:30 at night, so that +if the experiment is a mistake right
from the start, at least the neighbors do not have to tolerate it after 11:30 p.m.
: What I wonder about that is how real a test it would be in terms of
the patrons coming out late at night. -Certainly it prevents the problem from arising, and it
prevents a method of stri~ly assessing the acoustics. I would probably go for a midnight
cutoff" time.
" : I appreciate your accepting my friendly amendment, nevertheless, I
am not going to support your motion! I have a problem with the whole approach. I just
don’t think we can approve this use permit with the re, cent facts we have gotten which do not
seem to support the mitigated negative declaration. In my mind, it is clear from the facts that.
they are going to be in violation. From my personal experience, I do not know. of any way
that they can make this work in the long run. So I fecl we have an obligation to protect the
neighbors, and we should deny the.Q Cafe’s permiL
~;gllll~agr..,F,~: Regarding Condition #15, "The zoning administrator shall hold a
.public heating within 12 months ofthe approval," I think that should conform to the three-
month calendar.
AI PCMins41Min I 1-13.drf Page 34
12-02-96
¯~: That is one option. Otherwise, I believe Commissioner Beecham said it would
not necessarily have to occur at a public hearing but could be determined by staff that they
are meeting the noise ordinance.
~: This raises a question for me as to what is intended by the motion. If the
motion is that the permit be a three-month permit, then it would expire at the end of three
months. They would want to immediately file a new application for a permit which would
have a hearing before the zoning administrator in due.course, and they would go on. So my
question is whether the motion is for a three-month permit or for a longer permit with a three-
month review period? As I heard it, it was a three-month permit, so there will be a hearing
before the zoning administrator, but it will not be under this permit. It will be for yet another
application for renewal to extend it.
~: Which they would need to apply for tomorrow in order to have it effective three
months fi~m the effective date of this permit. I have one additional concern about this
experimental permit. We are heading into a situation where we have evidence submitted
tonight that we do not have compfiance with our noise ordinance. I would like, at minimum,
for you to amend probably Condifian #14 to include teeth so that before weinitiate this
experiment, the noise report addresses our noise ordinance accurately and that mitigation
measures be required to bring the property into compliance for live music and that those
mitigation measures be implemented prior to initiation of the three-month experiment or
review period, whatever the maker of the motion intended.
F.~3mmis~:merB~ee2mm: Part of my problem is that I am not sure, fi’om the evidence,
whether it doe~ come into compliance. My suspicion is probably not, but I think the
evidence is quite incomplete. That is why I am proposing going forward on a limited basis to
gather more data. What are staffs comments?
]~l,.]~: I don’t think that is a good idea.. It zreates an indelible burden on code
compliance staff" and everyone else *z have these experiments. We have already tried it in the
past, and they did not work. From our perspective, in terms of their living according to the
temporary use permit conditions, I don’t want to head us into another three-month period
without some operating measures tha~ give me assurance that we are not going to be spending
incredible amounts of time that we do not have right now.
permit pulled, ~ the owner of Tbe Edge came in here and said, we did these things we
should not have done. We are going to do this to make these.things not happen again. ~They
have not been 100% perfe~, and in some cases, they c, mmot be, as it may not be their patrons
who are the offenden. But they came in here with the attitude that we can do this and this
¯ and this to make this work. We reviewed it in six months, and we review~ it in a year, and
we continue to review it. They go out and paint over gratfiti on walls. They go out and clean
AI PCMins4 [Mini 1-13.drf Page 35
12-O2-96
up the neighborhood. They do lots of things because they want that use to exist there and
have that recreation to happen, So people went along with it. We said, let’s see if this can
exist in this neighborhood. Perhaps that is not what we are feeling here. Our applicant is
saying that there are lots ofpeople in this neighborhood and there lots of people with this
problem. It may be that some of these other places also need to come in and look a~ what is
going on afler midnight downtown. Maybe that is the concern we really have. The question
is whether it is fair to burden one applicant, which is what we are being asked to do, when
there are several places downtown who have patrons leaving their premises drunk and using
.inappropriate bathroom facilities. We do not have bathroom facilities downtown. This
facility has only one stool - one male, one female place for people to use. Now they arc
going to have dancing and more drinking, so we have a problem perhaps a little bigger than
this place. We also do not have an applicant sitting here saying’they are willing to put those
things into the ceiling and make this place so that it is not noisy. We do not have complaints
about sound coming out of The Edge. We do still have probl~as with patrons leaving The
Edge and parking wh~’ they are not supposed to.
¯ " : " : Justto cerementbriefly in two areas. One is, offofwhat you said,
my concerns ar~ more the cumulative effect that goes on in the city when you have sewral
operations like this going on and the impact that has on the police dspartment and the basic
general service they ,an provide for the r~st of the community. So R is a little different from
what you am saying. My feelings and observations over the years were somewhat supported
by the ~present~tive from the police d~amn~nt and her indication that they still have some
problems at The Edge, which is why we do review their use permit periodically. We have
other similar type establishments, and R is requiring some effort on their part to monitor
them.. So that is wh~’ some ofm~ concern comes from.
I. also want to address what Bern just said. I have a real problem with the motion you just
stated, and the reason is that it always leaves me with the foaling that we have a guinea pig
effect h~r¢. Off of your own comments, you said, I ~lon’t assume that they ar~ going to m~t
the noise requirement. You arc almost conreding that at this point, so what w¢ do then is, for
three months, we possibly make the lives of some of the people living in the area miserable.
I have a real problem with trying to support a motion like that.
" :. Can w¢ go back to the point that Nancy raised? I fe¢l it is important.
I wonder if the maker of the motion could incorpora~ that language into it.
¯ " : Would you still r~fuse to vote for it?? I~t me ~ mor~ about the
intent. Perhaps thin is a b~ttcr .way of doing it. I do have a lot of qtmstions about the
acoustical data. To me, it is not clear. I think th~’e arc things that can b¢ done to make it
.work. I suspect there arc. I agree with Jon’s assessm~t and with what Phyllis is saying as
well, that the applicant is not really coming forward saying, w¢ want to do everything
possible to make this work. Certainly by having music when they should not have was not a
A [ PCMins4 [ Min I I- 13.drf Page 36
12-02.96
good beginning. But I am very concerned, as Owen indicated, about protecting the
commercial aspect of downtown and still make it liveable. How do we work that out? What
is the fight means of doing it? I aZ~ willing to experiment. I live a block from downtown,
and I know what it means. I ~ willing to experiment in ways of optimizing things here. We
do not have the right solution before us yet, and that is why I would like to work on some
timeframe to help give it to us, as opposed to fiat out saying "No way" or making
assumptions where we do not have enough data to reach a good conclusion. So if there is
another way of doing it to clean up what I said, I certainly would listen to it. I would very
much like to find a way to work out something that can be proven not to cause excess noise
for the residents and still permit this kind of use to continue downtown.
Nancy, do you have some suggestions to make?
~: I would make two suggestions to choose fi~m. One would be that you continue
this item, allowing the applicant to respond with their noise consultant to the information that
we received tonight about the inadequacy ofthe noise data. Should the statements of the
appellant’s attorney be correct, it is likely that there will be additional mitigation measures
recommended for the project in order to reduce the noise to acceptable levels and ensure that
the project meets our noise ordinance. That is one option.
Another option would be to proceed tonight but to strengthen Condition # 14 with the
requirement that they must have that acoustical analysis performed, and they must implement
whatever measures are necessary prior to initiating and effectuating the use permit and
starting up operation of the live music.
~: ~: I want to make a substitute motion. I feel that adjusting
the hours of operation could be one of the ways to preserve the viability, preserve the fun,
usefulness, the contribution of five music, but if the hours are ,shortened - and I think
Midnight is a good time - we do not have to go with two am. Isn’t that when the state
beverage board says that alcohol has to cease being served? Why are we using that as a
closing time? That.is a default guideline we tend to use.
I want to make a substitute motion that we continue this item so that staff can do what Nancy
said, plus the nearby residents and the owners of the commercial establishment can think
about what kind of hours they could both five with. In a mixed use area, which I believe in
(although I do not live in one), I befieve in the concept that there has to be alittle more give
~d ~ on both sides’ I would encourage that to
~: By Commissioner S~hink. I would like to ask staff about an appeal of a use
permit. How long can we continue this item?
~: I do not have the information.as to when this appeal was filed, so it will takea
A [ PCMins4 [ Min I 1-13.drf Page 3 7
12-02-96
moment for us to determine that.
~: Is there normally a six-month time frame? Hopefully, if this motion "
prevails and this item is continued for awhile, I would encourage the Q Care to meet with the
neighbors and use this as an opportu~ty to address their concerns. We may have a Situation
here where you could come up with some guards out on the street in the evenings to cut down
on the noise. The neighbors might then say, okay, we may hear a little music once in awhile,
but at least we do not have all the people walking up and down the strut screaming and
¯ yelling and doing the other things we heard about. These are obviously smart people who
live there. They can balance their inte~sts, and maybe you can convince them that it is better
to put up with a little live music in exchange for the wonderful things you will do for their
neighborhood.
~: Maybe some music at lunch is acceptable to them. You had originally
asked for that to balance some of those hours. There is a variety of ideas that’might work.
.~: In response to Commissioner Sckink’s question, it would appear that we have a
couple of months yet to act upon this item, so you could continue it.
To a date certain or uncertain?
~: if~e continue to a ~t¢ uncertain, w¢ will have to r~nofice it. I am not sure that
is appropriate under thd code. What I am hearing from staff is that they may decide to
renotice this anyway, if necessary, if there is additional information that should be included
in the negative declaration. By setting it to a date certain, that leaves that option open.
~: " rsvnCass~: The motion, then, is to continue this item to December 13 to
gather additional information as we have indicated, specifically in terms of noise and other
items.
¯ " "" : Would that give them ~nough time to get the acoustical report put
together and the mitigation measures to go along with it7
~: I think they ar~ motivated to do that as promptly as possible. My c, onc, cm in
se .Ring a date certain is that we would need sufficient ~e to renoti~ and perhaps amend the.
environmental determination, which ~ a 21-day rezl~nt plus lead time for the.
newspaper. If we need more time: you will have the item on your agenda, explaining why it
needs to be continued again.
" : My concern is that. we arc not providing sufficient time for 1bern to
actually do the report and then develop reasonable mitigation measu~s. If we arc serious
about accomplishing this with reasonable mitigation me, asur~s, you n~d to do the. report and
A{ PCMins41Min 11-13.drf Page 38
12-02-96
then, seriously analyze how you can mitigate the sound.
~: That is a valid issue. There are two options. You could go to the more prompt
meeting date for a date certain, risking their not being ready, which is probably likely, and
needing to continue.it again. Another option is to go to a more realistic date of January 8,
1997 and not have to return to the item on your agenda, with potential continuance, although
that removes from you the option of its happening smoothly and coming right back.
: Could we ask the appficaut about their preference?
~: We want the earliest date possible.
Commissioner Schink: I just want to make sure that the job is done right. I don’t think you
can accomplish the job in this period of time.
F.,]mirz~somCasset: They could ask for a continuance.
Commissioner Schink: I am trying to look out for the neighbors, as much as for the Q Care.
We have a substitute motion on the floor.
~: You could also ask the appellant as to his preference.
]~[~t1~: My preference would be for it not to come back on ~ber 11 since I will be
out of town.
