HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-21 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 21, 2004 CMR: 288:04
321 CALIFORNIA AVENUE [04-UP-02]: APPLICATION BY TONY
MONTOOTH FOR A REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP) TO ALLOW THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
(BEER, WINE, ALCOHOL) AT ANTONIO’S NUT HOUSE. THIS
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDED USE PERMIT HAS BEEN FILED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING APPEAL REQUEST
[03-AP-08] BY TONY MONTOOTH OF THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL
OF AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN JULY 2003
TO ALLOW ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE AS A
CONDITIONAL USE. STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE COUNCIL
CONSIDER RECOMMENDING STAFF TO PREPARE A
RECCOMENDATION THAT WOULD PROHIBIT PARKING IN
LOT C-7 DURING LATE NIGHT HOURS. ZONE DISTRICT:
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMBINING ZONE DISTRICT
(CC(2)RP). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the application [04-UP-02] to amend the existing use permit [73-UP-26], subject
to the conditions of approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment
A), to supercede the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s July 2003
decision, contingent upon the appeal request [03-AP-08] being withdrawn by Mr.
Montooth.
Staff also recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a recommendation
that would prohibit public parking in lot C-7 (the public lot at the comer of Birch Street
and Sherman Avenue), between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 4:00 A.M.
CMR 288:04 Page 1 of 8
BACKGROUND
Tony Montooth is the owner/operator of Antonio’s Nut House, located at 321 California
Avenue. Mr. Montooth has operated his business at this location for 30 years. A
conditional use permit was issued to Mr. Montooth in 1973 to allow the sale of alcoholic
beverages in conjunction with a bona fide eating establishment. The restaurant associated
with this use permit is Taqueria Azteca. The use permit was modified in 1977 and again
in 1980 to allow a card room use, which ceased operations in 1993 when card rooms
were deemed a prohibited use in Palo Alto.
The Police Department and the Department of Planning and Community Environment
have received complaints from members of the community regarding noise and other
disturbances in the vicinity of the business district along California Avenue. The
businesses at 260 California Avenue (The Edge Nightclub) and 321 California Avenue
(Antonio’s Nut House) are typically the focus of the complaints. Both businesses are
expected to operate in accordance with the State of California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control. Closing times for these businesses can vary, but the typical closing
time is 2:00 A.M., seven days per week. After the close of business, patrons from both
establishments return to the public parking lots to retrieve vehicles and leave the area.
Conditional use permits may be periodically reviewed if, in the judgment of the Zoning
Administrator, substantial evidence indicates that the use conducted pursuant to a
conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare. The Zoning Administrator may set a date for a public hearing with
the intent to. review the use and determine if the permit should be modified (Palo Alto
Municipal Code, Section 18.90.080).
The use permit for Antonio’s Nut House has essentially remained in its original form
since the mid-seventies. The Antonio’s Nut House conditional use permit was heard at
the same June 2003 Director’s hearing as The Edge nightclub, so that the City could take
public testimony on both use permits. It was the City’s intent to establish consistent
conditions of approval for each use in hopes of reducing complaints in the area. Public
hearings were held on June 5 and June 19, 2003. On July 9, 2003 the Director of
Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved a revised use permit
(Attachment H). Mr. Montooth submitted an appeal to the conditions of approval on July
18, 2003 (Attachment I). The appeal was based upon disagreement with the restrictions
of the use permit contained in the conditions of approval.
The Planning and Transportation Commission first heard the appeal on October 8, 2003.
Staff recommended that the appeal be denied, therefore upholding the Director’s July
2003 revised use permit. A detailed discussion of the revised use permit and conditions of
approval is contained in the October 8, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission
staff report (Attachment F). The appellant presented the Commission with an alternative
list of conditions that, in his view, would more closely reflect the operational conditions
CMR 288:04 Page 2 of 8
of the establishment. The Commission continued the item and directed staff to review a
list of items along with the applicant’s proposed conditions (Attachment D contains the
January 14, 2004 staff report with a list of those items to be reviewed).
The Commission next heard the item on January 14, 2004. Staff recommended that the
Commission find that the alcohol service use was being conducted in a manner that is
detrimental to public heath and safety and deny the appeal request, therefore upholding
the Director’s July 2003 revised use permit. Staff provided the requested analysis to the
Commission. A detailed discussion of the information requested by the Commission is
contained in the staff report (Attachment D). At the January 14 meeting, Mr. Montooth
requested that the Commission continue the appeal request. Mr. Montooth wanted an
opportunity to proactively adjust the business operations of his establishment rather than
have the City find that he was operating in a detrimental manner. The Commission
agreed that this was a reasonable request, and continued the appeal to a date uncertain,
with the expectation that the Mr. Montooth would submit a new application in early
March 2004 to amend the existing use permit to allow alcoholic beverage service at
Antonio’s Nut House.
Mr. Montooth submitted an application for a revised conditional use permit for the sales
and service of alcoholic beverages on February 12, 2004. The Commission reviewed the
request for the amended use permit on March 10, 2004. Staff recommended that the
Commission make one of the two following recommendations to the City Council:
Recommend approval of the amended use permit, subject to the conditions of
approval as contained in the Record of Land Use Action and uphold the appeal,-
thereby reversing the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s July
2003 decision and contingent upon the appeal request being withdrawn by Mr.
Montooth, or
Find that the current alcohol service use is being conducted in a manner that is
detrimental to public heath and safety, as described in the Draft Record of Land
Use Action and deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’s original approval, based upon the findings and
conditions of approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action.
Staff modified the recommended conditions of approval originally presented to the
Commission on October 8, 2003 and January 14, 2004. Staff recommended that the hours
of operation remain at the existing operating hours of 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M., seven days
per week. The previous recommendation was to reduce operating hours to 9:00 A.M. to
12:00 A.M. Sunday through Thursday and 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M on Friday and
Saturday. Staff recommended the longer operating hours based upon the following
conditions:
CMR 288:04 Page 3 of 8
The City shall hold a Director’s Hearing within six months of the approval date of
the amended use permit to assess the success of the use permit to reduce
incidences of nuisances in the California Avenue district
The owner/operator of Antonio’s Nut House shall provide a telephone number for
the managers of the restaurant/bar that would be available to members of the
public, who may call to report incidences of noise or other nuisances in the
vicinity of Antonio’s Nut House, so that problems can be solved quickly by
Antonio’s staff.
The owner/operator of Antonio’s Nut House shall attend homeowner meetings at
the request of the Birch Street Condominium Homeowners Association, not more
than twice annually, to review the operations of the restaurant and address
concerns related to the alcoholic service use, with the intent of resolving concerns.
The owner/operator of Antonio’s Nut House shall provide a door person, rather
than a licensed security guard, on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights from
10:00 P.M. until closing to remind patrons to be considerate of the nearby
residential area and to direct patrons to parking lots other than Lot C-7.
The Commission voted to recommend approval of the amended use permit, subject to the
revised conditions of approval and to uphold the appeal, thereby reversing the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s July 2003 decision and contingent upon the
appeal request being withdrawn by Mr. Montooth. The Commission modified the
following recommended conditions (shown in italics), including:
The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall meet with the
applicant within four months (originally six) to review compliance with the
conditional use permit conditions. Subsequent review by the Director would occur
every six months for an 18-month period. If three officially documented
infractions within the review period occur, a revocation hearing may be scheduled.
The doorperson shall be provided seven days per week and shall remain on-duty
until all patrons have left the premises. The doorperson shall be stationed on the
California Avenue side of the building. A security system will be installed to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division to monitor activity at the Birch Street side of
the premises and installed in such a way that the California Avenue door person
could monitor activity from inside the premises.
The Birch Street door and the door facing the alley adjacent to Lot C-7 shall be
used for emergency egress only after 10:00 P.M., seven days per week.
CMR 288:04 Page 4 of 8
A full service menu shall be provided until 9:00 P.M. and a reduced service menu
shall be provided after 9:00 P.M. until closing, Monday through Saturday. The
applicant shall provide a limited service menu for the operating hours on Sundays
that may or may not be associated with the restaurant. The owner/operator shall
provide a copy of this menu to the Planning Division.
The business shall remove all litter associated with its operation in the vicinity of
the premises. Litter removal shall commence no earlier than 8:00 A.M. and shall
end by 10:00 P.M. The dumpsters for trash and recyclable materials shall be of a
lockable variety approved by PASCO and shall retnain locked to prevent
unauthorized collection. The owner/operator shall institute a recycling program to
divert recyclable materials from its normal garbage waste.
The complete list of recommended conditions reviewed by the Commission are included
in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
After extensive deliberations, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the
revised use permit and uphold the appeal, thereby reversing the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’s July 2003 decision (3-1-1-1 Holman, Packer, Griffin for; Burt
opposed, Cassell absent, Bialson not participating). Verbatim minutes from the March 10,
2004 Commission meeting are contained in Attachment C.
DISCUSSION
Staff supports the Commission’s recommendation to. amend the existing conditional use
permit and uphold the appeal of the Director’s July 2003 decision. The existing use
permit, which has remained essentially unchanged for thirty years, does not acknowledge
the problems that can occur between commercial and residential land uses. The
California Avenue area is an active, community oriented commercial area that is
attractive to Palo Alto residents and people from all over the San Francisco Bay Area.
The area is a diverse mix of commercial, multi-family and single family uses. However,
with the diversity of uses comes a certain level of conflict between stakeholders with
competing priorities. The needs of all the users of the California Avenue district should
be respected and appropriate regulation should be established to encourage better
relationships between all users of the area.
The goal throughout this process has been to identify appropriate conditions that would
be attached to the conditional use permit so that the needs of the residential community
and the needs Mr. Montooth as the owner of Antonio’s Nut House are balanced.
At the March 10, 2004 Commission meeting, staff recommended allowing Mr. Montooth
to continue operating under his existing business hours of 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. seven
days per week. This recommendation was made based upon the condition that the
Director of Planning and Community Environment review the.use permit on a regular
CMR 288:04 Page 5 of 8
basis. The Commission has recommended to Council that the first review take place
within four months of permit issuance. Reviews would then take place every six months
for the next 18 months to ensure compliance with the use permit. If the Director finds that
the conditions of the use permit have not been followed or that there are repeated
violations of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, a revocation hearing may be scheduled.
This condition is a performance standard that is intended to clearly communicate to the
Nut House owner/operator, the residential community, and City staff the basis for
allowing this facility to continue alcoholic beverage service. If this performance standard
has not been met, the Director has the option to schedule a public hearing with the intent
of placing ~further restrictions on the owner/operator (such as reduced hours of operation)
or entirely revoking the conditional use permit.
The performance standard, in addition to the other conditions of approval, represents a
significant amendment to the existing use permit. For the first time, Mr. Montooth and!or
his successors would be required to operate the establishment following specific rules
that are known to all stakeholders in the community. The conditions, of approval clearly
state the consequences of violations of the use permit. Mr. Montooth should understand
that serving of alcoholic beverages would be prohibited if the use permit were to be
revoked, which would seriously impact his ability to continue the existing business.
The Planning Division’s Code Enforcement section would enforce the conditions of
approval on a regular basis, and would respond to complaints regarding the normal
business operations of the establishment. The City could issue administrative compliance
orders and administrative or criminal citations for violations of the conditions of the use
permit. These violations would be compiled and reviewed by the Director of Planning
and Community Environment prior to the proposed conditional use permit review
meetings, to be scheduled during the twenty-two months of the date of issuance of the
amended use permit and then at any future permit revocation hearing.
Staff also recommends that the City Council direct staff to return a recommendation to
the City Council that would prohibit public parking in lot C-7 (the public lot at the corner
of Birch Street and Sherman Avenue), between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 4:00 A.M.
Lot C-7 is a public parking lot located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment
district. Property owners within the district pay in-lieu fees on a yearly basis for parking
that is not provide on each site within the district. Closure of Lot C-7 during the late
night and early evening hours has been identified by both Mr. Montooth and the
residential community as a possible solution to alleviate public nuisances that have the
most impact on residents of the Birch Street condominiums. Signs would be installed
informing users of the lot that no parking would be allowed during the stated hours. The
Police Department would be able to cite vehicle owners that park in the lot during those
stated hours.
CMR 288:04 Page 6 of 8
The expected result would be that late night patrons in the California Avenue district
would park in areas that have minimal impact on residential areas. In addition, there
would be less noise from car and motorcycle engines and less people loitering in the
parking lot directly, adjacent to the condominiums.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The request for an amended conditional use permit is not expected to create any
additional resource impacts for the City. The development, implementation and
enforcement of a new parking ordinance for Lot C-7 would be expect to result in
additional costs for signage and Police Department enforcement. A full resource impact
analysis will be provided in the report submitted to Council for adoption of the ordinance.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The following conditional use permit findings would be applicable to the project:
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:
The sale of liquor, beer and wine, as conditioned, will be associated with an existing
eating and drinking establishment; the implementation of the education, parking, and
security plans will help to reduce the incidences of noise, loitering and other nuisances in
the California Avenue area. The conditions require an assessment of the effectiveness of
this permit in reducing impacts to residential areas. If there has not been improvement
within six months of the approval of this permit, the conditions may be modified or the
permit revoked.