MDXID_B~P~SSES: f, hail~JkE~ff~: Is there any timber discussion on this motion? All
those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-1, with Commissioner
Ojakian voting no.
M.O.~:IDJ~LP_~SSES: ~: Nowwe will.vote on the substitute motion which
continues this item to January 8, 1997. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That
passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
~1~: We have two more items to do this evening. What we are hoping to, do
is to take the public hearing portion of 3009 Middlefield Road this evening. We will now
proceed with Agenda Item 3, 548 Palo Alto Avenue.
A[ PCMins4 [ Min I l o ! 3.drf Page 39
12-02-96
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of the
PALOALTO PLANNING COMMISSION
Attachment 18
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.
January 8, 1997
529. ALMA STREET: Appeal of a zoning administrator’s approval
of a conditional use permit, 96-UP-5, allowing live entertainment,
including music and dancing, at an existing restaurant (Q Billiards).
Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been
prepared. File Nos. 96-UP-5, 96-EIA-4.
Chairperson Cassel: At our last meeting, when we discussed this item, the public hearing
was not closed. At that time, we closed the public testimony but not the hearing. At this
point, I propose that we allow the applicant and the appellant each an additional ten minutes
to discuss the new information that is before us. Anyone who has spoken previously can
have three minutes to speak to the changes, also anyone who has not spoken previously can
have three minutes, as well.
(Commissioner Eakins is now present.)
Are there any staff comments?
Ms.~: To refresh everyone’s memory, as it has been awhile, this application is from the-
owners of Q Billiards, who have applied for an amendment to their existing conditional use
permit to allow live entertainment, including live music and dancing seven days a week from
9 a.m. to 2 a.m. The existing use permit at 529 Alma Street allows the location and operation
of a commercial recreation use, which is the billiards portion of their use, plus an eating and
¯ drinking establishment with associated on-site sale and eonsurnption of liquor, beer and wine.
Condition #1 of the existing use permit prohibits live music. This application, which the
zoning administrator has’ approved with 22 conditions, would allow for the live
entertainment.
On November 13, the commission opened the hearing on this item, and continued it to this
evening to allow the applicant time to respond to some information that was submitted
regarding the noise analysis and its inadequacy. You have received with the staff report a
December 19, 1996 report from I.N.A.S. Engineering which provides additional technical
information. Based on the additional information received from the applicant, staffhas asked
andrecommended that there be an additional condition added to any approval tonight. We
are still recommending approval, but we have recommended an additional condition which is
located on Page 2 of your staff report in italics. It has to do with sound system volume
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 7
1-08-97
control being required so that the interior average audio levels under which the establishment
would operate would never exceed 90 dba, with peak audio levels not to exceed 97 dba.
Additionally, we have amended the environmental determination. At your places tonight,
you have an item from me dated January 8 entitled Environmental Assessment for
Conditional Use Permit 96-UP-1. You will recall that with the last packet, a negative
declaration had been proposed for the project, approved by the Director of Planning on June
20, 1996. In light of public testimony, as stated earlier, an additional acoustical.report was
submitted by the applicant. Staff recommends that a negative declaration for the project now
be revised. The suggested revisions are attached to this report. The revised negative
declaration concludes that the noise impacts of the project could potentially be significant,
but would not be if the mitigation measures recommended by staff are implemented. The
mitigation measures are required for the project to comply with city’s noise ordinance, as
outlined in the revised acoustical engineering report attached to your staff report that you
rece.ived in your packets. The mitigation measures are separate and distinct from the
recommended use permit conditions, such as the requirement for a vestibule, which staff
believes is necessary for the project to comply with the use permit findings for approval, not
necessarily the noise ordinance.
If the commission supports the staff’s recommendation to revise the negative declaration, the
revised document will be made available for the required 20-day public review period prior
to consideration of the project by the City Council. Notice of its availability will be given to
the public as required by the applicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act.
So we are once again recommending that the commission direct us to revise the negative
declaration per Attachment 1 that you received this evening, and to make the negative .
declaration available for public review for the 20-day period. In addition, we are
recommending approval of the project’s upholding of the zoning administrator’s approval
with a conditional use permit with 23 conditions, at this point. The new use permit would
allow music and dancing at the existing eating and drinking and commercial recreation
establishment based on a mitigated negative declaration, as amended.
Commissioner Sehink: Nancy, what happens if someone disagrees with the negative
declaration? If they appeal it, does it come back to us again, or is that just part of the package
that goes to the City Council?
~: Their disagreement would be brought to the City Council. The 20-day period for
review would occur prior to City Council final action.
Commissioner Schink: I have a question for staffthat you may want me to ask the applicant
when he comes forward, but I wanted to ask you first. In the revised engineering report
analyzing the sound data, it appears that they looked at the front door and talked about noise
leakage around the front door. I could not find anything in this report that talked about tests
A:IPCMINS41PC0108.drf Page 8
1-08-97
with the front door actually open. In here, the applicant, who is also the appellant, is saying
that they should not be required to do the vestibule, but I did not see any data, and I
wondered if I missed something that shows whether the sound stops when someone opens the
front door in support of that.
Ms. Lytle: I interpreted the report as you did, although we,can let the applicant respond, and
I believe their acoustical expert is present tonight also, so we can hear from him, as well. My
understanding is that the report we received assumed a closed door situation throughout, so
we did not, as I can tell, get any information on an open door situation that would lead us to
believe it would comply with an open door. The purpose of the condition for the vestibule is
to ensure that there is a closed door situation without having to rely upon a physical person ’
standing there monitoring the door constantly.
Commissioner Sehink: I have a procedural question. We were just handed a five-page
document, which I assume probably came from Q Care, just from reading it. It does not
have the authorship on the document, and I wondered if that is who it came from and whether
there are copies available to the public. It is a document entitled "Q Cafe Use Permit UP-96-
5, Planning Commission Hearing, 1/8/97."
Ms. L_vtle: It was submitted by the applicant, Q Cafe, and they do have extra copies available
for members of the public.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: I have a procedural question, as well. Since this is additional
information they have submitted at this point, I presume this will be a part of their testimony,
since we are supposed to be hearing just information on the sound problem.
Ms. Cauble: In looking through this quickly, my take on it is that it is a summary of the
information that is available at this point, and is probably an outline of what the applicant
intends to say. Since your public heating is still technically open, it is appropriate for you to
receive this document. Commissioner Schink was correct in ensuring that other members of
the public have access to it tonight.
Chairperson Cassel: I will now go to the public hearing to discuss the additional data that has
come forward.
Chert_ 1 Young. 529 Alma Street, Palo Alto: I am here to represent the Q Care. Since the last
hearing, one of the recommendations was that we try to meet and confer with the residents of
the Plaza to try and reach some kind of compromise. I have, on numerous occasions,
attempted to meet and speak with Ms. Baigent, Mr. Malan’s attorney, and have been
basically ignored. She has not gotten back to me, so that attempt has not brought forth any
results. Despite that, and in order to show the good faith of Q Care, we have undertaken
several noise reduction treatments. These treatments were recommended by Mr. Salmon, our
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 9
1-08-97
prior noise consultant.
The first is the skylights. All 12 skylights, which previously.were single pane, have now
been replaced with double pane skylights. According to Mr. Salmon, the skylight noise
leakage has a more direct effect on the Plaza than from any other exit area of Q Care.
Secondly, all of the front doors were weather stripped to seal the gaps, thereby reducing the
noise level coming out of the front door area. Third, the front doors were adjusted to be in
"auto-close" position so that the doors will always go back to a closed position after being
opened. One of the commissioners mentioned at the last hearing that he drove by and saw
the doors propped open. At that time, we did not realize that there was an auto-close switch,
and that in fact, it was in an auto-open position. Now, if someone opens the door, it will
automatically close unless someone takes a chair or some other physical object and props the
door open. Fourth, there are seven security members currently on staff. We have already
implemented a routine patrol on the streets around our building and have educated our
customers to be respectful of the surrounding business and residential neighborhood. That
will hopefully reduce the noise level from the patrons coming in and out of the Q Care.
You have all hopefully had an opportunity to review the acoustical report prepared by
Mr. James Mills. He was recommended to us by Mr. Salmon because Mr. Salmon was
unable to climb up on the roof to take the noise measurements. He recommended Mr. Mills,
who is physically able to do those tests. With these major noise reduction treatments, the Q
Care conducted a further noise analysis after these treatments, and a summary of the results
are highlighted here. With these treatments, the Q Care meets the City of Palo Alto noise
ordinance with an average operation level of 90 decibels, and a peak of 97 decibels. That is
something that Ms. Lytle referred to in her opening remarks.
Both skylights and front door measurements were taken at the property planes, and both
skylight and front door measurements meet the noise ordinance. The skylights are a mere
three decibels over the local ambient, and the front door is at seven. The double pane
Skylights show a significant improvement over the single pane.
Our historical data from’ bands playing at the Q Care indicate that an average operation level
of less than 90 dba was occurring. This level is equivalent to a CalTrain passing by, which
produces approximately 92 dba, as shown in Mr. Salmon’s sound report of Jantmry 31, 1996.
As you can see, just based on this alone, Q Care does meet the noise requirements. However,
in order to ensure this, our operations manager, who is qualified to read noise meters, will
conduct a sound cheek prior to the band playing to make sure that its average music level
does not exceed 90 dba and a peak of 97 dba. Additionally, the live music playing
throughout the evening will be monitored. I would now like to turn the microphone over to
Ann Valois.
Ann Valois, General Mama~er at O Cafe: I would like to respond to the comments made at
A:[ PCMINS41PCO108.drf Page 10
1-08-97
the last headngo Q care is not a nightclub and will never become one. Q Care is not The
Edge, and will never become The Edge. You cannot compare apples to oranges. Live music
does not mean similar operations. The police department testified on November 13th that Q
Care has much lower calls for service than any other places in Palo Alto. We have had a
good police record with the live music. In regard to a report made by Officer Stanford
regarding the July 26th incident, at 12:45 a.m., there was a complaint of noise disturbance
from Q Cafe. According to the report, the officer stated clearly that they arrived within
minutes of the report, and he could not hear any music or noise from the location. There
were only 15 people in the building, and the band had already packed up and left. Clearly, 15
people do not generate loud conversation nor does the absence of a band constitute loud
music. Maybe the noise disturbance was a little exaggerated. We do not know. Clearly, the
Palo Alto Police Department would not lie on our behalf. All of our direct neighbors support
the live music at Q Care. The Holiday Inn has written a letter of support. They are directly
across from us. Casa Olga residents who are closer than the Plaza residents have written a
support letter to us. We have tried to work with the Plaza, but we have received no
cooperation.
Chairperson Cassel: I would like to have you give us new information concerning your
sound report, and not repeat the data you gave us the last time.
Ms. Valois.: The only thing I can say regarding our sound report is that we have made
changes in it and that even quoting Mr. Malan’s testimony on the November 13th hearing, he
said he likes to get along with the people in the area, particularly with the businesses around
us; and we have made several attempts to contact Mr. Malan and his attorney to come to a
meeting and come to some sort of agreement. There has been no cooperation with Q Care.
Chairperson Cassel: Do you want your sound specialist to make any statements tonight?
Jason Tan. 529 Alma Street.. Palo Alto: I am the president of the corporation that owns Q
¯ Care. Before our sound engineer answers your questions, I do not really understand the
process of this commission. I do not understand how the Plaza people can hear us. How do
we know the sound is really coming from Q Cafe? Even though they can hear us does not
mean that we are in violation.
Chairperson Cassel: We have heard the testimony you gave us the last time. What we are
trying to do is to understand the new data you are giving us. We want to have you help us
understand the new report you have submitted concerning sound, how it is coming out of the
facility, what you have done, etc.
Ms. Young: Perhaps it would be better to have Mr. Mills come forward and answer
questions. We do not know how much you understand, so for him to reel off some opening
statement I feel would be useless, so why don’t we have him come up and answer questions.
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 11
1-08-97
James Sidney Mills. I.N.S. EngineerinK: I conducted the study that is reported in the
December 19th report. I would certainly like to answer any questions you might have.
Chairperson Cassel: Do we have questions for Mr. Mills?
Commissioner Beecham: On the sound coming out of the skylight, I understand that with the
double pane glass, it is reduced, and the measurements you have taken at the property line
indicate that it adds 3 dba above ambient at that point. The thing I wonder about is whether
the measurement point was more or less in a direct line between the skylight and the
appellant in this. If not, would that difference make much of an impact on noise traveling in
that direction?
Mr. Mills: That is a very good question. Yes, it was in a direct line and it was at the closest
point to a property line and the nearest skylight. We picked the one that was directly above
the speakers down below in the Q Cafe.
Commissioner Beecham: And was that point more or less in a direct line between the
skylights and the appellant?
Mr. Mills.: Yes, in the direction of the appellant, the large apartment building.
Commissioner Schink: First, let me take a minute to compliment you on a very readable
report. It is always nice to get this technical stuff, and it is well put together and very
understandable. I appreciate that. There was one area that I did not understand, and that may
be because you did not test it, but that is the question I was asking Ms. Lytle earlier. Were
any tests done with the doors actually in the open position? Maybe you can give us asense
as to what happens when the music is being played and the doors are open.
Mr. Mills: I did not take a measurement with the doors open. I stand here guilty. I tested it
¯ in the way the client asked me to test it, and that was with the doors closed. We were testing
the fact that they were sealed. That was their main concern. I am sorry, but I came into this
case without any real background. Dr. Salmon recommended me, and I came in and
basically did what the client asked me to do.
.Commissioner Sehink: Well, if someone entered while the music was being played and the
doors were open, the sound, I assume, would come out.
Mr. Mills: Yes, there would be sound leakage at the doorway. It certainly would not be
higher than 82 dba. It would be definitely lower, probably 5 to 10 dba lower than 82 dba.
The 82 dba is what I measured at one meter inside from the door with the sound level on the
dance floor at about 100 dba.
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.dff Page 12
1-08-97
Commissioner Beecham: Regarding the noise that does come out the front door, can you
give us an idea of how much of that noise actually would get back to the appellant’s area?
Mr. Mills: I believe the minimum attenuation you would get in the appellant’s direction
would be 10 dba. Every time you turn a comer, you lose at least 10 dba, and it has to turn
two comers to get there, so it would be down by at least 20 dba.
Commissioner Beecham: And if it is down 20 dba, and say we take the 82 dba that you
measured inside the door, you mentioned that it might drop by about 5 dba by the time you
get through the door, even with the doors open, that would be 75 dba less 20 equals 55 dba.
Is that an appropriate assessment?
Mr. Mills: Plus the falloff from the distance, which would be significant, in this case.
Chairperson Cassel: What we are doing tonight is to get additional information for our
deliberations, over and above what you have already testified to. So it is not a case of
rearguing issues we have already heard. At this time, we are asking for testimony relating to
this issue and then have the commission ask questions that’ are appropriate.
Commissioner Eakins: I need it spelled out for me exactly. What is the height at which you
took the measurement? Is the height at the appellant’s dwelling the same height at which it
leaves the skylight? I just want to know if the straight line was diagonal or horizontal?
Mr. Mills: It would be diagonal, because I understand that the appellant lives on the third
floor, so it went up.
Commissioner Eakins: Would that have any effect?
Mr. Mills: It would, but only in distance. It is still a direct path.
Commissioner Eakins: Elevation does not make a difference?
Mr. Mills: No, it shouldn’t. It is the actual difference in distance that would decrease the
sound.
Commissioner Schink: I have a question for the applicant’s attorney. I would appreciate it if
she could explain to us what the legal rationale was for not taking measurements, with the
doors open. Does she have some idea as to how to address this eoneem that I have raised?
~: According to my reading of the eod~, the noise level means the maximum,
continuous sound level or repetitive peak sound level. The opening and closing of a door
every now and then is not considered a noise level that would have to be measured, according
A:[ PCMINS4IPC0108.drf Page 13
1-08-97
to the noise ordinance. That was the reason. Also, the other practical matter is that we would
maintain the doors closed. That is referred to in Section 9.10.020(c).
Commissioner Beecham: I have a question for Mr. Mills for background clarification.
Within the report, they refer to fast response and slow response measurements. I do not
understand what that means in a practical sense. Can you help me there?
Mr. Mills: Most noise ordinances are written with fast response in mind. The reason for that
is that the slow response would give you a lag time, and it does not go to the same level. In
other words, the fast response gives a higher level. It would be easier to pass the ordinance if
you used slow response rather than fast response. Fast response is a stricter measurement.
Commissioner Beecham: Did you use fast response or slow response in your testing?
Mr. Mills: Always fast response.
Commissioner Schmidt: There are various references to controlling the level of sound. Staff
has also suggested additional wording about sound control inside the building. Are there
systems or methods that control sound other than just turning up’ or down the volume? Is
there something that would put a maximum level on a sound system, other than a person
taming it up and down?
Mr. Mills: I am a retired professor of electrical engineering, and can answer your question.
We could certainly designa limiter to do that, however, in my experience, it has always been
advisable to let the owner control it. They are typically very good at it, and they will do it if-
they knowthat their permit depends on it. I have a number of places like this, although some
of them are no longer in existence, like The Country Store that used to be in Mountain View
and moved to Sunnyvale. They had a problem with noise, so we controlled the level inside,
and we did some work on that. We did some work at the Nelson Center in Santa Cruz, also a
place called The Train Station in Fremont where they had real problems, not like the ones I
consider Q Care as having. Q Cafe is the absolute optimum place I have ever tested inside
and outside for noise reduction. That is a beautiful job of repairing those skylights to reduce
the noise. I think that the control, if left to the owners, would be properly done, but we could
design a limiter circuit.
Commissioner Sehink: I have a question for the general manager. In your comments, you
made comments that I took as an expression of your desire to cooperate with the.neighbors. I
wanted to explore that a bit further. How available are you, if someone calls at 11:30 at
night? Would you be the person to answer the phone?
Ms. Valois: I am really on an electronic leash. I have been called at 2 a.m., at 4 a.m., and we
always have a manager on duty who is there until the business closes. We have never had a
A: [ PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 14
1-08-97
problem where someone could not get hold of us. There are employees who answer the
phone, and if they ask to speak to a manager, a manager is always available.
Commissioner Schink: Have there been any calls that you know of during the past few
months?
Ms. Valois: Not that I am aware of. There have not been any phone calls.
Commissioner Sehink: Has there been any live music played .in the last few months that
would have caused any complaints?
Ms. Valois: No, we got in trouble for that!
Commissioner Sehink: And no calls for the DJ either?
Ms. Valois: No, we have notreceived any phone calls.
Commissioner Schmidt: It was mentioned that there has been some clientele education that
has gone on regarding this issue. I assume that means being a good neighbor in the area. Is
that intended to be an ongoing program, and what does it consist of?.
~: From the first day that we opened, we have always asked our customers to
quietly vacate the place. It tends to be, in most dubs, that after closing, people want to stand
around outside and talk. We have always asked them that they need to vacate the area and go
on home. So we have always encouraged the customers not to disturb the neighbors in the
area. We actually do not have neighbors directly next to us. We are a commercial business
and completely surrounded in all directions by commercial businesses.
Commissioner Schmidt: Do you have any specific program or information, i.e., do you do
¯ something every night when you close? Do you hand out statements, or are there statements
around that ask people to. please be quiet and respectful?
Ms. Valois.: Our doormen, as they say good bye to our customers, ask that they remain quiet
in the area.
Commissioner Byrd: I, too, have a question for the general manager. The way that I read the
sound report and from my own experience of being in your dub is that recorded music is
slightly louder, oftentimes much louder, than live music. Why is that? What business need
compels the recorded music to be louder than the live music? Would it be possible to still
run a successful business and hold the recorded music levels down at least to the levels
produced by live music?
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 15
1-08-97
Jason Butler, 351 Woodside Road, Redwood City.: I am the operations manager at the club.
I have a lot of expertise and experience in dealing with audio equipment. In response to your
question on keeping recorded music at an appropriate level, that being equivalent to live
music, in a lot of instances, live music has a lot of dynamics, which includes differences in
volume level. A recorded piece of music occupies a certain dynamic range, and it is within
very strict tolerances. It never goes below a certain tolerance and never goes above, whereas
with live music, there would be changes in dynamics, with vocals, without vocals. Recorded
music is mixed so that there aren’t any holes. Recorded music is produced so that there is
never a drop-off in level. You would be listening to that in your ear and you would say, oh
there is a drop in level. You have been to a live performance where the band takes breaks,
the band stops, there are vocals, and it is never produced to the same quality as a recorded
piece of music. I hope that comes close to answering your question.
Commissioner Byrd: It explains the differences between the two sources, but it does not
necessarily explain what your business need is for maintaining the level of recorded music at
the volume at which you currently do. I am wondering whether it would be possible to turn it
down a little bit and whether that would further reduce the noise leakage out of the building
to lessen the impact on the neighbors.
Mr. Butler: Yes, absolutely. Actually, we have always had a restriction as to how loud the
DJ plays. But because of the emphasis of our permit and the emphasis of the appellant’s
complaints, it has.always been issued a live music situation. That brings up a good point in
that we have had live music at our dub continuously since we had to comply with our
apparent use permit. I would like to state that the recorded music level is higher in level.
They have never complained about a recorded music incident, so even if the recorded music-
was louder, they have never made a complaint, so I would like to state that it is a biased
interpretation of live music and what that connotates is that basically, they are addressing this
whole situation as a live music bias.
Commissioner Sehmidt: I have a question for someone representing the Q Cafe. Did anyone
ever contact the Joint Powers Board or a representative of CalTrain to ask about parking in
the parking lot across the street?
Ms. Young: I attempted to contact the Joint Powers Board and got routed in circles. I never
did get a return phone call. They referred me to one person after another, and we are still
trying to pursue that. To date, I do not know who I exaetly~need to talk to.
Chalm_ erson Cassel: If there are no further questions at this time, we will now hear from the
appellant. You will have ten minutes to relate to the additional information we received from
the sound analysis.
Julie Baigent. 13 Woodleaf Avenue. Redwood City:- I represent Remy Malan. I have a
A:IPCMINS4IPC0108.dff Page 16
1-08-97
couple of comments on the noise analysis that was submitted to you. Mr. Mills was good
enough to spend some time on the phone with me today, because when I started looking at
these calculations, I started going swimming. He was very helpful in explaining how the
acoustical analysis is done in an exponential type of calculation so that the numbers do not
always correlate. You cannot simply add and subtract. Several things came out of that
conversation that I think are worth keeping in mind in your deliberations tonight.