The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title in that:
This use, as conditioned, is consistent with the underlying commercial zoning in that an
eating and drinking use is a permitted use in the CC(2)(R)(P) zone district. Furthermore,
the use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, Regional/Community Commercial
land use designation and the surrounding land uses.
TIMELINE
1st Director’s Hearing
2nd Director’s Hearing
Director’s Decision Amending Use Permit 73-L~-13
Appeal request of the Director’s Decision
1st Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting
2nd Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting
Application Submittal for an Amended Use Permit
June 5, 2003
June 9, 2003
July 9, 2003
July 18, 2003
October 8, 2003
January 14, 2004
February 12, 2004
CMR 288:04 Page 7 of 8
3rd Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting,
recommending approval of the amended use permit application
Council Hearing
March 10, 2004
June 21, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15301.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Director of Planning and Community
~e~t
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action to Approve 04-UP-02.
Attachment B: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, March 10, 2004
(without attachments).
Attachment C: Verbatim Minutes, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting,
March 10, 2004.
Attachment D: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, January 14, 2004
(without attachments).
Attachment E:Verbatim Minutes, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting,
January 14, 2004.
Attachment F: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, October 8, 2003
(without attachments).
Attachment G: Verbatim Minutes, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting,
October 8, 2003.
Attachment H: Director of Planning and Community Environment’s July 2003 decision
Attachment I: Appeal request by Tony Montooth of the July 2003 decision
Attachment J: Director’s Administrative Record (Council only).
CMR 288:04 Page 8 of 8
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2004-
RECORD OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 321 CALIFORNIA AVENUE: AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE FOR A BONE FIDE EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENT 04-UP-02 (TONY MONTOOTH, APPLICANT).
On June 21, 2004 the City Council approved the Planning and
Transportation Commission’s recommendation to allow alcoholic
beverage service in conjunction with a bone fide eating and
drinking establishment, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of
Pa!o Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On February 12, 2004, Tony Montooth (the "Applicant")
submitted an application to amend an existing conditional use
permit (73-UP-26) to allow alcoholic beverage service at 321
California Avenue, Antonio’s Nut House (the "Project").
B. The project would amend the existing conditional use
permit and require changes to the business operations of the
restaurant that would address community concerns regarding safety,
security and parking in the vicinity of the establishment.
C. The Planning and Transportation held a public hearing
on March I0, 2004 and determined that the alcohol service use, as
amended, would be conducted in a manner that was not detrimenta! to
public health and safety.
D. On March i0, 2004, the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommended that the City Council approve the amended
use permit, subject to conditions contained in Section 6 of this
Record of Land Use Action.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review.This project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act per Section 15301.
SECTION 3.Conditional Use Permit Findinqs
i. 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:
The sale of liquor, beer and wine, as conditioned, will be
associated with an existing eating and drinking establishment; the
implementation of the education, parking, and security plans will
help to reduce the incidences of noise, loitering and other
nuisances in the California Avenue area. The conditions require an
assessment of the effectiveness of this permit in reducing impacts
to residential areas. If the business owner has not complied with
all the conditions or there have been three or more officially
documented infractions of the noise ordinance within the during the
review period, a revocation hearing may be scheduled for the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Pal o Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of this title in that:
This use, as conditioned, is consistent with the underlying
commercial zoning in that an eating and drinking use is a permitted
use in the CC(2) (R) (P) zone district. Furthermore, the use is
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, Regional/Community
Commercial land use designation and the surrounding land uses.
SECTION 4.Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit No. 73-UP-26 is amended to allow alcoholic beverage
service in conjunction with a bone fide eating and drinking
establishment.
SECTION 5.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall meet
with the applicant within four months of the approval date to
review the conditions of the amended use permit, police
activity report, fire inspection, building inspections,
complaints and public testimony to determine the business
owner’s compliance with the use permit conditions of approval.
Subsequent review by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment shall occur every six months thereafter for a
period of eighteen (18) months. If the business owner has not
complied with all the conditions or there have been three or
more officially documented infractions of the noise ordinance
2
within the during the review period, a revocation hearing may
be scheduled for the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Officially documented infractions means that the Palo Alto
Police Department has conducted noise readings and found the
establishment to be in violation of the Palo Alto Noise
Ordinance.
2.Hours of Operation shall extend no later than the following:
Sunday through Saturday
(Seven days)
9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M.
There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of
3:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., except for cleaning the premises and
activities associates with kitchen activity in the restaurant.
Trash and recycling disposal may take place after 8:00 A.M
daily.
Patrons shall not be allowed to enter the building between
2:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. All patrons shall be vacated from the
building no later than one-hour after the posted closing time.
The owner/operator of Antonio’s Nut House shall provide
telephone numbers of the managers of the restaurant that would
be available to members of the public, who may call to report
incidences of noise or other nuisances in the vicinity of
Antonio’s Nut House, so that problem can be solved quickly by
Antonio’s staff.
The owner/operator of Antionio’s Nut House shall attend
homeowner meetings at the request of the Birch Street
Condominium Homeowners Association, not more than twice
annually, to review the operations of the restaurant and
address concerns related to the alcoholic service use, with
the intent of resolving concerns.
The business operator shall institute an educational and
parking plan which includes signs and handouts to inform
patrons that the premises are located near a residential area;
that patrons be respectful of our residential neighbors by
keeping noise to a minimum as they leave the premises. The
signs and handouts shall include a request of patrons to
utilize alternative parking areas on Cambridge Street after
i0:00 P.M. rather than Parking Lot C-7, directly behind the
restaurant. Any changes to the educational or parking plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and
approval.
o The business operator shall institute a security plan for the
utilization of a door person stationed at the door along the
o
o
I0.
ii.
California Avenue side of the building seven days per week
from i0:00 P.M. unti! closing and shall remain on duty until
all patrons have left the premises. The door person shall be
responsible for providing patrons with the educational
handouts requesting consideration and respect of adjacent
residential properties by keeping noise and loitering to
minimum levels. The door person shal! also direct patrons to
public parking lots along Cambridge Avenue and will instruct
patrons not to loiter or make excessive noise outside the
premises. The door person shall direct patrons who wish to
smoke to utilize the areas along California Avenue, while
keeping in compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section
9.14. A security system shall be installed in such a way that
the California Avenue door person could monitor activity from
inside the premises. Any changes to the security plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval.
The door at the Birch Street side of the building and the door
facing the alley adjacent to lot C-7 shall be used as
emergency ingress and egress only after I0:00 P.M. Patrons
shall be instructed to use the California Avenue door after
i0:00 P.M. All doors shall remain unlocked during normal
operating hours.
The serving of alcoholic beverages shall only be allowed in
conjunction with the operation of a bona-fide restaurant. A
full service menu shall be provided until 9:00 P.M. and a
reduced service menu shall be provided after 9:00 P.M. until
closing, Monday through Saturday. The applicant shall provide
a limited service menu during the operating hours on Sundays
that may or may not be associated with the restaurant. The
owner/operator shall provide a copy of this menu to the
Planning Division.
The business shall remove all litter associated with its
operation in the vicinity of the premises. Litter removal
shall commence no earlier than 8:00 A.M. and shall end by
I0:00 P.M. The dumpsters for trash and recyc!able materials
shall be of a lockable variety approved by PASCO and shall
remain locked to prevent unauthorized collection. The
owner/operator shall institute a recycling program to divert
recyclable materials from the normal garbage waste.
The business operator shall allow all patrons waiting in line
to have full access and use of the bathroom facilities within
the building. This service shall be advertised in conjunction
with the education program.
The owner, their heirs, successors and assigns shall comply
with all of the terms and conditions of this use permit.
4
12.This use shall comply with all applicable City codes,
including but not limited to, Title 9 (public Peace, Morals
and Safety), Title 15 (Fire Prevention) and Title 18 (Zoning).
In addition, this use shall comply with the requirements of
State of California Administrative Code, including the
requirements for licensing from the Department of Alcohol
Beverage Control.
SECTION 6.Term of Approval. If the Conditional Use
Permit granted is not used within one year of the date of council
approval, it shall become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.90.080(c)
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
5
Attachment B
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Steven Turner, Planner
March 10, 2004
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:321 California Avenue [04-UP-02]: Application by Tony Montooth
for a revised Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the sale of
alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, alcohol) at Antonio’s Nut House. This
request for an amended use permit has been filed in conjunction with
the existing appeal request [03-AP-08] by Tony Montooth of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of an
amended Conditional Use Permit in July, 2003 to allow alcoholic
beverage service as a conditional use. Zone District: Community
Commercial Combining Zone District (CC(2)RP). Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) consider the
request for an amended conditional use permit and forward one of the following
recommendations to the City Council:
A.Recommend the City Council approve the application [04-UP-02] to amend the
existing use permit [73-UP-26], subject to the conditions of approval contained in the
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), to supercede the Director of Planning
and Community Environment’s July 2003 decision, contingent upon the appeal
request [03-AP-08] being withdrawn by Mr. Montooth (simultaneously forwarding
the appeal request to Council with a recommendation that it be withdrawn); or
B.Find that the current alcohol service use is being conducted in a manner that is
detrimental to public heath and safety, as described in the Draft Record of Land Use
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Action (Attachment B) and deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’ s original approval, based upon the findings and conditions
of approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2004, the Planning and Transportation Commission continued the public
hearing on the appeal request to a date uncertain, with the expectation that the appellant,
Tony Montooth, would submit an application in early March 2004 to amend the existing use
permit to allow alcoholic beverage service at Antonio’s Nut House.
Mr. Montooth has submitted an application, file 04-UP-02, to amend the existing use permit,
73-UP-26. The application includes proposed conditions to address concerns of residential
community members in the neighborhood. The applicant-has proposed changes to the
operation of the restaurant/bar in order to help to alleviate problems associated with late night
activities that take place within the California Avenue district.
Mr. Montooth has indicated that he would withdraw his appeal request of the Director’s July
2003 to amend use permit 73-UP-26, if the Commission recommends approval of application
04-CUP-02. Since Mr. Montooth has not yet withdrawn his appeal request, the Commission
may consider the appeal in conjunction with the new application.
As noted, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve application 04-CUP-02 to supercede the July 2003 Director’s decision, contingent
upon withdrawal of the appeal. The Commission may also recommend that the Council
approve the appeal, which would uphold the existing 1973 use permit without the additional
conditions contained in the Director’s July 2003 decision, in conjunction with approving
application 04-CUP-02.
As an alternative, the Commission may recommend that Council deny the appeal and the
application 04-CUP-02, which would have the effect of upholding the Director’s July 2003
decision and conditions.
Additional backgound information is contained in the Planning and Transportation
Commission staff reports of October 8, 2003 and January 14, 2004 (Attachments D and F).
DISCUSSION
Application 04-CUP-02
Mr. Montooth’s application requests an amendment to the existing 1973 use permit allowing
alcoholic beverage service at Antonio’s Nut House. The application was submitted in
City of Palo Alto Page 2
response to staff’s recommendation that the Commission find that Mr. Montooth was
operating his business in a manner that was detrimental to public health and safety. Mr.
Montooth wanted an opportunity to proactively adjust the business operations of his
establishment rather than have the City find that he was operating in a detrimental manner.
The Commission agreed that this was a reasonable request, and thus continued the appeal to a
date uncertain.
The focus of the new application is the implementation of three plans intended to address the
specific concerns of the residential community in the neighborhood. Mr. Montooth has
proposed an education plan, a security plan, and a parking plan. These plans acknowledge the
issues of the residential community and summarize the changes and improvements that
would be made, with the overall goal to reduce the incidences of public nuisances in the
district. The plans are included in Attachment B. These plans are similar to those that the
Director had required in conditions of the July 2003 decision.
The application demonstrates a good-faith effort by Mr. Montooth to address the general
concerns of the neighborhood by modifying his business operations and instituting plans with
the intent of improving the environment of the district. Staff has reviewed the application and
has recommended conditions of approval that retain condition compliance monitoring and
review of the permit with the City while adjusting the operating restrictions to provide
opportunities for ongoing success of the business for Mr. Montooth and his successors.
Staff is recommending the following additional conditions intended to enhance the
effectiveness of the amended permit, with respect to improving the existing environment in
the area:
The City shall hold a Director’ s Hearing within six months of the approval date of the
amended use permit to assess the success of the use permit to reduce incidences of
nuisances in the California Avenue district (Condition #1)
The owner/operator of Antonio’ s Nut House shall provide a telephone number of the
managers of the restaurant/bar that would be available to members of the public, who
may call to report incidences of noise or other nuisances in the vicinity of Antonio’s
Nut House, so that problem can be solved quickly by Antonio’s staff (Condition #3)
The owner/operator of Antionio’s Nut House shall attend homeowner meetings at the
request of the Birch Street Condominium Homeowners Association, not more than
twice annually, to review the operations of the restaurant and address concerns related
to the alcoholic service use, with the intent of resolving concerns (Condition #4)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
After careful consideration, staff is recommending that the hours of operation remain at the
existing operating hours of 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M., seven days per week. Condition #2
requires a hearing to be held within six months of the approval date of the amended use
permit to assess the success of permit in reducing incidences of nuisances in the California
Avenue district. If conditions have not improved for residents in the area, the use permit may
be revoked or modified to restrict the hours of operation.