I want to draw your attention to Page 2 of the December 19th report. This was the
conclusion when he did his measurements at the front door. In the last sentence of the
sentence at the top of that page, he concludes that the dba meter from the front door with the
doors closed is 7 dba, which is less than the 8 under the city’s ordinance. But if you look in
that paragraph, he was making that calculation assuming a 90 dba noise level in thecenter of~
the dance floor. If you look at your condition and what the proposal is here, it is to allow 90
on average, with a 97 peak to meet the condition. So I asked him what would happen to that
calculation if you changed the 90 to 97. He calculated that for me, and came up with a figure
of 57.7. If you then subtract the 49, that gets to8.7, which would then be outside the city’s
required ordinances. I think it is important to note that also, because when he did his
calculations, there were no clientele and no activity going on inside Q Care. I think you have
to consider that it is a different thing at 11 a.m. when nobody is in the place and at night
when you are going to have people playing billiards, eating, dancing and screaming at each
other to try and hear each other over the noise. He cannot give me an exact answer as to what
that effect would be. Obviously, he has not done those measurements. He said it may or
may not increase the dba levels, depending upon what the nature of the noise was and other
factors that might be going on. I am not sure that this report even gets at the conditions that
we are concerned about, which is the evening hours when the place is packed with people
who are drinking and dancing and enjoying themselves in commercial recreation uses. So I
have these concerns about the report that has been submitted. I think that what the Q
submitted to you tonight is interesting in their analogy to a train. They basically told you that
the same noise level as a train is what they are talking about conducting in their
¯ establishment. It takes only a few seconds for a train to go by. As a resident, you get used to
a train going by for a few seconds every so often. What they are talking about is having a
train running for four and a half hours in their Cafe. That is the equivalent of what they are
asking you to approve tonight. Our position is that that is not appropriate for this location
because of the mixed use nature of the area. Mr. Malan moved into a commercial area and
has lived perfectly happily there for four years without a complaint. He is subjected to a
certain degree of noise and disturbance, but it does not bother him because he understood
what he was getting into when he moved into that area. ,The first time it bothered him was
when live music was conducted at the Q Care, a violation, by the way, of their use permit.
So these are the issues that I think you need to keep in mind when you consider all of this.
Thenumbers are great, but numbers may or may not be as accurate as .we would like them to
be for something as important as this. We are fight up against the edge of the noise
ordinance. It doesn’t take much to push youover the edge.
A: [ PCMINS4 [ PC0108.drf Page 17
1-08-97
Mr. Mills made an interesting comment to me today. He said, we get involved in a lot of this
because the real control of this is complaint monitoring. That is exactly what my client does
not want to be stuck with. He doesn’t want to be stuck with being the monitor for this
condition. He doesn’t want to have to call and complain every night that he is disturbed
because they have gone over, and then the police have to come out, and then we have to get
the police to catch the sound at the right time so that we can establish the fact there has been
a violation. What are the police going to do, climb up to the skylight? I don’t think so. So I
think you need to keep these things in mind.
I would like to address a couple of other issues. The new condition that staffhas proposed
tries to get at one of the concerns that Mr. Malan has raised, which is the noise emanating
inside from the use itself.
One of the other concerns still has not been adequately addressed here. That is the noise
from the patrons leaving the premises. There is really two kinds of noise we are concerned
about here. One is how you control the noise inside to keep it from being outside too loud.
The other.is, how do you control these people who have had a great time, and they are wound
up, and they have been drinking and they are feeling good, and now they are going to go out
and, because they have been shooed away from standing in front of Q Care and talking, they
are going to stand outside Mr. Malan’s window and talk. That is another concern, and I don’t
think there is any conditions re.ally that are very adequate in the permit, as proposed, to
address those concerns. Perhaps some additional Conditions could help there, such as, the
music stops at 11 p.m.; perhaps restricted parking on the residential streets on High and
Forest between Hamilton and Forest and between Emerson and High where you earmot park
past 11 without a permit, you know, resident parking only, and I don’t think that would
impact any of the businesses around here, because if you look at Mr. Salmon’s report, all of
the businesses in this area close at 6 o’clock, so that might be a way of addressing some of
those concerns.
i had a legal concern with the permit, as proposed, which is, in order to approve this permit,
you’ve got to make a finding that says that this use, to quotethe staff report "has to
contribute to the retail vitality of shopping districts." That is the required legal finding you
have to make, and I challenge you on the evidence before you to tell me how you conclude
that a use that its sole purpose is to draw clientele in and keep them there until 1:30 in the
morning: drinking and dancing, contributes to the vitality of the retail shopping district. The
stores are closed, guys. There is nobody out there.
Chairperson Cassel: It was about this time that I stopped the other applicant from continuing
on with issues that were not relevant to the new data that came forward. You have about
three minutes, if Mr. Malan wants to speak.
Okay. One other possible condition that could assist here relates to
A: I PCMINS41PCO 108.drf Page 18
1.08.97
Condition #15, and that is, modifying the condition to state that once there is an established
violation of the noise ordinance condition, that the use permit will be revoked. One of the
concerns is that once you establish all of these conditions again, it is the residents’
responsibility then to make sure they are enforced, and then you get in a box where you’ve let
this applicant go ahead and incur a lot of cost and expense to try to address the conditions,
and then when they start violating them, they are going to come to you, hat in hand, and say,
gee, gee, gee, it cost us so much money, it’s not fair, don’t revoke it on us. We will be better
next time, and you get into this loop where the residents have to constantly complain and
have to constantly be having hearings with the Planning Commission, so I think it would be
appropriate to have a condition, if what they are saying is true, that they are going to be
serious about this, because they haven’t shown themselves to be as serious about it in the
past. But if they are going to be serious about it and they are going to comply with the
conditions, then it ought to be if they violate their conditions, the permit ought to go away. I
mean the permit is given on condition they comply. If they don’t comply, they shouldn’t
have the right to maintain the permit. So we would ask for a modification in that regard, as
well. With that, I will turn the mike over to Mrl Malan.
Remv Malan. 685 High Street. #5B, Palo Alto: I realize I probably only have about one
minute left, so I will try and be very concise. With respect to the information, I would like to
ask for your indulgence with respect to the concerns I have about enforcement, particularly
the new information that I wish to present to you in the form of a voice mail recording that I
received from an Officer Martin at the Palo Alto Police Department.
Chairperson Cassel: I would like you to speak to the new information that we have received,
not the information that was addressed before.
Mr. Malan: In order, then, for brevity purposes, will I be allowed three minutes at some
point to address old information? Would you grant me that?
Chaim_ erson Cassel: Ms. Cauble, what I am trying to do is, we have held the formal public
hearing, and we were in the middle of deliberations when we decided we needed additional
information. We are not trying to redo the other information that has already been presented.
Ms. Cauble: It is within the discretion of the commission as to how it conducts its
proceedings. This meeting tonight is essentially a continuation of what happened in
December. It isas if you walked out of the room, and you walked back in. That night, the
applicant and the appellant had an opening and a dosing statement and had an opportunity to
summarize their points in favor and opposed, so there is no legal reason why the commission
needs to hear new summaries about information that is not new. It is within your discretion,
if you so choose, to hear that, but then you need to let everyone do it.
Chairperson Casse_l: What we are trying to.do is to understand some additional information
A:IPCMINS41PC0108.drf Page 19
1-08-97
and not have this meeting go on and on and on, redoing and resubmitting information that we
have already received.
Mr. Malan: Well, ladies and gentlemen, in the interest of brevity, let me then not play this
recording for you, and let Ms. Julie Baigent’s information regarding the new noise
information stand. My following remarks were not meant specifically to address that new
information. So rather than waste your time, I propose not to do so.
Chairperson Cassel: Commissioner Beecham has asked to hear Mr. Malan’s report.
Mr. Malan: Thank you very much for your indulgence. This recording is from an Officer
Martin of the Palo Alto Poliee Department. It was left on my machine on August 22, 1996,
and it concerns an instance of August 21, 1996. I will point out for you that August 21, 1996,
if you check your calendars, turns out to be a Wednesday evening, during which live music
was being played. (A tape recording was played, but was not entirely clear. It was as
follows: Mr. Malan, this is Officer Martin returning your phone call. My sergeant was able
to go out actually spoke. Unfortunately,.but the owner
happened to be there . You are correct only allowed
amplified music or a live band on Thursday through Saturday, so the sergeant spoke with him
and discussed the problem. Also, Sergeant Forest eomplaining did
violate that ordinance and that would be documented. If you have any further questions, feel
free to give me a call.) I saw some of you scratching your heads, and I am not sure how dear
it was.
Chairperson Cassel: We could not understand that at all.
Mr. Malan: It might be with the PA system, as it does not reproduce very well at all. The net
of it was that Officer Martin did say that on August 21, 1996, he did go to the Q Care and
that there was documented evidence of a live band playing on a Wednesday evening.
¯ Furthermore, the police officers in question had been confused about which permit had been
effect. If you listen to this tape in a clearer form, you would realize that they said in the voice
mail that we understand they can only have live music from Thursday through Saturday.
That is clearly not the permit that was in effeet at the time. The reason I bring this voice mail
to your attention is that it highlights two characteristic problems that we are very concerned
about in this matter. One of them is, there seems to be an apparent predisposition to permit
violations at 529 Alma Street. We have had lots of incidents of live music being played
when there has been no permit for live music. Some of these incidents have been
documented by the police department, and others of them have been documented and letters
sent to the planning department. ~
The other problem it highlights is that many times, the poliee department is not entirely
aware of what permit is actually current at what address. In this particular instance, Officer
A: [ PCMINS4 [ PC0108.drf Page 20
1-08-97
Martin thought that permit 96-UP-5 was current. The current permit was actually 94-UP-33,
which points out one of the enforcement problems. When we call for service, there is no
guarantee that the police department will actually know what is in effect.at the time. The cost
to myself as a permitted user of the zone, the cost of this conditional use of the zone is very
high for me, and consequently, it also becomes very high for the city, because as a permitted
user, I am very concerned about the degradation of the space by a conditional use. I will
certainly want to maintain the permitted use in a way that is conducive to my further
permitted use of the space. So I just wanted to point out to you that there is an enforcement
aspect to this which is difficult. It involves time on behalf of people like myself, and it feeds
back into time that the city has to expend on enforcement. So in your deliberations, I would
ask you to please very carefully consider the impact of this conditional use permit that you
are making on a permitted user of the zone. Forget for a second whether I am a business or a
resident. I am a permitted user of the downtown zone. I don’t need a conditional use permit
to live there. You, the city, said that I am allowed to, so I would like you to very carefully
consider the impact of a conditional use permit on a permitted use as you make your
deliberations tonight and on the enforcement. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
Commissioner Schmidt: Mr. Malan, I wanted to know if you have experienced any noise
problems recently due to recorded music from Q Cafe. I don’t know when their skylights
were changed nor when their sound insulating changes were made, but I wondered if you had
noticed any difference in the noise problems.
Mr. Malan: I could not elaborate on when any of the installations were put in. In the
immediate past, since late November, I have not experienced any problems, but that is by
virtue of the fact that I have not been in the country. From just prior to Thanksgiving to
December 23rd, for about a period of one month, I was out of the country. Around that time,
.immediately after the hearing in October, there was some disturbance on October 31 st,
Halloween evening, to the point where my wife, who usually does not comment on this and
seems less hyper about it than me, said to me, it’s noisy tonight. She was in bed trying to
read, and there was a very heavy base noise, sort of a boom-boom-boom coming, and I got
dressed and went outside to see what was going on. As a basis of that, I wrote a letter to the
zoning administrator reflecting my concerns. So apart from the incident of Halloween
evening, I cannot say there have been any violations or any other noise disturbances, but
please bear in mind that for five weeks of the time since then, I have, in fact, not been in
town. Both my wife and myself were on holiday.
Commissioner O_iakian: Is that why, when the applicant was talking earlier, they said they
have tried to reach you several times to discuss this matter, and they were unable to do that?
Mr. Malan: I can’t answer that question definitively for you. Certainly on my voice mail at
work, which I could not say has captured all calls while I was gone, as I think it does at some
point fill up and roll over, there were no voice mails for me on my work voice mall, nor on
A:I PCMINS41PCO 108.drf Page 21
1-08-97
my home answering machine were there any calls to me from either the Q or their attorney.
In fact, in the entire sequence of events in this particular case, the only person who ever
contacted me directly was one of the early attorneys for the Q, a Mr. Player, who did call me
a couple of times. This would have been back in July and early August. Since that time,
there has been no direct contact with me. I understand that Ms. Baigent did, in fact, speak
with the Q attorney on a couple of occasions. ~
Commissioner Schink: I have two questions for Ms. Baigent. In your comments, I believe I
understood you to make one point that previously I had not considered, and I wondered if
you could expand upon it a little bit. From my perspeqtive, in looking at this, I considered
the noise as emanating from the band. I believe in your comments you suggested that we
might be allowed to look more broadly at the noise that comes from the patrons that are
leaving after having listened to the band. Could you expand on that a little as to why you
think that is the case?
Ms. Bai egg.~: It is really not a noise ordinance issue so much as it is one of the points
Mr. Malan made in his appeal. The residents are concerned about the fact that this kind of
use tends to create a lot of late night activity with loud, boisterous people in their
neighborhood which does not currently exist as the commercial uses are today. There is a
concern that that is going to cause a lot of disturbance that is uncontrolled by the conditions
and there really isn’t a very minimal way to enforce it. By the time you call the police, these
people have probably gotten in their cars and left. I don’t even know if the police could
enforce it, as they are out on public streets, so that is one of the concerns.. I think another
concern that is sort of underlying there is that once you open the door for these kinds of
permits in this area, then where do you draw the line? If Gordon Bierseh comes in and they
want to doit, do you Say, how do you distinguish between the rights of the Q to do it and the
rights of somebody else to do it, etc. So it really just focuses on the fact of what really is this
area about and what really is appropriate uses for this particular area of downtown? Maybe
live music makes more sense in some other area of downtown, and I think if you read the
¯ Comprehensive Plan, it is pretty dear that because the city has chosen to put residential uses
in this area, that they do want to be careful about what kinds of commercial uses go in and
how that complements or conflicts with residential uses. This is just one of the fallouts of
these kinds of uses. It creates late night activity which my hearing of the last report from the
police was that that, in fact, does increase criminal activities and calls and things. If you look
at the chart that Q gave you tonight, it compares itself to Fanny and Alexander’s and The
Edge, but then it says, they haven’t had any calls. Well, they haven’t had any music, either.
I mean, they have only had music for two weeks. We don’t want them to be in a category
with Edge and Fanny. That is exactly what we don’t want. We don’t want more calls. We
don’t want more disturbance, so that is about the most I can give you on that point.
Commissioner Schi_~___~_~: That was helpful. My second question is, you suggested that we
might consider a condition whereby their use permit was essentially automatically terminated
A: ] PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 22
1-08-97
if they were found to be in violation. Maybe you could expand on the due process of how
that could occur. I don’t understand how somebody’s use permit could suddenly be taken
away without hearings.
Ms. Baigent: Well, I think there would have to be a hearing to establish the violation,
clearly. You couldn’t without establishing that there has been a violation revoke their permit.
I don’t think that would be legal. I don’t think Debbie would advise you to do that. But just
as in one of your conditions, it says, thou shalt not come in and ask for a variance from the
noise ordinance, we are saying, thou shalt not violate these conditions,, or it is over, because if
you don’t have teeth in your conditions, then all you are doing is punting to the neighbors
and your police department, and I just don’t think that in this particular area, that is really
appropriate. I think that maybe in a bustling commercial area that isn’t impacted with
residential, it is appropriate, because you are probably not going to get too many complaints,
but I think you really have to think hard about how you enforce these conditions. It is all free
and well to have them, but if you don’t have teeth in them, then it is hard for the applicant to
have an incentive to comply. It becomes a war, then, of who is going to stay up late and
make the calls and pursue and get the police up on the roof at the skylight. That is a hardship
on the residential uses.
Commissioner O)akian: You said in your discussions with Mr. Mills that 97 dba were over
the 8 limit. Mr. Mills, do you want to tell us at what peak level it would be within the
required ordinance level?
Mr. Mills: At 100 dba, the absolute maximum noise that could have been through the front
door was 60.. I am pretty certain it was somewhere below that. The 97 correspondingly
would keep it at 57 dba or lower, which would be within the code.
Commissioner Ojakian: So 97 keeps it at 8 dba or below outside, and more or less shifts to
the ambient noise?
Mr. Mills: That is correct..
Commissioner Sehink: Ms. Baigent, do you have any comments on the applicant’s
suggesting that the noise ordinance would permit occasional sound to leak out the front door?
Do you have any comments on their opinion that that is how the noise ordinance should be
read?
~D.i~: I seem to remember your own experience over at the Gatehouse as you related
to us. last time was that the police would stand out on the sidewalk, and as soon as it blipped
up, you were in violation, so apparently, that is not the way the polieeinterpreted it, but I
have not really had a chance to reflect on that and review it for the code. My understanding
of the ordinance is that it is a violation if you are above 8 dba, and it does not really say that
A:I PCMINS41PC0108.drf Page 23
1-08-97
it is okay if one minute you are and one minute you are not. I don’t have any further
thoughts on that.
Commissioner Eakins: Chairperson Cassel, is there a way that we can have the appellant’s
attorney and Mr. Mills both discuss or describe the impact of calculations ~done on an empty
building and how that affects the noise?
Chairperson Cassel: Do you want Mr. Mills to do that?
Commissioner Eakins: I want both of them to do it, because they had different angles on
that.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: Do you want them to repeat what they said?
Commissioner Eakins: Yes. I find this coming.back and forth through us as a funny filter on
the analysis of the situation.
Chairperson Cassel: Is your question, does the peak sound differ whether you have ambient
noise in the building?
Commissioner Eakins: It sounded like they did not have a shared understanding of what they
were talking about, and I would like to get to that point to fmd out if it is something we have
to decide, or if they can work it out so that we have one piece of information.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: You do not intend for them to have a common conversation here on the
floor, do you? You want Mr. Mills to come and tell you what the difference is in a full
building and not in a full building?
Commissioner Eakins: And if Ms. Baigent could then speak in response to him, in other
.words, a discussion.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: Well, I don’t think we can sit here and have a discussion, as I think that
could go on forever. Mr. Mills, can you explain whether there is any difference in these peak
numbers if the building is full or not full?
~: An empty room is easier to fill with sound than a full room with people in it.
There is some question in Ms. Baigent’s mind, apparently, about whether or not the people
attending the Q Care would increase the level. I must point out to you that it is my
experience (1) that that does not happen, and (2) it is very difficult for somebody to talk at 90
dba. I am speaking right now at about 65_+ 2 dba. If I went to 90 dba, I would be yelling, and
that is hard work, very hard work, and I wouldn’t do it unless there were some impending
disaster. People do not normally converse at those levels, so in order to have that noise
A: I PCMINS4 [ PC0108.drf Page 24
1-08-97
contribute to the outside noise, talking about people talking inside the Q Care or any other
establishment, they would have to be within at least 10 dba of the 90 in order to contribute
any increase in sound level.
Chairperson Cassel: Are you saying that even though there is other noise going on in the
room, you are measuring the peak sounds, and those peak sounds are not changed by the fact
that there is other noise going on in the room?
Mr. Mills: Yes, typically, that is correct. And one more little question was about the fact of
the empty room and the full room that you brought up. The empty room has less acoustical
absorbers iri it. Each person in this room is approximately 2-1/2 sabins of absorption. When
you bring more absorption into the room, it makes the room quieter.
Chairperson Cassel: Thank you. Do you still wish to have the attorney respond to that
analysis? (Yes)
Ms. Baigent: First of all, I clearly am not an acoustical engineer, and maybe part of the
problem is that we only just got this report. We have not had time to have an acoustical
engineer give us his opinion of that, so I do not have much to debate with Mr. Mills except
for my intuitive understanding of things. I did, when I talked to him today, ask him whether
if additional noise was in the room, does that add to it, and he said yes, under certain
circumstances, it would, and I am just saying, just intuitively, when there is a party going on
next door, what disturbs you is not just the music but the people yelling over the music,
because necessarily, when the sound level goes up, you can’t hear each other, and this is a
mixed use environment we are talking about. It is not people sitting quietly with their hands
in their laps listening to a band. It is people dancing, talking, drinking, playing billiards, and
they are going to talk to each other, and in order to do it, they are going to have to probably
yell at 80 dba or louder if they want to hear themselves over the music. So I am just saying,
intuitively, it seems to me that the proper analysis is, what is the noise with the music and the
people, and we do not have any numbers on that. If Mr. Mills says it is his experience that it
does not make a difference, then I accept his experience, but I don’t know whether that is
correct, and I don’t have’ any technical analysis to counteract that. So I am throwing out the
question. I think probably further teelmieal analysis is required if you are really going to rely
on that as the reason to go forward with this.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: I have two more members of the public who wish to speak.
Dimitris Dimitrelis, 165 Forest Avenue #3A, Palo Alto: I will be brief tonight. I would not
like to discuss differential equations of sound propagation and how decibel numbers relate to
them and how technical assumptions can lead to confusion. Remember that the
fell despite plenty of technical calculations which said they would not fall.
The issue is plain. Noise, noise noise. I am here because I have a sick mother tonight in a
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 25
1-08-97
bedroom facing Q Cafe. I would like you to sustain the basic human right of a quiet night’s
sleep. The first issue here started about 16 years ago when we permitted to
be built in Palo Alto. At that time, you took the responsibility to guarantee our basic human
rights of a quiet night’s sleep. I approach you as public figures to honor your word. I urge
you to honor your responsibility to us to allow us to have a quiet night’s sleep and please
disallow this music. Thank you very much.
Chris Dunlap, 255 Homer Avenue. Palo Alto: I moved into the downtown Palo Alto area
specifically because I enjoy being able to work to the shops and cafes, and I think live music
is a great addition to the area. Some of the music that has been at Q Care has been differen(.
It has been diverse. It has not been the cover band kind of music that you see at Fanny and
Alexander’s most nights. I think it is a great.addition to the area. Personally, if you want to
talk about noise abatement, maybe you ought to talk about the squeaky carts that go by my
house at 5 o’clock in the morning from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation as they fill their
carts with records and take them back to the patients. It wakes us up almost every night.