If the Commission finds that the amendments are acceptable, the Commission may
recommend that the City Council approve the amended use permit, subject to the finding and
conditions in the Record of Land Use Action contained in Attachment A. The Commission
would send the appeal to the City Council contingent upon the withdraw of the appeal by Mr.
Montooth.
If the Commission finds that the proposed amendments are not acceptable, the Commission
may recommend that the City Council deny the revised use permit request and deny the
appeal request, thereby upholding the Director’s July 2003 decision.
The Administrative Record, containing information related to the Director’s July 2003
decision, is contained in Attachment G (for Commissioners only).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project does not represent any change to existing city policies and is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-28 that maintains the existing scale, character, and function
of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center
intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood
business areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15301.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Draft Record of Land Use Action to Approve 04oUP-02
Request for Amended Use Permit, 04-UP-02
Draft Record of Land Use Action to Deny Appeal Request 03-AP-08
Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, January 14, 2004
(without attachments)
Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes, January 14, 2004
Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2003
City of Palo Alto Page 4
(without attachments)
Attachment G: Director’s Administrative Record (Commission only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Tony Montooth, Antonio’s Nut House/Paul J. McDonald, Esq
Greg Kerber
John K. Abraham
Jeff Herman
Lisa Habbeshaw
Midori-Kato Maeda
Peter Holland
Dea Smith
Kelly Gorman
Andre DePass
Don & Carol Mullen
Lawrence Haussler
Brian Bolitho
David Struck
Josh Peskin
Deborah Love
Ronna Devincenzi
Christine Andihzabak
Joy Ogawa
Michael Gaillard
David Mann
Prepared by: Steven Turner, Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning~
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ACTION NO. 2004-
RECORD OF THE CITY CO~JNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 321 CALIFORNIA AVENUE: AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE FOR A BONE FIDE EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISI{MENT 04-UP-02 (TONY MONTOOTH, APPLICANT).
On , 2004 the City Counci! approved the Planning and
Transportation Commission’s recommendation to allow alcoholic
beverage service in conjunction with a bone fide eating and
drinking establishment, making the fol!owing findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION !. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (~City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On February 12, 2004, Tony Montooth (the "Applicant")
submitted an application to amend an existing conditiona! use
permit (73-UP-26) to allow alcoholic beverage service at 321
California Avenue, Antonio’s Nut House (the "Project").
B. The project would amend the existing conditional use
permit and~ require changes to the business operations of the
restaurant that would address community concerns regarding safety,
security and parking in the vicinity of the establishment.
C. The Planning and Transportation held a public hearing
on March !0, 2004 and determined that the alcohol service use, as
amended, would be conducted in a manner that was not detrimental to
public health and safety.
D. On March i0, 2004, the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommended that the City Council approve the amended
use permit, subject to conditions contained in Section 6 of this
Record of Land Use Action.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review.This project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmenta! Quality
Act per Section 15301.
SECTION 3.Conditional Use Permit Findinqs
!. 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:
The sale of liquor, beer and wine, as conditioned, wil! be
associated with an existing eating and drinking establishment; the
implementation of the education, parking, and security plans will
help to reduce the incidences of noise, loitering and other
nuisances in the California Avenue area. The conditions require an
assessment of the effectiveness of this permit in reducing impacts
to residential areas. If there has not been improvement within six
months of the approval of this permit, the conditions may be
modified or the permit revoked.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of this title in that:
This use, as conditioned, is consistent with the underlying
commercial zoning in that an eating and drinking use is a permitted
use in the CC(2) (R) (P) zone district. Furthermore, the use is
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, Regional/Community
Commercial land use designation and the surrounding land uses.
SECTION 4.Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit No. 73-UP-26 is amended to allow alcoholic beverage
service in conjunction with a bone fide eating and drinking
establishment.
SECTION 5.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall meet
with the applicant within six months of the approval date to
review the conditions of the amended use permit, police
activity report, fire inspection, building inspections,
complaints and public testimony to determine the business
owner’s compliance with the use permit conditions of approval.
If the business owner has not complied with all the conditions
or there have been three or more officially documented
infractions of the noise ordinance within the six-month
period, a revocation hearing may be scheduled for the Planning
and Transportation Commission. Officially documented
infractions means that the Palo Alto Police Department has
conducted noise readings and found the establishment to be in
o
o
violation of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. The date and time
of this hearing shall be noticed in accordance with the
provisions of section 18.90.030 Palo Alto Municipal Code
[PAMC], including publication in a local newspaper of general
circulation and by notice to residents and property owners
within 300 feet of the property.
Hours of Operation shall extend no later than the following:
Sunday through Saturday
(Seven days)
9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M.
There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of
3:00 A.M° and 9:00 A.M., except for cleaning the premises,
activities associates with kitchen activity in the restaurant.
Trash and recycling disposal may take place after 8:00 A.M
daily.
Patrons shall not be allowed to enter the building between
2:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. All patrons shal! be vacated from the
building no later than one-hour after the posted c!osing time.
The owner/operator of Antonio’s Nut House shall provide
telephone numbers of the managers of the restaurant that would
be available to members of the public, who may cal! to report
incidences of noise or other nuisances in the vicinity of
Antonio’s Nut House, so that problem can be solved quickly by
Antonio’s staff.
o
The owner/operator of Antionio’s Nut House shall attend
homeowner meetings at the request of the Birch Street
Condominium Homeowners Association, not more than twice
annually, to review the operations of the restaurant and
address concerns related to the alcoholic service use, with
the intent of resolving concerns.
The business operator shall institute an educational and
parking plans which includes signs and hand outs to inform
patrons that the premises are located near a residential area;
that patrons be respectful of our residential neighbors by
keeping noise to a minimum as they leave the premises. The
signs and handouts will include a request of patrons to
utilize alternative parking areas on Cambridge Street (Lots
XXX) after I0:00 P.M. rather than Parking Lot C-7, directly
behind the restaurant. Any changes to the educationa! or
parking plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
review and approval.
The business operator shall institute a security plan for the
utilization of a door person stationed at the door a!ong the
California Avenue side of the building on Thursday, Friday and
Saturday nights from I0:00 P.M. until c!osing. The door person
will be responsible for providing patrons with the educational
handouts requesting consideration and respect of adjacent
residential properties by keeping noise and loitering to
minimum levels. The door person shall also direct patrons to
public parking lots along Cambridge Avenue and will instruct
patrons not to loiter or make excessive noise outside the
premises. The door person will direct patrons who wish to
smoke to utilize the areas a!ong California Avenue, while
keeping in compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section
9.14. Any changes to the security plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Division for review and approval.
The door at the Birch Street side of the building shall be
used as emergency ingress and egress only after i0:00 P.M.
Patrons shal! be instructed to use the California Avenue door
after !0:00 P.M. Al! doors shall remain unlocked during normal
operating hours.
The serving of alcoholic beverages shall only be allowed in
conjunction with the operation of a bona-fide restaurant. The
restaurant shal! be in operation and easily accessible to and
from the entertainment area during the times in which alcohol
is sold and consumed on site.
The owners and operators of the club shall provide a full
service menu to customers during regular business hours and a
late night menu to customers after ii:00 P.M. which shall be
available until closing.
I0.The business shall remove all litter associated with its
operation in the vicinity of the premises. Litter removal
shall commence no earlier than 8:00 A.M. and shall be
completed by i0:00 A.M. the morning.
The business operator shall allow all patrons waiting in line
to have full access and use of the bathroom facilities within
the building. This service shal! be advertised in conjunction
with the education program.
12.
13.
The sale of beer and wine 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 of the
terms and conditions of this use permit.
This use shall comply with all applicable City codes,
including but not limited to, Title 9 (public Peace, Morals
and Safety), Title 15 (Fire Prevention) and Title 18 (Zoning).
In addition, this use shall comply with the requirements of
4
State of California Administrative Code, including the
requirements for licensing from the Department of Alcohol
Beverage Control.
SECTION 6.Term of Approval. If the Conditional Use
Permit granted is not used within one year of the date of council
approval, it shall become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.90.080(c)
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachment B
¯ Overall Goal:
¯ Plan:
¯Efforts to Date:
¯ Improvements to Date:
¯ Other Considerations:
¯ Success:
SUMMAR Y OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ANTONIO’S NUT HOUSE
To operate Antonio’s Nut House so as to be respectful of our
residential neighborhoods.
Antonio’s Nut House will implement an educational, security and
parking plan which will address neighborhood concerns and facilitate
communication between patrons, staff, and residential neighbors. (See
attached Summary of Plans)
Since the last Planning Commission Meeting, Antonio’s Nut House
has implemented an educational, security and parking plan through
the use of signs, hand-outs, the stationing of a "door man" which
directs patrons not to park in Lot C-7, minimize !oitering and noise.
Antonio’s also is providing a "late night" menu for patrons and
limiting the hours of removal of trash and recycling disposals.
Patrons and staff have become aware of the concerns of our
residential neighbors. Patrons have been informed of ways in which
they can enjoy the businesses along California Avenue while at the
same time being respectful of the residents who live nearby.
In addition to the Conditions set forth in the Application, Antonio’s
Nut House is willing to consider meeting with the Birch Street
Homeowners Association twice a year. Antonio’s is also willing to
continue to facilitate communications with its residential neighbors
by providing the Birch Street Homeowners Association with the
name and telephone number of a contact person at Antonio’s to
address issues as they arise.
The success of each of these plans will be measured by keeping the
lines of communication open between Antonio’s, its neighbors, and
the City.
Antonio’s Nut House
321 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 321-2550
Project Description Regarding Application
For A Conditional Use Permit
Tony Montooth is the owner/operator of Antonio’s Nut House, located at 321
California Avenue in the Cit), of Palo Alto, California. Mr. Montooth has operated his
business at this location for over 30 years. A Conditional Use Permit was issued to Mr.
Montooth in 1973 to allow the serving of alcoholic beverages accessory to the operation of
a bonafide eating place. The restaurant associated with this Conditional Use Permit is Casa
Azteca, a Mexican restaurant. Antonio’s Nut House also offers recorded music, pool tables
~qd~l~s to its patrons. The hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (closing
time), seven (7) days a week.
The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinib,’, nor detrimental to the public health, safe~, general welfare, or convenience in that
the business operator will establish procedures, in the form of conditions, for the purpose of
reducing noise levels in the residential areas to the southeast of the site. The conditions
include an educational plan for its patrons regarding crowd control and parNng; the use of
a doorman; providing a late night menu for patrons and a plan for the removal of trash and
recycling disposals.
The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed conditions are as follows:
1. The hours of operation shall extend no earlier than 9:00 a.m: and no later than 2:00
a.m. (closing time). There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of 3:00 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m., except for the cleaning of the premises or compliance with the trash and
recycling disposal plan set forth below.
Antonio’s Nut House, 321 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Page 2
2. The business operator shall institute an educational plan which includes signs and
hand outs to inforna patrons that the premises are located near a residential area; that patrons
be respectful of our resident neighbors by keeping noise to a minimum as they leave the
premises. The signs and handouts will also request that after 10:00 P.M. patrons should park
their vehicles on California Avenue or in lots located on Cambridge Street which is located
behind Printers Ink. The patrons will be instructed not to park their vehicles in Lot C-7,
which is located directly behind the premises.
3. The business owner will have a doorman stationed at the door on Thursday, Friday
and Saturday nights from 10:00 P.M. to closing, for the purpose of providing patrons with
a handout which will inform the patrons to be respectful of our resident neighbors by keeping
noise to a minimum as they leave the premises; that patrons park their vehicles on California
Avenue or in lots located on Cambridge Street which is located behind Printers Ink. The
patrons will be instructed not to park their vehicles in Lot C-7, which is located directly
behind the premises. The doorman will also instruct the patrons not to loiter or making
excessive noise outside the premises. The doorman will direct patrons who wish to smoke
to utilize California Avenue.
4. Beginning at 10:00 P.M. until closing, the door of the premises located adjacent
to Birch Street shall be for emergency exit only. It will be closed for ingess and e~ess.
Patrons will be directed to use the California Street door for ingess and egress.
5. The serving of alcoholic beverages shall be allowed in conjunction with the
operation of a bona-fide restaurant pursuant to the laws and regulations set forth under the
California Alcoholic Beverage Act. The business owner shall provide a full service menu
to patrons during normal meal times. In addition, except on Sunday evenings, a late night
menu will be available to patrons until closing.
6. The business owner shai1 allow all patrons full access and use of the bathroom
facilities on the premises. This accommodation shall be included in the signs and handouts
specified above.
7. The business owner will remove alt liter associated with its operation no earlier
than 8:00 A.M. and shall be completed by 10:00 A.M. the morning of ever3, business day.
The business owner will install locks on its outside dumpsters so as to discourage transients
from collecting bottles and cans from the dumpsters.
Antonio’s Nut House, 321 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Page 3
8. The sale of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed to be an
ageement on the part of the applicant, the owner, their heirs, successors and assigns to
comply with all the terms and conditions of this Use Permit.