I don’t think there is much you can do to hold a place responsible for their patrons and what
they do. I think that is a separate issue that needs to be addressed by the police, possibly as
implemented by parking ordinances in the area and dealt with in some other way. In
summary, I just want to say that I think Q Care is a great addition to the area,and I think we
should have live music in downtown Palo Alto with appropriate controls to make sure that it
isn’t bothering anybody and that it isn’t becoming a problem. Thank you.
Chairperson Cassel: I will now close the public hearing on this item. Are there any further
questions of staff?.
Commissioner Schink: Nancy, one of the appellants raised a possible condition, that being to
restrict parking on High and Forest Streets. Do you have any opinion on the viability of that
kind of a condition?
~: We have imposed a parking restriction in The Edge use permit on a portion of the
California Avenue area that was solidly residential. The distinction with this request is that
we have a mixed use area, primarily commercial. My eoneem would be, what would the
restriction do to those businesses? I am less comfortable with saying that is a valid
restriction in this instance, because it is not strictly a residential curb frontage.
Chairperson Cassel: Relating to that issue at The Edge; I remember there was the option of
saying, no, you cannot park at all along that curb, and we mentioned that and asked how that
would be done. We were told that the people in the development itself needed to apply to the
city to do that. I do not believe that happened. They, in fact, wanted to be able to park in
front of that complex themselves and for their guests at night. It could have been restricted,
say, from 12 midnight to 2 a.m. without influencing the eornmereial businesses, but it did not
A: IPCMINS41PCO 108.drf Page 26
1-08-97
appear that they wished to do that.
Ms. L~le: You are correct in that they can make that application to the transportation
division. People can turn in a request for parking controls like that, and this would be a
possibility for these neighbors. The commission could also direct, administratively, for the
staffto look into that possibility, too. We could report back to you on it, but again, my
concern would be about the impact on the other uses in the area that might be relying on the
on-street parking.
Chairperson Cassel: But at that time, we were told that that option really needed to be
initiated by the homeowner’s association that was there, and they could always make that
kind of a request.
Ms. L_vtle: I think that is an appropriate response.
Commissioner Sehmidt: As I recall at the lastmeeting on this item, one of the appellants, Q
Billiards, wanted to eliminate the condition by the fire department for a change in the
sprinklers. I believe staff did not know the exact reason at the time, but thought it was due to
a more intense use. I wondered if you had pursued that any further. Has the fire department
said why they imposed this condition?
Ms._M_.~L.~: The occupancy rating is the issue, and the fire department is fairly insistent on
retaining that condition.
Commissioner Schinki I have several questions of the attorney. Do you have an opinion
about Q Billiards’ position that the sound, when.the front door is open, is not really relevant
because it is only open for a few seconds, so that it does not count?
Ms. Cauble: Yes, I do have an opinion on that, and I do not feel it is a black and white issue.
¯ The noise ordinance uses the term "noise level" in specifying what level of sound can be
emanated. It defines noise level as the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak
sound level. So as a starting point, what our ordinance restricts is not an unusual or
ird~equent emission of sound. So starting at one end, if everyone filed into the nightclub at
8 o’clock and the door opened and the band was playing and there was some sound, and then
at midnight, the door opened again and there was some sound for a few seconds, I would
question whether it would be within this definition of repetitive peak or continuous sound
level. At some point, certainly, if the door were to be opening so frequently that it was
essentially open, it could reach those conditions where there is continuous sound or repetitive
sound. So I think it is a hard call. If you do a noise measurement with the door open, it is
not necessarily a realistic assessment of what kind of sound will be produced in a manner to
which we would apply our noise ordinance. Realize that there are a couple of things going
on here. One is that you are trying to judge.whether or not you think this use can be
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 27
1-08-97
conducted in a manner that would comply with our noise ordinance. That is the standard we
have set for significance of noise impacts. You also have the fundamental issue of making
your use permit findings, so you certainly have within your purview the ability to say, "I
think the measurements are adequate, and it appears that the project can be conducted in a
manner consistent with the noise ordinance, but I am still concerned that we need to make
this fmding about not disturbing the health, safety and welfare of the community, and
therefore, I would like to see some other conditions." That is the approach the staff is
recommending to you, for example. You do need to take into account that the ordinance
refers to maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak sound level. You need to take
that into account in evaluating the noise source.
Commissioner Schmidt: I want to confirm my understanding that staff is still recommending
the’ addition of the vestibule inside so that there would be two sets of doors?
Ms. Lvtle: That is correct. That is in order to achieve a closed-door condition.
Commissioner Schink: I found one of the suggestions rather compelling -- the use permit
goes away if the facts are presented that they have been in violation. Can that be done and
still meet the due process requirements?
Ms. Cauble: I have a couple of comments on that. One is that we have in our ordinance a
specific procedure and a standard for revocation of a permit. It would be inappropriate, as a
permit condition, to modify a duly enacted ordinance which sets forth the procedures that one
follows in deciding to potentially have a very significant impact on somebody’s property
fights. Part of the process in the code, depending upon the facts that are shown at the
hearing, is to allow the potential for modification of a permit versus revocation. In some
circumstances, that might be appropriate. It might be a modification with a condition that a
user is very unhappy with, and he says, I cannot afford it so I have to shut down. Or it might
say, the hours of operation need to change, or shut offthe loud speakers at ten o’clock; or if
- you don’t make them build the vestibule now, you make them build it then, etc. So part of
the discretion that needs to be there to ensure that due process is followed is to retain that
flexibility to reject the charges and find that they are not proven, or to either revoke or
modify, depending on what the facts show. Can this marriage be saved, as the Ladies Home
Journal used to say. Can it be corrected with new conditions? If not, revoke it. By having a
condition that says, three strikes and you’re out, you would lose what the code provides here
in terms of due process. I really do not think it is appropriate for us to do that through a
permit condition. I think staff has appropriately tried to make dear in their recommended
permit conditions how that standard would be applied here. I believe it is Condition #15
which indicates a special sort of status hearing that the zoning administrator would hold
within 12 months if this revised permit is approved. If the owner has not complied or there
have been three or more documented infractions of the noise ordinance, the permit could be
revoked or modified, and we would then use this process. I think it is appropriate for you to
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 28
1-08-97
add conditions that do not necessarily wait for complaints, but instead, within a year or some
specified period of time, say that we are going to call you up and see how things are going,
whether or not the neighbors have complained. To have a process that is radically different
from the.code I feel is a legal difficulty.
Commissioner Ojakian: At least twice since I have been on this Planning Commission, we
have, in fact, gone through that process of review. In one case, just so it is clear to everyone,
we revoked someone’s use permit because we found that they were not doing a good job. In
my own case, I did that with no reservations at all.
Chairperson Cassel: If there are no further questions, we can begin discussion.
.Commissioner Beecham: I would like to start where I left offthe last time. We looked for
more data in the interim since our last meeting, and the data I feel we were looking for was to
confirm what the sound readings were in a more realistic and more understandable method
outside of the facility. In the discussions we have had tonight, I think we pretty much beatit
to death. I think this in the end should not be a consideration as to whether it is 61 or 60.5
dba or any fine tuning of a decibel limit, because we cannot get there from here. I think that
science is not precise enough for us.
I do think the issue of noise coming from the interior still is not the main issue. I believe that
with the addition of the double panes on the skylights, that does reduce the noise from there,
which I suspect is what Mr. Malan has been hearing. I believe that based on the testimony,
the noise coming from the front doors does not affect the appellant, because it goes off and
bounces offthe railroad, and it does not very effectively make it back around the comers. So
that, to me; is notpart of the issue, and a lot of what we talked about tonight is the noise
coming out of the front doors. I do not feel that that is the problem we need to resolve.
I do think we have a significant problem with the patrons. That was the problem at The
Edge, and it is going to be the residual problem here. So I would like to cover this in two
parts. One is to see how the commission feels about the noise itself. I think the condition
that has been recommended by staff to add a limit of 90, maxing at 97.dba, is a reasonable
limit for the interior noise in the facility, and that should be adequate, in most respects, to
protect the residents of the area from noise coming directly from the facility. I think we need
a separate discussion on the patrons coming out. I want to check to see if that is useful for
the commission.
Chaimerson Casse~: For me, that is fine. Does anyone want to follow up on Bem’s line of
thinking, taking this up as two different issues?
Commissioner Ojakian: I support what Bemjust said, and think that is the right approach to
take. .
A:I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 29
1-08-97
Commissioner Schink: I agree with Bern that the real issue here is whether we are trying to
create an environment where we have a lot of vitality at one o’clock in the morning, and is
that appropriate for the downtown area. In thinking back over the years, 15 years ago when
Palo Alto Plaza was built and some of these other residential uses were proposed for the
downtown area, it was never contemplated that we would have this kind of vitality. I think
that if we look forward to another ten years of this kind of continued growth, is this the kind
of vitality that we want to see growing in the future? My vision of this area is not that we are
going to be a Rush Street West with the best bars and the best night life on the mid-peninsula.
It is not what I envision for my community. I prefer that we drift more towards the sleepy
little town where the sidewalks get rolled up at, say 11 o’clock. So I believe we should
condition this use so that the noise stops at a reasonable hour so that they can be good
neighbors. That is all we are trying to get to here. I think we should all put ourselves in the
same position as the people in Palo Alto Plaza and ask ourselves, what would it be like if
somebody on my block got to play music until even 11:30 at night every Thursday, Friday
and Saturday nights? I think it would be bothersome. So if we are going to go forward and
allow this, I would prefer that we put in a restriction that live music ends at 11 o’clock and
hope that they can live with it. I prefer that we do not allow the live music at all, but that is
probably not going to fly, so hopefully, we can condition it to a very.early hour.
Chairperson Cassel: I would like to make a couple of comments. I walked around the area
after this issue came up the fast time. There is indeed a great deal of noise around the
apartments, but it was not coming from Q Cafe. It was coming from the street on the other
side, and there was a lot of noise over there. There are several businesses, and there were
patrons on the street. It was not identifiable exactly as to where they were coming from, but
the activity was not from the Q Care. The Q Cafe had a long line outside, and it was not a
particularly noisy line, but it was certainly a long line waiting to get in. I don’t know if they
place a limit on the number of people and were pacing it for entering, but that is what I
presume was happening. This was not at one o’clock in the morning. It was late in the
.evening.
The parking was not noticeable that far down from this particular facility. The parking lots
nearby werefull. There were some parking spaces left, but they were relatively full. I would
like to see some activities in some places downtown, because I think people want some
activity there. I cannot get my kids to come home at 11:30 at night, and they are too old for
me to tell them when to come home, by far. They do like some late night life once in awhile,
later than I would ever want, but they don’t go to work at 6:30 in the morning. So I think
there are some mixed issues.
As regards the use permit, I think we may need to do something with the hours. We may.
have an issue we need to work with overall, but not over the next three-months, because the
next three months are going to be busy, but overall in terms of how many activities we are
going to have downtown at this time of night. But that is not the issue tonight.