9. The use shall comply with all applicable City Codes, including, but not limited to,
Title 19 (public Peace, Morals and Safety), Title 15 (Fire Prevention), and Title 18 (Zoning).
In addition, this use shall comply with the requirements of the State of California
Administrative Code, including requirements for licensing from the Department of Alcohol
Beverage Control.
Respectfully submitted,
Anton~ut House / ~,~/
Tony M~tooth, Proprietor/Owner
SUMMARY OF EDUCATIOnaL PLAN
ANTONIO’S NUT HOUSE
The purpose of Antonio’s Nut House’s Educational Plan is to inform our staff, and
specifically our patrons, of ways they can enjoy the businesses along California Avenue and at the
same time respect our residential neighbors.
The Plan includes the placement of sig-ns and distribution of handouts (Condition #2)
reminding our patrons that this is a residential and business area. It directs patrons to park in lots
other than Lot C-7. Patrons are reminded that as they come and go they should keep noise to a
minimum (see copy of sign attached hereto as Exhibit "A").
This information will also be displayed on "A-frame" signs placed outside, and to the front,
and rear of Antonio’s near the parking lot (see copy of sign attached hereto as Exhibit "B").
This information will also be provided to our patrons in the form of handouts (Condition #3).
See copy of handout attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
Through the use of these educational tools our patrons will be informed of where to park,
how to minimize noise so as to be respectful of our neighbors.
SUMAIAR Y OF SECURITY PLAN
ANTONIO’S NUT HOUSE
The purpose of the Security Plan is to direct patrons in the proper use of the premises, direct
patrons to certain parking facilities, minimize loitering and noise.
The Security Plan includes the utilization of a door man on certain nights, the closing of
doors in the rear of the premises and along Birch Street for in~ess and e~ess after 10:00 p.m., allow
patrons access to restroom facilities and offer a late night menu to patrons.
On Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights from 10:00 p.m. to closing, a door man will be
stationed at the entrance to Antonio’s. In addition the handouts mentioned in the Educational Plan,
the door man will instruct patrons not to loiter or make excessive noise outside the premises. The
doorman will direct those patrons who wish to smoke to utilize California Avenue (Condition #3).
Beginning at 10:00 p.m. until closing, the doors to the premises located to the rear and along
Birch Street will be used for emergency exit only. Patrons will be directed to use the California
Avenue door to enter and leave the premises (Condition #4).
A late night menu will be provided to Antonio’s patrons until closing, except on Sunday
evenings (Condition #5).
The bathroom facilities will be made available to all patrons during business hours
(Condition #6).
The use of these securi~ measures will minimize noise near the residential areas of the
District.
SU~IMARY OF PARKING PLAN
ANTONIO’S NUT HOUSE
The purpose of the Parking Plan is to direct those patrons who drive to park their vehicles
to lots other than Lot C-7 which is located near our residential neighbors.
~The Parking Plan includes the use of signs placed inside and outside of Antonio’s, (See
Exhibits "A" and "B") as well as handouts distributed to Antonio’s patrons (See Exhibit"C").
These signs and handouts which instruct our patrons not to park in Lot C-7, and direct them to
alternative parking areas.
The signs and handouts will request that after 10:00 p.m. patrons who drive to Antonio’s will
be asked to park their vehicles on California Avenue or in parking lots located on Cambridge Street.
Patrons will be instructed not to park their vehicles in Lot C-7 which is located directly behind the
premises (Condition #2 and Condition #3).
Through the use of this Parking Plan we hope to educate our patrons so as to modify their
parking habits away from the residential area of the District and toward the business areas of the
District.
OPERATION: BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR
Exhibit A
Help Keep Antonio’s Nut House in Business
Antonio’s asks all of its patrons to be a good neighbor. You can do so by:
REMEMBERING THAT THIS IS A BUSINESS AND A RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
AFTER 10:00 P.M. PARK ON CALIFORNIA AVENUE OR USE THE PUBLIC
PARKING LOTS C-3, C-4, C-9 or C-5 LOCATED ON CAMBRIDGE AVENUE (BEHIND
PRINTERS INK). DO NOT PARK IN THE LOT DIRECTLY BEHIND ANTONIO’S
(LOT C-7).
WHEN COMTNG OR LEAVING ANTONIO’S PLEASE DO SO OUIETLY SO AS
NOT TO DISTURB OUR RESIDENT NEIGHBORS.
IF YOU SMOKE, PLEASE USE THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE EXIT. DO NOT
USE BIRCH STP~ET (LOCATED ON THE PARKING LOT SIDE OF ANTONIO’S).
IF YOU NEED TO USE THE RESTROOMS PLEASE DO SO.OUR RESTROOMS
ARE OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR
ANTONIO’S NUT HOUSE THANKS YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION
,Operation help keep Antonio’s nuthouse in business
This is an education program for our
customers of Antonio’s nut-house. The purpose
of this bulletin is asking you all to help us reduce
noise, litter, and vandalism in the California
Avenue district. P!ease remember that tbSs .,is a
business and residential neighborhoOd. We
would like to ask you to please be respectful of
the property and residents in the California
Avenue district. Part of our problem with noise
and neighbors isthe public parking lot C-7. That
is the lot directly behind the bar. We would like
to suggest alternative parking along California
Avenue (on the street), our parking lot, or the
various parking lots through out the California
Avenue district. Thank you for helping us to be
.good neighbors and for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Tony Montooth
Owner
Exhibit C
Operation help keep
Antonio’s nuthouse
business
This is an education program for
our customers of Antonio’s nut
house. The purpose of this
handbill is asking you all to help
us reduce noise, litter, and
vandalism in the California
Avenue district. Please remember
that this is a business and
residential neighborhood. We
would like to ask you to please be
respectful of the property and
residents in the California Avenue
district. Part of our problem with
noise and neighbors is the public
parking lot C-7. That is the lot
directly behind the bar. We would
like to suggest alternative parking
along California Avenue (on the
street), our parking lot, or the
various parking lots through out
the California Avenue district.
Thank you for helping us to be
good neighbors and for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Tony Montooth
Owner
1/4 lb $
Tor~!~a Ch~ps Topped Wi~h ]~eans, Cheese,
Toma~u~es, Onion, C~o,
G~le ~ So~ Cr~
$ 4.~
~dd S~edd~ ~ee~ or ~cken
$ $.~
1/3 lb $
Greed Flour Torfi!ta With
~elted Che~e $~.00
Add G~le ~ 5~ Cr~ $
Xdd G~le,S~ Crew, S~edded
~eef or ~cken $ 5.~
1/2 Ib $
Shredded ~eef or Chicken wi~h
l~ce, ~eam &~ Salsa
$4.~
~ce, ~eans, Sour Cream,
Guacam~le,
C~eese ~ P~ce de Ga!to Salza
Attachment C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
March 10, 2004
EXCERPT
321 California Avenue*: Application by Tony Montooth for a revised Conditional
Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, alcohol) at Antonio’s
Nut House. The request for an amended use permit includes proposed operational
conditions that would address noise, security, and patron parking issues that have
been raised by members of the community. This request for an amended use permit
has been filed in conjunction with the existing appeal request by Tony Montooth of
the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of an amended
Conditional Use Permit in July, 2003 to allow alcoholic beverage service as a
conditional use, in the Community Commercial Combining Zone District.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15301. File No: 04-CUP-02 and 73-UP-I 3, amended July 2003.
Chair Griffin: I have a question for the City Attorney. There is an asterisk after this item
on the agenda is this a quasi-judicial item that we need to make declarations on?
Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I will be unable to hear this item because I have an ownership
interest in the property immediately across the street from it.
Chair Griffin: So you are recusing yourself?. Bonnie, do you have any? Pat? Karen? I
did visit the property briefly this morning.
Could we have a Staff presentation? Steve.
Mr. Steve Turner, Planner: Thank you Chairman Griffin and Commissioners. The
project before the Commission this evening is an application by Tony Montooth to
modify the existing 1973 use permit that allows the operator to serve alcohol in
conjunction with a bona fide restaurant. At the January 14, 2004 hearing Mr. Montooth
made the request to proactively adjust the business operation( of his establishment rather
than have the City find that he was operating in a detrimental manner. The Commission
ageed that this was a reasonable request and continued the appeal date to a date
uncertain.
The appellant has applied to the City to modify his use permit and that plan is contained
in Attachment B of your Staff Report. The Applicant has proposed specific plans to deal
with the complaints brought forth by members of the public. Mr. Montooth has proposed
an education plan to inform staff and patrons about noise levels and how patrons should
respect the residential areas near the district. A security plan to direct patrons to the
proper use of the premises making use of alternative parking facilities and minimizing
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
!4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
loitering and noise. And finally, the parking plan, which is intended to direct patrons to
lots other than those adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
As mentioned in the written Staff Report the application is a good faith effort to address
the general concerns of the neighborhood by modifying the business operations and
instituting plans with the intent of improving the environment in the district. Staff has
reviewed the application and has proposed recommended conditions of approval that are
contained in Attachment A of the Staff Report. Attachment A is the document that is
directly behind the Staff Report. It is unlabeled but it should read as Attachment A.
Staffwould like to clarify certain conditions within Attachment A. The conditions beNn
in section five on page two of Attachment A. The first condition, condition number one,
relates to a review of the use permit within six months of the approval date of the use
permit. The first sentence reads, "The Director of Planning and Community Environment
shall meet with the applicant within six months of the approval date to review the
conditions of the amended use permit, police activity report, fire inspection, building
inspections, complaints and public testimony to determine the business owner’s
compliance with the use permit conditions of approval." This was intended to be more of
a one-on-one meeting with the business operator and the Director to review the
conditions of approval.
The condition continues, "If the business owner has not complied with all the conditions
or there have been three or more officially documented infractions of the noise ordinance
within the six month period, a revocation hearing may be scheduled for the Planning and
Transportation Commission." Basically this revocation hearing would be held in
accordance with the revocation procedures in the Municipal Code at the time of the
Director’s review. Those procedures may require that a Director’s Hearing be held prior
to any Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. So therefore Staffwould
recommend that the phrase at the end of that sentence, "for the Planning and
Transportation Commission," be removed from that condition. It will simply say that a
revocation hearing may be scheduled.
Similarly the last sentence in condition number one should also be removed because the
noticing procedures for that revocation will be noticed in accordance with the Municipal
Code that is in place at the time of that request. So the last sentence of that condition
would be removed.
The second point of clarification is for condition number five. Number five should
identify Lot C-4 and C-9 as public parking lots on Cambridge Avenue that would be
appropriate parking area for patrons.
The third clarification is on condition number eight. That discusses how the serving of
alcoholic beverages shall only be allowed in conjunction with the operation of a bona fide
restaurant. Mr. Montooth’s application includes a sample menu that indicates days of
operation as Monday through Saturday. Mr. Montooth should be aware that condition
number eight is in effect seven days a week and that the City would expect that the
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
alcohol service would be conducted only when the restaurant is open and serving the full
menu.
Condition number nine speaks to this as well and provides that a late night menu may be
available to customers after 11:00 PM in lieu of the full menu.
The fourth point of clarification regards a sketch of the facility. It was a floor plan that
was produced by Mr. Montooth. If you notice the plan includes a patio at the exterior of
the building on California Avenue. This patio should not be considered a part of this
application, as the permit does not allow any consumption of alcohol in the outdoor areas
of the building.
So in addition to the application submitted by Tony Montooth the Commission is also
considering the appeal of the Director’s July 2003 decision. The appellant is also Mr.
Montooth and he is objecting to the more strict conditions placed on his establishment
last year in July of 2003. The discussion of the appeal began with the October 8, 2003
Planning and Transportation Commission meeting and that Staff Report is contained at
the back of this current Staff Report.
So therefore Staff is recommending that the Planning and Transportation Commission
forward one of the following recommendations to the City Council. Those
recommendations are at the first page of your Staff Report. A) Recommend that the City
Council approve the application to amend the existing use permit subject to the
conditions of approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action, which is Attachment
A, and to supercede the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s July 2003
decision. The other recommendation would be to find the that the current alcohol service
use is being conducted in a manner that is detrimental to public health and safety, as
described in the Record of Land Use decision. That is Attachment C rather than
Attachment B. The Commission would therefore then deny the appeal and uphold the
Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original approval from July 2003.
That concludes the Staff Report. The applicant is here to make a presentation and answer
any questions that you may have.
Chair Griffin: Would Commissioners have any brief questions before we hear the
applicant? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: While Staff is clarifying and correcting the conditions, condition
number ten, the second sentence beginning with Litter, could Staff please clarify that
second sentence?
Mr. Turner: The purpose of that condition is to ensure that litter in the vicinity would not
begin prior to 8:00 AM. This was to reduce the potential noise of litter collection of
bottle collection and dumping into refuse containers outside of the Nut House prior to
8:00 AM and to be completed by 10:00 AM just further ensures that the litter is picked up
in an expeditious manner quickly before the full start of the day.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I actually meant that the language should be clarified.
Maybe the City Attorney would take care of that. It is an incomplete sentence.
Chair Griffin: Well perhaps we can address that in due course. Karen, did you have any
other questions?
Commissioner Hotman: Everyone is looking at me very quizzically. Just for
clarification what I have is, "Litter removal shall commence no earlier than 8:00 AM and
shall be completed by 10:00 AM the morning."
Ms. Grote: We will add the word "in," it should be "in the morning,"
Chair Griffin: Then could we have a presentation by the applicant? You will have 15
minutes. You are Mr. Paul McDonald?
Mr. Paul McDonald, Esquire, 2500 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: Welcome.
Mr. McDonald: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission.
I am an attorney and I represent Antonio’s. Mr. Montooth is here also here is Kelly
Gorman who is the night manager at Antonio’s.
Staff at Antonio’s have been working very hard over the last few months putting together
this application. We have met with neighbors on a number of occasions during that time.
We would ask that the Commission approve the amended application by Antonio’s with
one correction that has to do with condition number ten. As it reads right now litter is
supposed to be removed from 8:00 AM and completed by 10:00 AM in the morning. We
have no problem with taking place with regard to bar litter, bottles, things of that nature
but restaurant litter is an ongoing thing and we would like to change that to read as
follows, "Litter removal shall commence no earlier than 8:00 AM and be completed by
10:00 AM for bar litter and shall be completed by 10:00 PM for restaurant litter." With
that clarification or change we would ask that the Commission approve our amended
conditional use permit. Ms. Gorman is here and Mr. Montooth is you have any
questions.
Chair Griffin: Mr. McDonald do your clients wish to make a presentation or are you
finished?
Mr. McDonald: I am finished.
Chair Griffin: Then if Commissioners have any questions for either Staff or the
applicants now is the time to ask them.
Commissioner Burt: In the Staff proposal I believe there is a reference to the serving of
alcoholic beverages being in conjunction with the serving of food. Could the City
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Attorney comment on the difference in that language versus language that talks about it
being accessory, which I think, is in the mandates? If you need to respond later I am fine
with that.
Mr. McDonald: While we are on that subject Mr. Montooth has just informed me that it
may be difficult for him to operate the restaurant on Sundays for the very reason that
there aren’t a lot of people in the bar during that time and therefore there is not really a
need for food to be served at that time. I think Mr. Turner referenced that as well in his
comments. So we would ask that the restriction not be imposed with regard to Sundays,
the restaurant being open.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Steve, could you clarify what your comments were on that subject?
Mr. Turner: The comments there were that the serving of alcoholic beverages shall only
be allowed when the restaurant is open. Basically they are allowed to serve alcoholic
beverages in conjunction with the restaurant and that condition is applicable seven days a
week. Staff would recommend that the only way that they can serve alcohol is during the
restaurant hours.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Condition nine also about the serving of food talks about a full
service menu to customers during regular business hours. What is intended by regular
business hours? I would like both the Staff and the applicant to address what their
interpretations are? Maybe the applicant could go first and then Staff second.
Mr. McDonald: Well, as I pointed out our regular business hours are nine to two and we
have no problem with that condition of the restaurant being open during those times
except for Sundays.
Mr. Turner: Staff would see that the regular business hours apply to the restaurant and
once the restaurant is closed after normal operating hours that they provide at least a late
night menu after 11:00 PM for customers of Antonio’s Nut House.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I recollect from the previous Staff Report that the requirement to
serve food along with alcohol, in other words, you can only have alcoholic beverages if
there is food available is a requirement of the California State Code. Is that correct?
Mr. Turner: I believe so and I think the City Attorney is looking up the section in the
Municipal Code that might speak to that.
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Grote: Our Zoning Ordinance in Title 18 does not require the sale of food with an
alcoholic license however it is an ongoing longstanding policy of the City to have a
restaurant associated with any sale of alcoholic beverages. The onlj establishment in
town that is strictly the sale of alcoholic beverages is one bar on E1 Camino Real. It has a
different kind of state license. It has a license for a bar whereas the other licenses that the
state has issued for city facilities are less than a full bar license.
Commissioner Packer: If sandwiches for example where available as opposed to a
restaurant with a menu and waiters and that kind of thing would that meet the City’s
policies?
Ms. Grote: We have required full restaurant service except for some provision for late
hour reduced menu, which would then include sandwiches or prepared salads and things
like that. So there are several establishments in town that have reduced menus after
10:00 PM or 11:00 PM but they have full menus prior to that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to return to the point that Commissioner Packer
was raising. My memory is that this condition that the sale of alcoholic beverages be
accessory to the restaurant was based upon a state law requirement and that we had
discussed it at previous Commission hearings. So I think it is real important that we get
this clarification as soon as possible.
Chair Griffin: I have a question relating to, and this a question of Staff as well as the
applicant, having to do with the stationing of a doorman at the California Avenue
entrance. The way the documents are written at the moment it makes it appear that at two
o’clock in the morning the doorman would be relieved of his duties and he would go off-
shift. Reading the Staff Report I am seeing that in fact there could still be patrons and
probably are still patrons in the bar at two o’clock in the morning and they really don’t
have to actually leave until three o’clock in the morning. If there is some clarification on
that I would be interested in hearing it.
Mr. McDonald: I will let Ms. Gorman speak to that because she is the night manager.
Ms. Kelly Gorman, Night Manager, Antonio’s Nut House: The doorperson goes home
when we go home which is anywhere between 2:30 and three o’clock in the morning.
They are not allowed to leave until we leave. We all leave together.
Chair Griffin: That makes sense.
Ms. Gorman: It is not at two when we close, we actually close at 1:45. No one is
allowed in our building after two. We give ourselves 15 minutes to definitely not sell
alcohol but to get people out our door.
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Yet it seems that there shall be no operations of any kind between the
hours of 3:00 AM and 9:00 AM but you are not saying that you are actually in there at
3:00 AM.
Ms. Gorman: No and ifI am in there at 3:00 AM it is just to finish up cleaning or doing
my bank and there are maybe three of us that leave, me, another bartender and the
doorperson.
Chair Griffin: So under normal circumstances you and the rest of your inside crew as
well as the doorman and the last of the patrons would be out of the establishment by what
time again?
Ms. Gorman: Two o’clock.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for that clarification. If we have no further questions I will
open our discussion to the public.
Mr. McDonald: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Paul. I will give members of the public an opportunity to
speak. I have about ten cards and we may have some more or is that all? Each of you
may speak for three minutes. Our first speaker will be Midori Kato-Maeda followed by
Larry Haussler followed by Lisa Habbeshaw. Midori could we hear from you now,
please?
Ms. Midori Kato-Maeda, 2512 Birch Court. Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening to all
of you. It was very interesting to receive the second Staff Report which basically the
recommendations that they present I think are called F. All these exhibits are kind of
confusing. Basically F is the one that they are presenting in the Staff Report on March
10. The first two aspects that I think are very critical are time of operation and also the
requirement of a guard for all the time that they are in operation, that the establishment is
open. They added some interesting issues like a door person, which I guess, will be the
person that can do the duties of the security guard. However, as you may notice in the
plan that they present for security and parking issues the doorman will be just present on
Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. According to the description of the duties of the
doorman, which includes recommend patrons not to make so much noise when they go
out also to handout educational flyers, etc. seems to me important that this person should
be the rest of the days because the nuisance has been reported not just Thursday, Friday
and Saturday. It has been reported also the rest of the week. So it will be interesting to
know or at least it is not stated in the document who will be doing those duties. Also the
fact that it will be on California Avenue I wonder how this person can be verifying what
is happening in the parking lot that belongs to Tony Montooth not to say what will
happen in the rest of parking lot number 7.
The other interesting issue is the measurement that they added. They say that the
definition of measurement should be officially documented infraction should be the
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
measurement basically that the Police Department conducted noise readings and found
the establishment to be in violation of Palo Alto. If you read our pervious hearings we
were commenting that that’s a very difficult measurement. Basically that is a
measurement that does not reflect our problem. These nuisances are produced basically
by people that come out of the bar, not all of them but a few of them are shouting and
then when the police come, which sometimes happens very late the problem is not
happening any more. So I think these two new things are interesting but I have these
issues that I think are not very well solved and that may not be the solution for which we
have been having these hearings since almost a year ago. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Now Lawrence Haussler followed by Lisa Habbeshaw.
Mr. Lawrence Haussler, 3357 South Court, Palo Alto: I would like to pass out a few
brochures for each member to have. Hi. I hope you don’t mind I will read a prepared
statement right now.
I would like to thank the Planning Commission very much for sending me a courtesy
copy of the Staff Report. That is why I love the United States of America. Recently I
bought a delicious chicken burrito at Antonio’s Nut House and found out that Mr.
Montooth has created a brochure to educate his customers about the California Avenue
neighborhood. You get a handbill with your order that says and I quote if you don’t mind
me reading it, "This is an education program for our customers of Antonio’s Nut House.
The purpose of this handbill is asking you all to help us reduce noise, litter and vandalism
in the California Avenue district. Please remember that this is a business and residential
neighborhood. We would like to ask you to please be respectful of the property and
people and residents in the California Avenue district. Part of our problem with noise
and neighbors is the public parking lot C-7." I say public with a capital P. "That is the
tot directly behind the bar. We would like to suggest alternative parking along California
Avenue on the street, our parking lot or the various parking lots throughout the California
Avenue district. Thank you for helping us to be good neighbors and for your
cooperation. Sincerely, Tony Montooth, Owner."
Now obviously it looks like Mr. Montooth is doing everything in his personal power to
address the so-called complaints of the few who complain. I think he deserves a lot of
credit for trying to be a good neighbor. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Larry. Lisa followed by Peter Holland and John Abraham.
Ms. Lisa Habbeshaw, Birch Court Condos, Palo Alto: I will be referring to the handouts.
Thank you. Before I get into my comments I would like to echo what Midori said and
endorse her position as well. I would also like to clarify a comment that Mr. McDonald
made in that he has met with the neighbors on several occasions. I believe there were
two meetings not all of the neighbors were at each meeting. I was only able to attend
one. At those meetings we expressed grave concern about the conditions that you find
before you tonight. When we echoed why we thought they would not solve the problem
both Ms. Gorman and Mr. McDonald have reminded us that they simply cannot despite
Page 8
1 extraordinary efforts certainly ever be able to control people who have been drinking and
2 want to go out and have fun. At which point I commented that is why the hours of
3 operation are critical. If we cannot effectively manage this through whatever means we
4 can all agree or embrace at a minimum we can certainly manage the problem by
5 managing the hours.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
You will notice that in what is before you tonight there is no concession on the hours,
none, not even 60 minutes. Thank you.
Let’s review how we got here tonight. Julie Caporgno made an excellent report to you. I
endorse it. Steven Turner’s October 8th report, excellent, I endorse it. I do not endorse
tonight’s report.
Tony’s establishment came up in 1973 with no use permit review in 30 years. Some time
around 1976 he became a nonconforming use morphed from a restaurant into a bar.
Since there has been no review in 30 years I presume it was an illegal nonconforming
use. He has objected to every step of the process. Along the way he has made modest
attempts for which I will commend him. They have not solved the problems you have
before you, problems that have occurred since the plan that is before you was
implemented. At the Wednesday meeting one week ago we asked, are these just items
you have conceptualized or have they been implemented? The answer was implemented.
These problems have continued since the plan that is before you tonight has
implemented. They don’t solve the problems.
We have raised on a number of occasions the issue of noise equals sleep deprivation
equals public health, safety and welfare concerns. Please read this very brief handout.
Please resist the temptation to trivialize the health consequences that are associated with
this. And ask yourself if you get a phone call in the middle of the night between
midnight or two, three or four and it is a wrong number or a car alarm goes off, your
adrenaline races, you are awakened you can’t fall back to sleep and that happens one
evening how do you feel? How do feel that evening? How do you feel the next
morning? How would you feel if it was persistent and it was being trivialized? We are
not only here to enforce the Muni Code and use conditions we are here to enforce
California law. The other hand out is the California Noise Control Act. All other statutes
that I have cited here as well as the constitution protect our rights that cannot be ignored.
Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Lisa, for the record would you state your name please.
Ms. Habbeshaw: Lisa Habbeshaw living at Birch Court. I have been there a year and a
half now. The problems have persisted from the day I moved in through the current time.
Chair Griffin: We may have a question for you.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Butt: Lisa, this list of six disturbances in the last two months that
occurred after midnight can you tell us whether these are from six different residents or a
couple? How many different residents do these complaints reflect?
Ms. Habbeshaw: Certainly I would be happy to. First of all those are from me
exclusively and they are not the only occurrences. Those are simply occurrences which I
have real time emails to support. You will notice that on two of those occasions the
emails go to Mr. Holland at 1:46 AM yet I am still awake at 4:42 AM because I have not
been able to return to sleep. Also I wear earplugs, I try to use ambient noise. My
windows have been closed because it is wintertime there is a natural lessening of the
temptation of patrons to loiter during the winter. We are coming into the summer months
now and we open our windows. There is nothing more I can do but I know that some of
my neighbors have put in double-pane windows on top of their single pane windows so
they have three panes worth of windows in conjunction with their earplugs in conjunction
with their ambient noise and we still hear this problem. I understand it is a challenge for
all of us to figure out how to manage this issue but I stand by my comment. At a
minimum we can manage this problem by sending them home at a proper time, certainly
at least some of the days of the week. It must be reasonable from somebody’s
perspective to send them home Sunday through Thursday at a reasonable hour.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.