A: [ PCMINS4 [ PC0108.drf Page 30
1-08-97
Commissioner Byrd: I think Jon did this discussion a real favor by drawing back from some
of the technical data and speaking just to his vision for what the downtown should be like and
how it relates to the city. I come out in a slightly different place than him. I don’t want to
just have a sleepy little town. I really like the vitality, but not if it comes at the expense of
residents’ ,well being. For me, this is a fairly black and white issue. If the residents are
unduly impacted, then we should not allow the live music. But if we can accommodate both
through conditions, I think that is the best way to go. The problem tonight is that we do not
know if we can or not. We have these studies, and the studies have tried to approximate what
the conditions would be like, but it was during the day and no one was there, etc. That leads
me to think that one way to go would be to allow a resumption of the live music with all of
the changes. The skylights have been double paned, and I agree with Bern that it is probably
the skylights, not the doors, that are the issue. Let’s give it another try. The applicant has
been through an arduous process here. They understand now that the community’s eyes are
upon them. I would, in fact, prefer to see a condition that would require review by the zoning
administrator in much less than 12 months. Let’s give it three months; let’s give it six
months, and let’s give the applicant one more Chance to be a good neighbor and run this
business which I think adds value. I was interested in what the final speaker, Mr. Dunlap,
said. Jon, I don’t want Rush Street West either, and that, in fact, is not at all what Q Cafe
was presenting while they had live music. It really was a fairly sophisticated lineup that they
had that added real value and, I feel, to amenities to living here. So I would suggest that we
look toward constructing a way to give them one more chance, and review it. If the
neighbors are still impacted, then that’s it, no music.
Chairperson Cassel: I have one more comment to make. I do not see the difference between
the live music and the recorded music. If you are going to use speakers and you are going to-
crank it up; then it is noise.
Commissioner Eakins: I think the difference between live and recorded music is the patrons’.
That is what Bern was trying to get us to think about separately -- patron behavior after they
leave the Q Care early in the morning. That is what sounds to me as being the most
troubling. It is not what you might experience when walking around late in the evening that I
hear the appellant complaining about. It is the early in the morning noise. I cannot say that I
have tested that, but I will give you my personal testimonial that I live next door to a place
that rents out its own clubhouse. They are not supposed to have live music outside, and most
of the time, they do not. The music is not supposed to play after approximately midnight.
Most of the time, it shuts off pretty reliably. But the later a party goes, the longer the
congregation in the parking lot stands around and shouts. By sometime after midnight,
having had a very good time (and I cannot tell you what theeating and drinking menu is), I
have a sense that things are pretty giddy. The noise of the patrons winding down, getting
ready to leave, can be very disturbing. But because it ends at around midnight pretty reliably,.
that disturbance only lasts a little while. If it were ending at 1:30 a.m., and people had that
much more time to eat and drink and get jolly and stirred up and were not yet ready to crash,
A: [ PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 31
1-08-97
that kind of socializing that could go on in the parking lot or on the streets could be a lot
longer.
I don’t think this is just about Q Care. I think this is about the kind of activities that we want
to encourage, as Jon says, and not just the kind but the timing of them. The last time, I said I
was interested in seeing if the bar and the music could be shut off earlier. I would not just
limit it to Q Care, but as each application came up, I would be interested in seeing those be
restrained some. Maybe that is cramping the style of people who want to be out until 2 in the
morning or not have to have the doors dose on them before 2 in the morning, but I am so
naive that I don’t know what Rush Street is. Somebody will have to explain that to me, but I
don’t think we are about trying to create a night dub district here. We have a mixed use
district, and we need to find some accommodations where both businesses and residents can,
as circumstances change, make accommodations. If it is some of our rules about hours that
have to change, then I think that is it.
I fred the parking restriction to be quite a problem. Maybe all of the businesses close at six:
now, but what if there were some place that wanted to stay open later. I f’md that to be
unduly restrictive, and there are other places downtown that can use that parking at different
times in the evening. I do not think that is the solution. It is the hours that I would go after.
Commissioner Sehmidt: We have covered numerous issues here, but the basic crux of it is,
as Bern mentioned, that the music seems to be controllable. I think we need to consider what
we can do to help make the patrons more controllable. A lot of important comments have
been made, and I would agree with a lot of Commissioner Byrd’s comments. We have
surpassed the sleepy village several years ago.. If one is downtown on any summer weekend
night at any time past 10 or 11 p.m., it is a busy, lively, fun place to be. I think that is a
wonderful part of Palo Alto, having lived here for many years and having lived through times
when there was absolutely nothing happening at that time of night. It is a pleasure to have a
!ively community, but I also agree that it is absolutely necessary in the type of mixed use
situation that we have here, which we are trying to encourage in the Comprehensive Plan,
that this situation work for everyone. I would like to see something similar’to what we have
done with other projects. Staff has conditioned this appropriately for review in one year.
They have conditioned it appropriately to take care of the potential problems. I think we do
need to add some conditions about education of patrons, more than a casual "be quiet" when
they leave. It would be important for Q Care to pursue parking across the street. I am quite
sure that the Joint Powers Board can indeed be contacted. Q could probably find out
the Menlo Center how to find the right person to contact. The Menlo Center does have the
use of the CalTrain parking lots. This is something that can be part of the fabric of
downtown, and we need to ensure that it works for both the residents and the eomrnereial
uses.
’ _..~: In the information we received this evening, Paradis is open until 1 a.m.
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 32
1-08-97
It is one of the more isolated businesses downtown. Would you be interested in conditioning
this to 1 a.m. instead of 2 a.m.?
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I will make a motion. I would like to move the staff
recommendation with a couple of modifications. Condition #2 of the staff recommendation
should read, "...between the hours of 9 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. only." Condition #15 should
read, "...within six months of approval..." I would also like to include the additional
recommendation delivered to us by staff tonight, revising the negative declaration. Also
include a comment that directs city staff to request the transportation department to set up a
meeting with the residents of Palo Alto Plaza to assess the feasibility of limiting parking
along High Street and Forest Avenue.
Ms. Cauble: For clarification, did your motion regarding the staff recommendation this
evening indude the staff’s new recommended condition regarding sound emanating from the
interior which was part of that report on the negative dedaration? (Yes).
Chairperson Cassel: Is there a second to that motion? Hearing no second, would someone
else like to make a motion?
Commissioner Beecham: If there is no second, I would like to move a slightly different
motion. I agree with a lot of what Jon said. The difference I would make is, first, on
Condition #2, rather than 11:30 p.m., I would make the dosing time at 1:30 a.m. on Friday
and Saturday, and Midnight on Thursday. One thing I believe we learned at The Edge was
that a lot of the patron noise comes from people leaving suddenly, perhaps having just
f’mished off their last drink. One thing we put in place at The Edge was that they had to stop-
serving alcohol one-half hour before dosing. So I would add to Condition #2 that on Friday
and Saturday nights, that alcohol ceased being served one-half hour before closing. In
addition, at The Edge I believe we learned that you do have to police the area for noise. So I
would add a condition (and I would look for staff’s help to ensure that the language is right)
that the facility set a policy and implement it so that their security staff does roam the area
during the closing period, watching for patrons who are making noise, advising them that
there are residents in the area, and that if there are complaints and problems, the dub will
lose its permit.
In addition, Jon mentioned in regard to Condition #5, changing it from 12 months to six
months. I would agree with that. Along with that, I would change the permitted infractions
from three down to two. With that reduction in the period of time, and also with my belief
.based on what has been presented to us that the noise coming from the front doors is not the
real cause of the problem, I would delete Condition #13 regarding the internal vestibule
construction. I would also indude the negative declaration and the changes and the new
condition by staff regarding the 90 and 97 dba limitations.
A: I PCMINS41PC01OS.drf Page 33
1-08-97
SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian.
Ms. Cauble: As a point of clarification for staff, I am not sure we have Commissioner
Beecham’s amendments to Condition #2. Part of my confusion was that the condition
proposed by staff relates to limitations on the hours of music and dancing. I thought I may
have heard you talking about hours when the business would be closed.
Commissioner Beecham: Music and dancing would be limited on Thursday to cease at
midnight. On Friday and Saturday, it could continue until 1:30 a.m. with alcohol sales on
Friday and Saturday to cease at one a.m.
Ms. L~le: We have a question about alcohol sales. We do not have information as to
whether we have authority in that area at the table tonight. We will research that by the time
we get to the City Council. I believe this happens automatically, but we may not have the
ability to do anything more than what occurs automatically under ABC control, in any ease.
Commissioner O_iakian: I was pleased to hear Chairperson Cassel’s remarks, and at some
stage, I think what we have to do is take a look at an area like the downtown and say to
ourselves, if we are going to have recreational commercial operations with conditional use
permits, how many of those should we issue, and at what stage does that become
burdensome? In the process of saying that, I understand where Commissioner Byrd is
coming from, because in a mixed use environment, you do need to have some recreational
activity. It is what our community wants, so there is some free line in there to be determined
to make things work. Bern has covered all of my concerns.
Commissioner Byrd: My concern about Condition #2 and the issues around free-tuning
closing times is that it seems to me that it presumes that there is some impact on the appellant
and that we. are trying to lessen it, but if it continues, we will jockey it back a half hour. I am
not sure whether that is fair to Mr. Malan or to anyone else living at the Plaza. In fact, they
are being kept up at night by this noise. The difference to me between 11:30 or 12:00 or
12:30 or 1:00 does not really matter. All of that is too late. So I have a question for the
maker of the motion. Have you proposed 12 o’clock on Thursday and 1:30 a.m. on Friday
and Saturday presuming that there will thus be some impact on neighborhood residents after
nine or ten at night?
Commissioner Beecham: I am accepting the staff recommendation for 1:30 a.m. on Friday
and Saturday nights. To me, Thursday is a shorter night, but the main difference is on Friday
and Saturday nights, as we discussed with The Edge. Our belief and presumption at the time
was that turning offthe liquor early meant that when people do leave, they are quieter. So it
is not so much a matter of when as it is a matter of operation that we hope will be affected by
this.
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 34
1-08-97
Commissioner Byrd: But then why restrict the activity to a different time on Thursday or
even not accept Q’s recommendation to have the music every night? If the music is not
going to impact the residents, it really does not matter how often it gets played and when it
gets played.
Commissioner Beecham: Do you have a recommendation?
Commissioner Byrd: Yes, I have two modifications as friendly amendments. One would be
that if we are going to have a window in time when the music gets played, we have not
discussed perhaps starting the music earlier in the evening. This condition allows it to begin
at 9 p.m. We could talk about 7:30 or 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. Alternatively, if the presumption is
that the music is not going to impact the residents, then I would want to allow the applicant
to have that same window in time for the same days of the week that the other permitted uses
in town have. They said that Paradis is 9:00 to 1:00 and The Edge is 9:00 to 1:30 daily. I
would suggest that they be allowed to present the music dally, and leave it up to them and the
marketplace to determine how many performances a week that they can operate.
Commissioner Beecham: I appreciate your concern, and some of it is certainly realistic.
Regarding starting earlier, the applicant has not asked for it. They are asking to begin at
9:00, and that is what is in Condition #2. Regarding continuing on a dally basis, I do not
agree with that, and I do not wish to change my motion.
Chairperson Cassel: In addition to "dally," that would mean on Thursday, they are allowed
from 11:00 a.m. until 8:30 p.m., so on Thursday, they would be closing down before they
started.
Commissioner Byrd: Then I remain confused by the difference in the dosing time between
Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It seems to me that the music either affects the residents, or
it does not. It will not then matter what time they close.
Chalrp_ erson Cassel: Sound is a funny thing. Your ears are logarithmic and are very
selective. A machine that is measuring this is measuring it on a very factual basis, but your
ears do not hear on a very factual basis. You get trained to hear your daughter cry, even in a
room that is very crowded with other noises that you ignore. It is a strange thing abottt ears.