Ms. Habbeshaw: Any other questions.
Chair Griffin: Thank you that is all for the moment.
Ms. Habbeshaw: Thank you very much for your time. And I wish you a good night’s
sleep tonight.
Chair Griffin: Peter Holland followed John Abraham followed by Gregg Kerber.
Welcome Peter.
Mr. Peter Holland, 342 Grant Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. I am the
President of the Birch Court Association. You are heating tonight from some of my
residents and I would like to make four brief points tonight for this hearing.
Number one, I am sad to report that we do continue to have some late night nuisances.
Ms. Habbeshaw has just referred to a few of them. They happened as recently as last
Thursday night after the Stanford game and the police were called on that occasion.
Number two, we live in a fully residential zone. We are not in a commercial zone. Our
zoning is residential. We happen to neighbor a partly commercial business zone but if it
is truly that the nuisance is leaking out of the commercial zone that certainly is not our
responsibility. We are residential.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
A brief point about the nuisance measurement by the police the requirement that is in
section five of the Staff Report. That is going to be difficult to do and I think you will
probably hear more about that tonight. Again, it is a transient noise and it is just
impractical and I think the police would not volunteer to come out and wait for the noise
and that is what it would require.
Finally, with the six-month review that is in this report I fear that we are going to be back
here in six months and we have been in front of you and the Staff for the previous nine
months. It looks to me like we are going to drag this out for another six months. Thank
you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Peter. Our next speaker is John Abraham. Welcome John.
Mr. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. The
current use permit has been in effect for 30 years is 73-UP-13 it is not quite fight in the
report but that is a minor problem. It has not been amended, it has not been reviewed in
30 years, zero. I would like to remind you that those light bulbs overlooking looking Lot
7 are symptomatic of the entire stance of the City towards this problem. They are 75-
watt light bulbs according to Mr. Montooth. It is ridiculous. It is a neglected area. Your
job tonight is to make recommendations to update us. By the way, I have use permit 73-
UP-13 and the very first sentence says the serving of alcohol beverages shall be accessory
to the operation of a bona fide eating-place. If anybody is interested in this I would be
very happy to give this to Staff.
Another point I would like to make is that we have had five hearings and six sets of
recommendations. I don’t feel that plan A is at all appropriate. It does nothing. We have
a handout. Nobody is going to read that and act on it. I have been counting people at Lot
7 and there is no change in the count of the people that go into Lot 7. It is a separate
population from The Edge. There is no reason for somebody to go to The Edge and park
at Antonio’s. The numbers go down dramatically at the time Antonio’s closes. There
may be a few residual people but basically almost everyone there is from Antonio’s. Lot
7 is Antonio’s responsibility. At the very first hearing Staff said substantial evidence
indicates that this is detrimental to the public health and safety and welfare. I am asking
you to please deal with this problem. Plan A says there is zero change in hours. This
place is going to be allowed to go on just exactly the way it has before. There is no way
this is going to impact any of the problems we have been talking about. The serving of
alcohol has been discussed and the noise problems. The way both plans A and B are
basically gifts to Mr. Montooth. It is impossible for the police to enforce those
meaningfully. It is a gift. There is no way you are going to have violations. You can cut
and paste as far as I have been able to understand I would ask that you tighten up these
restrictions. No yearly review is ridiculous. Unacceptable. This is no review at all. We
are likely to get a Mickey-mouse hearing. I don’t feel it is a fair statement for the
neighbors. There is no monitoring anywhere not even in the private parking lots.
Monitoring is key. No monitoring in plan A. Plan B at least says a little bit. Favor plan
B, please. Thank you.
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Thank you, John. Gregg Kerber followed by Mary Wolf followed by
Andie DePass.
Mr. Gregg Kerber, Birch Court, Palo Alto: Before I make any comments in substance
about this I want to indicate that I have seen no improvement in the problems that have
been occurring for years in the parking lot and the areas adjacent o 321 California
Avenue. Mr. Montooth and I were in mediation nearly two years ago at which time I
brought this to his attention. It is only recently that any effort has been made to try and
deal with the nuisances that have been occurring. I reaffirm my support for the Planning
Director’s decision in 2003 after two public hearings. I also want to support the Staff
Recommendation of January 14 affirming Ms. Caporgno’s decision of July 2003. I
believe it is improper to interject or substitute a new revised use permit after nine months
and two public hearings. There have been no public hearings conducted by the Planning
Department on the current proposal. I believe it is improper to consider a new revised
use permit, which is essentially an adoption of Mr. Montooth’s own proposals. The
proprietor has given to the City his own conditions for his use permit. I do not believe
that this is the way the process is supposed to work. If he wants to submit a use permit he
should go though the proper procedure which is go to the Planning Department, submit
your application and then let it be vetted through the entire process. I also think it is
improper for a use permit to be considered at the Commission level without having gone
through that proper Planning Department procedure.
Now if the Commission rej ects the Planning Director’s decision of July 2003 and the
previous Staff recommendation, January 14, and accepts this new revised use permit then
the process has failed to adequately address the multiple nuisances occurring at 321
California Avenue. Particularly the late night drunk and disorderly conduct outside the
bar especially in parking lot 7. That will not be addressed by this new proposal and that
is probably the major problem that we have in our neighborhood. The City has a
responsibility to abate nuisances occurring at 321 California Avenue. The only proposal,
which has any possibility of success, is the Planning Director’s recommendation of July
2003. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Gregg. Mary Wolf.
Ms. Mary Wolf. 320 California Avenue. Palo Alto: I am the proprietor of Printer’s Ink
Caf~ across the street from Antonio’s Nut House. I am here to support Antonio. I think
that he is being unjustly charged with the behavior of dnmken people where as you
cannot definitely define if they are coming specifically out of Antonio’s or The Edge. I
think that The Edge is just as guilty of bringing drunken people out on the street and
because the parking lot behind my business is cornered off from The Edge their patrons
are not allowed to park in the parking lot behind me so they go onto the other street. I
think that if people live in an area that is half zoned commercial and half zoned
residential they live there for a specific reason. They live there because the want the
vibrancy and being able to shop and enjoy restaurants and grocery stores and dry cleaners
and such and that is why they live in such close proximity. If they cannot handle living
in such close proximity maybe they should move. Thank you.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: We have a question for you Mary.
Commissioner Holman: Could you tell me again where your restaurant is please?
Ms. Wolf: Directly across the street. Printer’s Ink Caf~, 320 California Avenue.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speaker is Andie DePass.
Ms. Andie DePass, 321 California Avenue, Palo Alto: Hello Commissioners. I am here
to talk about Antonio’s as an employee of Antonio’s for many, many years. I have
witnessed such improvement as far as our clientele. I do understand that it is a very busy
place but as far as being disorderly at night I personally walk that parking lot at many
different occasions during the night where I have no witness of any such noise as is being
mentioned. Many times Ms. Habbeshaw’s light is on 24/7 so we really don’t know when
she is asleep to tell you the truth. Another thing is our patrons are definitely aware of the
problems with our neighbor. We repeatedly during the night mention that the neighbors
need some sleep, that they need the quiet and we have push upon our clientele that they
should keep the noise level down like a library when they go outside in the parking lot.
Use library voices. I remind them many times to do so. As far as other disturbances as
far as being un-neighborly and everything I have never witnessed it myself. There have
been a few disturbances that came from the street from other places that would walk into
Antonio’s where we would call the police department for them to leave the premises. We
use the police department at all times and they never, never told us about any big
complaints about Antonio’s. Palo Alto PD I am sure can prove that to the Commission.
As far as the service that Antonio’s provides to the neighborhood on California Avenue
the majority of our clientele walks to Antonio’s they don’t necessarily park inparking C-
7. Because of the neighborhood they actually have the enjoyment of being able to walk
to a place where they can eat and have a drink, socialize and enjoy conversations with
others or play games, whatever. So personally as an employee that has been there for
many years I think that everyone should take into consideration the service that Antonio’s
has provided as far as the social life for the neighborhood. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jose Ibanez followed by James Mason
and I think that will be our last speaker. If any of the rest of you would like to speak now
is the time to fill out a speaker card.
Mr. Jose Ibanez, 320 California Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. I used to have a restaurant and
nightclub in Palo Alto many years ago. When I had that they were going to take the
license away, I believe that we live in a place where we have a neighborhood bar. We
have many different businesses. This business has been there for 30 years and people
move in and then they try to take away the business. That don’t make no sense to me
when we have a street that has become California Avenue becomes the second
downtown. So we have it in a neighborhood where people go to the bar, you can go to
San Antonio when they used to go to my place and the people go around and this makes
the neighborhood. Now because a few can’t sleep or because they don’t like it.
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Sometimes it is like take the fun from the mouth of the few that they don’t like to have
fun. I believe that the business has been there for so many years and now they try to
close it up. The business that has been there for 30 years is a neighborhood bar. They
have people that come here a few times a week. They have people that has family day
and people to go to the funeral. The bar has been there for so many years that this is not a
bar where people go and fight. These people that go there and associate with other
people and have a little fun. So that is what I have to say, thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Jose. Our last speaker is James Mason. If you would state
your name please.
Mr. James Mason, 1111 College Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. I bought that house with my
wife about two and a half years ago. One of the reasons we chose to move into the
neighborhood was Antonio’s Nut House. As a matter of fact we made an offer on a
house two blocks down the road on Birch which I was very sad that we didn’t get so now
we are a little further away but we still frequent the establishment two to three times a
week. They have great Mexican food the bartenders are fantastic. We hear all of the
time about the problem of the noise. They are talking consistently to the patrons there
about we have to keep it quiet, we have to keep it down. No one is in there saying let’s
make more noise, let’s exacerbate the situation. Rather, they are doing everything in
their power to fix the problem. No one wants to be a bad neighbor. Honestly, I don’t
know how you can separate out the patrons of The Edge and the patrons of Antonio’s.
They park all over the place. So really I think it is important to maintain the quality of a
neighborhood with businesses and establishments where people can go. It is one of the
reasons that College Terrace and that neighborhood is one of the best neighborhoods in
Palo Alto I believe. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: We have a question for you.
Commissioner Burt: You are there several nights a week so both weeknights and
weekends?
Mr. Mason: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: How crowded is the bar during a weeknight after one o’clock and
on the weekend after one o’clock would you say?
Mr. Mason: I am not usually there quite that late. But usually it is quite busy the times
when I have been there just about every night especially after midnight I think is when
most of their business occurs.
Commissioner Burr: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: I have no more speaker cards so I will close the public hearing and bring
the discussion back up here to my colleagues. If you have any questions of Staff.you
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
may ask them otherwise we will have some discussion here on this issue. We have an
answer from the City Attorney?
Mr. Dan Soder~en, Special Counsel to the City Attorney: I am not aware of any
requirements under state law to serve food along with the on sale license. I don’t know if
Mr. McDonald is aware of any requirements but I do believe that the Commission does
have the power to impose such a requirement as contained in condition eight under the
conditional use permit provisions of the ordinance. I think you can establish that type of
condition.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I see that the President of the homeowners association may have
information. With the permission of the Chair can we get that information supplied to
us?
Chair Griffin: Would you have some clarification on that point?
Mr. Haussler: Yes. The rules and regulations of the Alcohol Beverage Control Board
rega~late the service of alcohol and the restaurant operation together. Antonio’s has a
Type 47 license that requires alcohol only to be served only in connection with a bona
fide restaurant.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Mr. McDonald?
Mr. McDonald: Yes, hopefully I can add some clarification to that. I have the
description of the license type before me and I will read it to you and I will get a copy to
the City Attorney and to you as well. A License 47 authorizes the sale of beer, wine and
distilled spirits for consumption on the licensed premises, authorize the sale of beer and
wine off the licensed premises, must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a
bone fide eating place, must make actual and substantial sales of meals during the normal
meal hours that are open at least five days a week. Normal meal hours are defined as
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM. Premises that are
not open five days a week must serve meals on the days that they are open and minor are
allowed on the premises. I will give the City Attorney a copy of that right now.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Dan, I am going to ask you if you would reiterate the point
that regardless, if I understand what you just told us, that regardless of the material that
we have just been provided here by Mr. McDonald it is within the purview of the City to
require extended meal service?
Mr. Sodergen: As long as our conditional use permit requirements aren’t in conflict
with what is provided by state law they are fine. You can also supplement those
requirements as well just as long as they are not in conflict with them.
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Would you hazard a guess that what we are talking about here in
Attachment A, Conditions of Approval, would be supplemental to state law?
Mr. Sodergren: Right, from what Mr. McDonald has given me it appears as if it is open
at least five days a week. What we are recommending as a condition is imposing that for
a longer period of time, seven days a week. So that would to the extent that those two
additional days that would be supplemental to the state law provisions.
Chair Griffin: And the late night menu, the reduced menu, served until two o’clock in the
morning?
Mr. Sodergren: Again these are going to be enforced separately and of course the state
would be enforcing the ABC license but what Mr. McDonald has given me, it says here,
must make actual and substantial sales of meals during the normal meal hours they are
open. I am not sure what the ABC considers actual and substantial sales of meals. So
again those provisions would be enforced by the ABC.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I am going to ask Staffto give us a little more detailed explanation
on the issue of whether Staff could walk us through the differences between what was the
Staff recommendation on October 8 and the other one earlier this year versus the two
options we have now. I just have to say I am not clear on having a side-by-side
comparison of what the differences are and what the reasons are for why Staff is now
recommending what they are recommending versus what they recommended before. Is
that helpful also to the rest of the Commission or am I the only one who is not crystal
clear on this?
Chair Griffin: Please, you are speaking for us here.
Mr. Turner: Essentially, if you look at the two recommendations A and B you will find
that the biggest difference is the hours of operation. The first Staff recommendation had
more restrictive hours the newest recommendation has hours that essentially mimic the
existing hours on the site. A lot of the changes that were made and what the Staff is
recommending would be reviewed after a six month review after the permit has been
approved, allow the business owner to operate under these conditions and to come back
to see how things have improved with the possibility of a revocation hearing being
scheduled. Mr. Montooth should be aware of that. That within the six months after this
permit is approved that we would have the opportunity if conditions were not being met
to revoke his use permit. That is a pretty serious action to take that could effectively
mean that he could go out of business or would have to stop his business if alcohol sales
are a si~maificant portion of his revenue. So condition number one is a significant
condition that would provide the checks and balances that would bring the business
owner in to review the conditions with the full knowledge that his use permit to serve
alcoholic beverages could be revoked through whatever process is in place at the time.
So that is essentially one of the biggest changes between the two.
Page 16
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2 A lot of the other changes are more accommodations for the operations of his business
3 that perhaps are not as strict or stringent but Staff feels would still have an important
4 effect on the environment. The difference between a licensed uniformed security guard
5 and a doorperson I think reflects that. A doorperson could still be identified as an
Antonio’s employee and can conduct many of the same operations as a security guard but
is perhaps not as visible as a traditional security guard would be but I think would still be
able to perform the duties of a security guard.
Many of Staff’s original conditions that would require an education plan, a security plan,
a parking plan are part of Staff,s current recommendation. Mr. Montooth has submitted
proposals for those three plans. Staff has reviewed those plans and feel that they have put
forth a good faith effort to address the problems in the neighborhood. It doesn’t
necessarily stop right there. The conditions of approval talk about the ability of Planning
Staff to review these plans and work with Tony to fine tune them so they are more
workable. An example here would be in the handbills that are part of your Staff Report
as well as the sign that is out there. One could say that this is a very friendly reminder
coming straight from Tony about the impacts patrons can have in the neighborhood but
perhaps it reads more conversational rather than a sign that say, "warning, you have to
keep noise down." This would be something that perhaps Staff would work with Tony to
make sure that it would be a readable sign that they would be placed in areas that are
clear and visible that the rest of his materials are being distributed in a reasonable
manner. Those are the things that we would work with Tony as we move to forward and
those are things that we would have done at any point versus the Director’s original
decision back in 2003 versus now. Those are the same types of things. So the hours of
operation, the requirement for a security guard those are the big changes that Staffs we
can review after six months. If it is not working, if that is clear then we can bring a
recommendation for a revocation of that use permit but I don’t think that is something
that Tony or his successors want. So I would expect that Tony takes this seriously and
puts forth an extreme effort in these next six months and ongoing be a better business
operator and a better member of the community. I think what Staff is looking for is a
solving of short term issues that lead to a longer term solutions and better behavior in that
longer term. Staff feels that this latest recommendation will do that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: It is mentioned that the Birch side door would be used as only
emergency egress after the hours often o’clock. I don’t think there is any legal reason as
far as safety is concerned why the rear door could not also be used as only emergency
egress. Could Staff respond to that?
Mr. Turner: Both doors could be used as emergency egress only after ten o’clock. That
is correct.
Commissioner Holman: Another question is that I know that Staff said that this drawing
that included a patio on the side was not a part of this but to have some kind of idea of
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
what could happen because that could be an outside noise problem too. Would that even
be possible? That would be in their parking lot. There is a parking requirement. Would
that even be anything that they could even apply for?
Mr. Turner: That is something that they could apply for and in fact have applied for.
Tony has an application in for Architectural Review for the addition of a patio near the
comer of Birch and California Avenue. This patio would include seating areas,
landscaping and a proposal for a sound wall that would act as a buffer between that patio
area and properties to the rear of the site. If Tony wanted to serve alcohol in that area he
would need to amend his conditional use permit and to request that alcohol service be in
that outdoor patio. He could do that but again he would have to apply for that
amendment. The ABC also has some specific restrictions regarding the service of
alcoholic beverages. In the past Tony has had a patio out there, out in that same location.
He has had tables and chairs for people who wish to smoke to be out in that area. That
patio never received prior Architectural Review. A code enforcement case was opened
and Tony removed the patio. But Tony does want to pursue a patio there in the future but
we would have discretionary review over that patio and part of that review would look at
the impacts of patrons out in that patio during normal business operations. That would be
part of the Architectural Review and the review of the amended use permit.
Chair Griffin: I will get to you in just a second. I am wondering just to pick up on this
issue that Karen mentioned on the emergency doors. It was something that was of
interest to me as well because during my previous visit to the bar at about midnight or so
I barged in the side door and did not realize, did not read the sign that said that I should
be using the front door after ten o’clock. Is it possible that we could require a locking
door device? I have seen them in commercial buildings that would permit the door to be
used as an emergency exit but could be locked so that people could not enter the
establishment from the outside? Do you understand what I am trying to say here?
Mr. Turner: There are mechanisms available that can be installed on the outward
swinging doors that would perhaps allow people to exit via a panic bar that you see that
people could press on and exit in case of an emergency. Perhaps that would have a
locking mechanism that would keep folks from coming in that particular door. So it
would be unlocked from the inside but essentially locked from the outside.
Chair Griffin: Unless some device like that was established then we would be solely
reliant on the signage on the outside of the door to notify people not to enter then. Is that
your understanding?
Mr. Turner: That would be correct.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, did you have a question or a comment?
Commissioner Packer: I don’t really have any questions I would just offer my
comments. IfKaren has some more questions? I am ready to make some comments.
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Griffin: It looks like we have some more questions so let’s try Pat again did you
have one?
Commissioner Burr: Steve, can you go back to reviewing why the original recommended
hours of operation that Staff has backed away from that restriction?
Mr. Turner: I think Staff heard Tony’s concerns regarding the loss of revenue for those
restricted hours. Staff also received testimony that Tony is a fine business owner and a
respected member of the business district. Taking those into consideration Staff in our
recent recommendation is recommending hours that more mimic his current operating
hours with the condition that if the environment does not improve within that six month
period that we would review the reports, from police, from residents, from other sources
and determine if a revocation hearing should be held. At that revocation hearing we may
not even recommend stricter hours we may recommend revocation of the use permit.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Then in the previous Staff Report I think the Director
had made a finding that the operation was substantially detrimental to, I forget the exact
verbiage but, the public welfare and not a nuisance. What has changed? Why is that
finding no longer being made by Staff?.
Mr. Turner: I think without the conditions you could state that the findings may still be
made but with the proposed conditions Staff feels that they can be made. In fact in the
last recommendation it we were asking the Commission to find that the business was
being operated in a harmful or detrimental manner as unconditioned. This is basically
unconditioned from the 1973 use permit that is in effect. Then as conditioned Staff felt
that those conditions would improve the situation and that his business would therefore
not be operating in that harmful or detrimental manner. Staff feels that the conditions
that we are recommending in plan A in a way would kind of take care of those
detrimental activities that we have received testimony on from the neighborhood. We
feel that these conditions will move forward to improving those things. Staff recognizes
that we have received substantial testimony from the community that they feel there are
problems in the neighborhood. I think Staff recognizes that and acknowledges that we
want to try to alleviate those problems with conditions while still allowing Tony to
conduct his business. Staff feels that the conditions in plan A are appropriate in order to
solve all of those issues.
Chair Griffin: We have a follow up question. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Steve, you just said that the Staff believes that are problems in the
neighborhood. However does Staff believe that the problems are solely a result of the
existence of Antonio’s Nut House or are they just there?
Mr. Turner: The problems are just there. Staff has never stated that the problems
specifically are coming from Antonio’s Nut House. There are number of late night
establishments in the neighborhood and it would be difficult to state that all of those
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
nuisances that are happening within that district are coming from Antonio’s Nut House
operation.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Another question maybe the City Attorney can answer. Is there
anything illegal about people being present in a public parking lot?
Chair Griffin: Is that a trick question?
Commissioner Packer: It is a trick question. People are saying well people are in the
parking lot and they are making it sound like that is a horrible thing but it is a public
parking lot and people are allowed to walk and talk and be in public spaces unless they
are doing criminal activities.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I think this is not true questions of Staff and we had a long
discussion at our Retreat about trying to separate these functions. So if Commissioner
Packer wishes to make points once we are done with the questions then they would be
welcome. I would like to ask us to abide by our own guidelines.
Commissioner Packer: I appreciate that. I didn’t intend to go on I just wanted to ask the
simple question.
Commissioner Burt: It sounded like a rhetorical one to me.
Chair Griffin: Karen, did you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: I do. The Staff Report suggests a six-month review. That is a
reasonable amount of time in most cases. Would Staff consider that it might be
reasonable or that a reasonable difference might be documentable if it was a shorter term,
say fourth month? The reason I am asking that is because also if you count out four
months we are in the middle of summer and summer is when there would probably be as
much activity as there would be at any point in time. So would it be feasible that all these
programs could be put in place and a reasonable evaluation be done in four months
should we decide to go that way?
Mr. Turner: That would be reasonable.
Chair Griffin: By the same token if we wanted to extend the number of these Director
Hearings instead of having just one at the four month period or the six month period as
you suggest if we could have a series of them. For example for the first two years for
example we would have one every six months and use that as a way to monitor the
situation as opposed to, ifI understand it correctly, we have just got one shot at this as
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
you have proposed it at the six month period. Then after that we lose our ability to have
an easily accessible appeal process.
Mr. Tumer: Well, the conditions in a way codify a six-month review period however,
that does not limit the City from conducting revocation hearings at any time. The reason
we got here in the first place was that the City had heard from community members that
there were substantial problems and nuisances taking place in the neighborhood. Based
upon that information the Director held a public hearing. Tony did not have to submit an
application or request to do so but the Director simply stated that we would have a
Director’s Heating to review the case and testimony of members of the public and
consider the existing use permit. So even though it is not included specifically in the
conditions we do have that ability but if the Commission wants to make more specific
conditions that would dictate a schedule of review that would be appropriate as well.
Chair Griffin: A CUP as I understand it does not normally have a review process built
into it as a mechanism unless it is specifically required by Planning Commission for
example.
Mr. Tumer: That is correct. There is no specific requirement for a yearly or semi-yearly
review of any use permit unless it is specifically conditioned in the conditions of
approval.
Chair Griffin: If it is not conditioned then members of the public then have to go through
a certain lobbying procedure in order to raise the awareness of the Planning Staff to hold
a Director’s Hearing, is that right?
Mr. Turner: I think that is part of it, yes.
Ms. Grote: It is usually based on complaints and we do monitor the number of
complaints. We work in conjunction with the Police Department on number of calls for
service. Then it is at the Director’s discretion to hold a review hearing.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a question about police monitoring. I understand that the
police do patrol this area especially on weekends. Refresh my memory, what results
from that? It is understood of course that if a complaint is called in by the tirne the police
get there the situation could have gone away. What is the outcome of police patrolling
the area and what are their findings and determinations as far as violations?
Mr. Turner: Well, I think police provide a presence and that presence can deter activity
from taking place in the neighborhood. In terms of they respond to specific complaints,
the Police Department also keeps a log of calls for service and those have been a part of
the review of this particular use permit. I don’t think I have fully answered your
question.
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: I guess I am specifically asking if there have been violations
determined by the regular patrolling of the area by police?
Mr. Turner: We have not received any recent reports from the Police Department
regarding recent specific activity.
Ms. Grote: We can check in the meeting minutes of the original conditional use permit
review hearing. Captain Brad Zook was at that hearing and I think he commented on that
very issue. So let me review these minutes very quickly and I can get back to you. The
police have been out to the site several times and then I think he commented on that so let
me review that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Because this is a conditional use permit and I asked the question
at one of the previous meetings about a code enforcement situation existing as far as the
condition of the building. I understand that that’s not the situation. The reason I am
going here is that I think that condition of something and the appearance of a building
does affect people’s conduct. So as a part of the conditional use permit do we have any
purview over requiring exterior paint or anything of that nature to clean up the
appearance of the building and affect in a positive way people’s behavior?