So this is a not a good, hard science, because our ears do not want to work in quite the same
way that the instruments do. So as it gets later and later at night and other sounds go down,
you pick up different sounds, so that is one of the reasons.
Commissioner Schmidt: Bern has recommended having a public hearing in six months time.
At the last meeting, we had talked about doing something in three months, but one of the
problems associated with that, as I recall, was that you would have to notice the public
hearing immediately, I wanted to know if six months is unrealistic.
A:[PCMINS41PC0108.drf Page 35
1-08-97
Ms. Cauble: I believe the difference was that the motion put on the floor at the last meeting
was not to have a compliance heating in three months. It was to issue a three-month permit,
and we explained that that would mean that the applicant would have to immediately file a
new application so that the three-month processing would be under way. I don’t believe staff
objected to a six-month compliance review, if the commission felt that it was more
appropriate than 12 months. You want some time period that is long enough to have some
data accumulate. Ms. Lytle and I expressed a primary concern about having a permit itself
that was so short that it became procedurally impossible, plus asking the applicant to spend
money on improvements. There needs to be some reasonable period of time in their use
permit to balance out the improvements you are asking them to make.
Ms. Lyric: Additionally, my concern was that without the additional interior volume control
condition that we recommended that the current motion include, it looked to me that for three
months, they were likely to be operating dearly in violation of the noise ordinance. So I was
concerned about a temporary permit that would exceed what our ordinance allows.
Commissioner Schmidt: Another question is whether The Edge has a specific patron
education requirement.
~: Yes, in fact, in the alternative section, Page 11 of your original staff report, there
were The Edge conditions laid out for you. They have a condition that requires the business
operator to do line control. The business operator has a plan on file for the utilization of their
security guards in directing patrons to public parking in order to reduce noise levels and
vandalism. They also have a business operator plan to educate patrons that the use of the
property is only permitted under certain conditions, being particularly respectful of
surrounding business and residential neighborhoods. The education program includes
directing the patrons to park in public parking lots to reduce noise in the downtown, to
eliminate litter and vandalism, and to be respectful. There are little handouts that they
distribute to their patrons. They also are required to post their use permit in the building so
¯ that it is readable by everyone.
Commissioner Schmidt: As a friendly amendment, I would like to propose this education
program for the Q Care.
Commissioner Beecham: An educational program should focus primarily on the
recommended parking locations to keep then away from the residential areas, and to advise
them that if they cause continuous noise, it is going to put the permit at risk. I think that is a
very reasonable thing to do, so I do accept that as an amendment to my motion.
Commissioner Ojakian: That is acceptable to.me.
Commissione& Sehink: In Commissioner Beeeham’s motion, I did not hear any reference to
A: I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 36
1-08-97
an idea I brought up before, directing staff to meet with the residents of Palo Alto Plaza to
develop a program to limit parking along their property. Are you open to that idea?
Commissioner Beecham: Not at this point, mainly because parking is such a convoluted
issue in the entire downtown area. At this point, I don’t feel that it warrants trying to parcel
out a small area with special parking limitations. Certainly, if within six months, we fred that
it continues to be a problem, maybe we do need to do that, but at this point, I would say no.
Commissioner O_iakian: Maybe staff can make note of what Jon said, and when they look at
the residential parking permit program downtown, they could include this as a piece to
review in how it might or might not fit in.
Commissioner Schink: I will not be supporting the motion, principally because I feel that the
hours certainly should be limited to much earlier hours. I feel that the Q Care has an
opportunity to substantially enjoy their property rights without adding live music. Live
music attracts the kind of customer that tends to be a little rowdy, and it would be best to let
them leave at 11:30 and go down to Fanny and Alexander’s on their way home. It does not
fit my idea of creating a downtown that is conducive to a mixed use. If we are to allow it at
all, I believe it should be at a much earlier hour. For that reason, I will not be supporting the
motion.
I also feel that we have not been provided with sufficient testimony to support the idea that
this use will contribute to the retail vitality of University Avenue. That is one of the fmdings
we need to make, and I do not feel we have done that. Finally, I tend to agree with Bern that
the noise leaking out the front door is not the real issue, but it still is the issue. As the
neighbors complain and call the police, the police will have to go over there and do noise
readings. I believe they will continually fred violations. The only way to avoid that
circumstance is to require the vestibule, so I think it is a mistake to delete Condition #13.
Commissioner Eakins: I would like to ask the maker and seconder of the motion whether
they would consider earlier dosing hours. I would prefer 12:30 but I would try living with
1:00 instead of 1:30 on Friday and Saturday nights.
Commissioner Beecham: No.
Commissioner Eakins: In that ease, I will not support the motion.
Commissioner O_iakian: At the end of the six-month period of time when this comes back to
us and we take a look at it, we are going to survey the land and ask ourselves, is this working
or not? Could we, at that particular stage, add additional conditions?.
Ms. Cauble: First of all, as the condition is currently worded, the heating would come before
A:I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 37
1-08-97
the zoning administrator. You can inflict it upon yourself if you wish. You have done that
with the YMCA, and you are welcome to do it with this. We, as the city, would have the
ability to add additional conditions if there were violations of the conditions or of some city
code. You would not be able to add new conditions just because you have thought about it
some more, and you have come up with some neat new conditions. We would need to show
that they had violated some condition imposed upon them. That is why with use permits, it is
really important to draft detailed, performance-based conditions because that is the way you
hold the user’s feet to the fire. When you have a compliance review or a revocation review
after complaints, you need to tie any new conditions to specific violations of the conditions
you originally imposed or to some standard, for example, violation of the noise ordinance.
Commissioner Qiakian: But we could have this item come back to the Planning Commission
in six months, as opposed to the zoning administrator. We have done that before.
Ms. Cauble: Correct. Again, if it is not coming to you, you would not have the ability to
modify the condition. With the Y, for example: the condition stated that the compliance
review would be by the Planning Commission unless the commission directed future
hearings by the zoning administrator. So you would have to work that into your review
condition.
Commissioner Ojakian: But there is no problem with doing that, so I will ask the maker of
the motion if he would be in agreement to change that particular condition that we are talking
about. Instead of having the review process done by the zoning administrator, have it done
by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Beecham: I appreciate the concern, and I certainly was aware that the
condition said it would be done by the zoning administrator. I have confidence that the
zoning administrator will run an adequate heating and determine whether or not there are
violations of the conditions. In that case, then the use permit is basically reopened. I would
depend on the zoning administrator to make that determination rather than necessarily
coming to us.
Commissioner O_iakian: Is a part of what the zoning administrator considers neighborhood
complaints? If there is a large number of neighborhood complaints because things have not
been working well over the next six months, will that be taken into consideration?
Ms. Caublg: Yes, and the issue is not the amount of complaints. The issue is whether or not
there is evidence before the zoning administrator that the conditions of the permit have not
been or are not being complied with, or that the use is being conducted in a manner
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The zoning administrator can look at
neighborhood complaints, can look at police reports, can do her own independent
investigation, hear public testimony, etc.
A: I PCMINS41PC0108.drf Page 38
1-08-97
~: Also the zoning administrator’s decision, in that instance, would be appealable to
the commission.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion
made by Commissioner Beecham, seconded by Commissioner Ojakian, to deny the appeals
and uphold the zoning administrator’s approval of the conditional use permit with some
conditions? The conditions are that they will stop the music and dancing on Friday and
Saturday nights at 1:30 a.m. The recommendation to City Council is that the serving of
alcohol will stop one-half hour before the music and dancing is to cease. Also, the music and
dancing stops at midnight on Thursday, with alcohol service ceasing at the same time. The
zoning administrator will review this application in six months time. The permitted
infractions will be changed from three to two. We are deleting Condition #13 regarding
construction.of a vestibule, and there will be an education component for people leaving.
The security guards are to monitor the outside of the building and surroundings at closing
time. This motion also includes the staff negative declaration and staff’s comments that
accompany it. The sound system volume control will be required to the interior. That passes
on a vote of 5-2 with Commissioners Eakins and Sehink voting no.
Ms. Lytle: This goes to the City Council on February 3rd.
A:I PCMINS41 PC0108.drf Page 39
1-08-97
Attachment 1~9
Q Cafe Use Permit I~-96-5
Planning Commission Hearing, 1/8/97 I
1, What We Have Done since Last Hearing on 11/13/96
¯ Noise Reduction Treatments (proposed by Vincent Salmon,
PE)
Skylights All 12 single-pane skylights were replaced with
double-pane skylights. According to Vincent Salmon,
skylights noise leakage has more direct effect on the Plaza.
Front doors - Weather strips were installed to seal all the gaps
in the front door panel.
From doors - Adjusted to be "auto-close", so the doors will.
always go back to "close" position after open.
Seven security members are currently on staff. We have
implemented routine patrol on streets around the building and
educated our customers to be respectful of surrounding
business and residential neighborhood.
Pa~e 1
Q Cafe Use Permit UP-96-5
Planning Commission Hearing, 1/8/97
Acoustical Report Prepared by James Mills, PE
Q care meets City of Palo Alto noise ordinance section
9.10.040 with an average operation level of 90 dBA (peak 97
dBA).
Both Skylights and front doors measurements were taken at the
property planes.
Skylights and front doors are 3 dBA and 7 dBA respectively
over local ambient noise level (ordinance is < 8 dBA). Double-
pane skylights shows significant improvement.
Ourhistodcal data from bands playing at Q Cafe indicates an
average operation level less than 90 dBA. This level is
equivalent to a Cal Tran train passing by, which produces 92
dBA as shown in Vineent’s sound report 1/31/96.
Decibel meter measurements will be done during band sound
check and throughout the live music to enforce a music level
not exceeding the average 90 dBA limit.
Page’2
Q Cafe Use Permit UP-96-5
Planning Commission Hearing, 1/8/97
2. Response to Comments Made at Last Hearing
¯Q Cafe is NOT a night club.
¯Q Care is NOT the Edge and will NEVER become the Edge.
Police Dept testified on 11/13/96 hearing for Q Cafe:
¯ Much lower service call than other places
~ Good police records with live music in early ’96
¯ Officer W. Stanford’s report
All our neighbors support live music in Q Care, e.g.
¯ Holiday Inn (across the street)
¯Casa Olga residences (closer than the Plaza)
~ We tried to work with the Plaza, but no cooperation...
Q Cafe Use Permit UP-96-5
Planning Commission Hearing, 1/8/97
Comparison of Use Permit Conditions
Police Service
Call
Live Music
Permitted
Double Door
Required
Fire Sprinkler
Monitor
Music Volume
Control
Edge
More
No
No
No
Fanny
More
Daily
No
No
Paradis
No
No
No
Q Cafe Use Permit UP-96-5
Planning Commission Hearing, 1/8/97
3.Requested Modifications in Use Permit 96-UP-5
¯We accept all the conditions except the following:
Condition 2 - Hours change to daily 9:00pro- 1:30am
Paradis- Daily 1 l:00am- 8:30pro, 9:00pm-
Edge - Daily 9:00am - 1:30am
l:00am
Condition 13: double door installation - Removed
Latest acoustical report shows Q Care complies with City
noise ordinance without double door.
Sound coming from the front doors has NO effect on the
Plaza.
No space to install double door without removing one entire
server station and re-constructing the bar, which will have
severe damage to the business operation.
Condition 21: fire sprinkler monitor - Removed