Ms. Grote: If it were an unsafe building condition then yes we would have the ability to
require them to make the structural improvements and repairs to bring it into compliance
with existing building codes. If it is determined that there is a lot of debris or unkempt
landscaping, things like that, we can also require them to improve that. If it is only
peeling paint that is a more difficult situation and we would need to look at it in
conjunction with any other violations that are occurring. Peeling paint in and of itself
isn’t usually a zoning ordinance or a building code violation. If it is combined with
debris or other types of unkempt situations then sometimes it can be included or is
included.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Can I make some comments now?
Chair Griffin: Please do.
Commissioner Packer: I am inclined to support recommendation A with some of the
restrictions that my fellow Commissioners might want to recommend like a schedule of
review, making sure we have seven days of operation for the restaurant and other things
that as we continue our discussion together we might come up with. The main thing I am
concerned about is that provided things do improve as a result of all the other conditions
that are in the recommended Conditions of Approval that the hours of operation remain
essentially as they were for reasons that the public has spoken to. Antonio’s Nut House
has been here longer than I have lived in Palo Alto and I have lived here for 30 years. I
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
just remember, I have watched California Avenue change over the years and Antonio’s
has just sort of always been there. It is has been one of those places that has sort of been
a constant. I want us to think about when we are thinking about the viability of this
business as a community resource, as a local retail establishment, the kind of place we
always talk about wanting to preserve and a place that encourages community. That we
don’t do anything that unintentionally hampers that community asset. That we have to
balance against some of the other concerns that people who moved to the area relatively
recently and discovered that they were in a more vibrant neighborhood than they had
expected and were presented with the normal noises of an urban vibrant area. Those
concerns we have to balance against what we want to preserve as I mentioned this
community asset.
I feel that the conditions are good. I feel it is a good idea to, as Michael suggested,
perhaps have an annual or six month review. That creates in incentive on the part of
Tony and the employees and the patrons to remember that there are other people in the
world and when they do go out and they are saying goodbye to their friends that they do
so in library voices or whatever. It just sort of creates a sense of well this is really
important because we could be at risk if we don’t behave. So I think an annual or six
month review whatever Commissioners decide would be good. And any other little
additions that we want to make to the conditions but the essence of keeping the hours of
operation plus all the other conditions is something I believe we should do our best to
support. In light of the revenue and the sales tax it affords the City, that is not the only
thing, I am just impressed with the community asset and the kind of place Antonio’s
represents. We don’t have too many of these places in Palo Alto and we need to be able
to preserve them.
Chair Griffin: I am going to go next ifI can interrupt here. I have lived in town for 20
years and I have always been aware that Antonio’s was open for business and I am
somewhat familiar with the bar and it has a reputation, I think I am safe in saying, it is a
bar with some attitude. I am not saying good attitude or bad attitude but it is part of the
persona of the establishment. I think people are either attracted or not attracted to the bar
because of that attitude. It really wouldn’t disturb me one way or the other I guess except
for the fact that we are now as a community getting to the point where we are denser and
we are faced with a commercial district with an inadequate interface between the
commercial district and the residential neighborhood. That is something that distresses
me because I think that as the years go by we are going to potentially see. more of these
types of conflicts. I think that it behooves business owners, particularly those business
owners that rely on a conditional use permit for their livelihood, to be cognizant of the
fact that it is not like it was 30 years ago. I am not going to give you a lecture on how to
get along with the neighbors I think you have heard enough of our discussion here tonight
as well as previous hearings and meetings with the Director of Planning to know that
that’s the way most of us are looking at businesses. To be able to get along with people
that are increasingly going to be looking over their shoulder. Unfortunately you have a
parking lot, a barren parking lot, between your establishment and that neighborhood
which makes it even tougher on you than perhaps it would be on other establishments. In
my opinion that doesn’t let you off the hook. I will stop at this point and keep going here
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
with some of my other Commissioners. Eventually I have some items here that I would
like to see added to the Attachment A.
Commissioner Holman: I am of the same mind except I have quite a number of things
that I want to add to the conditions. One comment that isn’t exactly our purview but is
just a comment that I will make in general I think it would be looking for continued
conflict for this applicant to ask for an outdoor seating area until the situation is resolved.
I think it would be absolutely confusing the matter to see whether resolution has been
achieved or not and would be exacerbating the situation. That is just kind of a side
comment.
I would suggest that it seems like at least three of us are looking Attachment A, I would
suggest that maybe we have a motion after Pat makes his comments to go through that
point by point and make any changes that we want to each of these sections. Then I do
have some other conditions that I want to add. If that would be a reasonable approach for
the other Commissioners?
Chair Griffin: We will hear them when we get there. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: First I will make a couple of general comments. I am very
comfortable with the concept of neighborhood bars in the community and we don’t have
many of them this is one of the few. With that sort of use there are certain aspects that
are going to go with it but that doesn’t mean that gives them carte blanch. I have been
here long enough to patronize Antonio’s when it was a restaurant under its use permit and
the present use is fundamentally different from the use permit. It is not a subtle
difference it is a drastic one. Now it has been in that drastic difference for 27 years or so.
So that is a consideration but it is not the same thing as if we just had small change in the
use. So then one of the thing I think we have to ask ourselves is if this were sited here 31
years ago because under the basis of the use permit that it was given at that time if we
had a new applicant today how would we feel about this sort of use at this location and
what conditions would go on that use at that location? I don’t think that they have an
inherent right to grandfathered conditions that were nonconforming and clearly
nonconforming. On the other hand I don’t want to be overly onerous toward them either.
I want to allow them to continue in their use and it is going to I think have to be a
reasonable compromise between the different interests. I don’t think they have an
inherent right to continue a use that is illegal and make it become legal because they have
been illegal for 27 years under their own volition.
So let’s take a step back and say what conditions would be appropriate if we are going to
have a new occupant coming and looking for this use. Then we maybe have to balance
that against the fact that they are not entirely a new occupant. They have been in this
nonconforming condition for a long while. So we are trying to figure out what is a
reasonable balance.
One of the big discussions has been the hours that it is a restaurant. On the one hand we
do have a clear condition that the alcoholic serving was supposed to have been accessory
Page 24
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 to the restaurant. It originally was. It is far from that now. Even if we impose greater
2 demands that they serve food this isn’t fundamentally an eating establishment the eating
3 is accessory to the neighborhood bar and that is not necessarily an evil thing. I think it is
4 good that they be required to have eating during normal eating hours and a late night
5 menu but frankly I don’t think imposing a full menu on them until whatever is their
closing time is going to fundamentally change the issues that we have before us. It may
impose a hardship on them and maybe we would rather have the expense of that go into
shorter hours of operation rather than just making them have an unprofitable eating
establishment until two in the morning. I am not sure it serves a real purpose.
The final point in summary is that I do believe that this does represent a business that is
included in the desirable diversity of our community and it serves the differences in
interests and values of different members of our community. So I want to see Antonio’s
be able to continue to be viable but I don’t think that the Staff proposals are adequate to
balance the interests of the neighbors against Antonio’s. Frankly, I go back to the
original Director’s recommendations on hours. I think that when we are abutting an R-1
neighborhood, not a mixed use neighborhood but an R-1 neighborhood, with a use that is
clearly non-conformant that having a bar open past midnight on weeknights is probably
going a bit far and other than The Edge it is kind of the less active end of California
Avenue but we do have to consider that The Edge is a big part of the problem there.
When Commissioner Packer earlier had raised the question of can we differentiate
whether all the problems are Antonio’s of course we can’t and neither can we eliminate
them from the problems either. So I think we by the examples that we have here and we
have heard for months I think we recognize that they are part of the problem. They are
not the whole problem. I would be open to reconsidering several conditions including
some restriction on the hours beyond what recommendation A includes.
Chair Griffin: We have a suggestion on the part of my colleague, Karen Holman, to go
through this list of conditions of approval. There are 13 of them all together. If we could
start with number one and if anybody has a suggestion they would like to put forth let’s
hear from you. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I would like to see the first review be at four months since that
will be in the middle of summer. Somebody else might like to add another one pursuant
to your comments earlier, Michael, but I would like the first review to be at four months.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Comment, Karen. I don’t know when this is going to go to City
Council so I don’t know that your calculation of into the summer is going to happen. So
will that affect your recommendation?
Commissioner Holman: Not really because I would anticipate that this would go
probably at least within the month. So if you just start with April we are in July. So if it
goes later it would be August so we are still going to be in summer months. So I think it
would be prudent.
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Chair Griffin: Then I would suggest adding to that that we go six months beyond your
four for the second review and then a second six-month and third six-month review. So I
am writing it down here I am looking at the first review at four, the second then after six
more months and the third would be yet six months more and the fourth six months after
that. Yes, Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Out of our sensitivity toward incurring cost for the Staff that maybe
significant can Staff comment how much Staff work would go into each of these reviews
and your thoughts of this level of frequency of review?
Ms. Am7 French, Current Planning Manager: First looking at the condition number one
on Attachment A it is stating it is this one-on-one meeting with the Director. When you
are talking about reviews I think we need to be clear we are talking about a review with
the Director and as stated in condition one there is some Staff beyond Planning Staff such
as police, I am not sure if it is mentioned specifically but other inspections, code
enforcement coming to bear on that information, brinNng information to the Director for
his consideration of the effectiveness of these conditions. So I can’t really speak to how
many hours would be involved with other divisions or other depam~ent’s work but if it is
sticking with condition number one about meeting with the Director, not a Director’s
Hearing but meeting with the Director, then I don’t think that is too great an amount of
Staff time.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am amenable to a second review. It seems like you added
three I think at six-month intervals.
Chair Griffin: I did.
Commissioner Holman: I am amenable to one at maybe a year time frame or maybe six
months after the first review or something like that. Then it should be complaint basis I
think would be reasonable.
Chair Griffin: I am just trying to elicit more than just this first review. So if other
Commissioners are more comfortable with one after a year for example that would be
fine. Would we then start the year at the time the CUP is granted or would it be 12
months after the four months hearing?
Commissioner Holman: I think the starting point would be as it is stated here the
approval date of the conditions here. So we have four months after that.
Commissioner Burt: By Council.
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: Yes, because that is who approves them. So it would be four
months after approval for the first one and then another eight months out then would be
the second one.
Chair Griffin: All right.
Commissioner Packer: That is okay with me.
Chair Griffin: Any comments? Pat? You are all right with those? Staffyou are taking
these down aren’t you? Thank you. If there are no other comments on condition number
one we will go to condition number two dealing with hours of operation, seven days a
week, nine to two. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Like I said earlier I think we should keep these hours of operation
subject to the results of these reviews. I want to point out in the last Staff Report of
January 14 we were given operating hours of similar establishments and almost all of
them have late night, two or one o’clock, most days of the week. The Edge goes until
three with their nightclub it looks like every day the way I read this. So without really
strong evidentiary facts that the hours of operation - I just would feel really bad about
making Antonio’s Nut House have shorter hours of operations than similar businesses.
Pat, you mentioned earlier that this was near R-1. I don’t think there is any R-1 near
here.
Commissioner Burt: IfI said R-1 I misspoke. I meant that it was near purely residential
zoning and that the neighbors are not in a mixed-use neighborhood.
Commissioner Packer: I understand that there are certain properties that are residential
but the whole area, the whole California Avenue district, is a very mixed district and I
don’t envision this is a bar next to a bunch of homes. It is a mixed district so I think it is
a different kind of picture than has been characterized. So I would hate to create an
exception for Antonio’s Nut House by having shorter hours on certain days of the week.
From what we heard from the patrons and the graduate students that testified, we have
had a number of hearings on this, midnight is the time you stop studying and go and have
a drink. This is life and I don’t see any reason to change the hours of operation especially
considering the other conditions that we will be discussing. So maybe the best thing for
us is to come back to the hours of operation after we talk about the other conditions and
see if the Commissioners feel happy with the other conditions then the hours of operation
will be okay and help address some of the perceived problems.
Chair Griffin: Well I am going to chip in on that and say that this is probably the real
heart of the matter, these hours of operation. That is really hitting the applicant where he
lives because that is where the revenue happens and we even had somebody from the
audience say that it looked as if the midnight hour seemed to be an exceptionally popular
time of the night. I haven’t asked the applicant if that is the case but nevertheless I am
not interested in putting these g~ys out of business. What I am trying to do is come up
with a mechanism that will allow them to be good neighbors and to continue to offer their
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
facilities to the public and do it in such a way that the neighbors can get a night’s sleep. I
originally had thought that perhaps Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday would be
the early close hours for example. Then Thursday, Friday and Saturday would be the late
closings. Now I am a little ambivalent so I would listen to my colleagues thrash that
around a little bit. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: This is a balance between the business and the neighbors. Both
have rights. Both have expressed concerns either about business viability or about being
able to get a good night’s sleep. Indeed after this is approved, provided that it is, the
applicant will have a period of time to prove that they have made improvements or suffer
consequences. So I am okay with leaving the hours as they are however, I would like to
change a couple of things in the paragraph that starts, "Patrons shall." Based also on one
of the employees comments that the employees are out of the building by two o’clock
and sometimes also being there to do some financial matters and such.
Chair Griffin: That is my recollection.
Commissioner Holman: That is what I recall the comments were and she is shaking her
head yes in the public. So what I am going to suggest is that patrons shall not be allowed
to enter the building between 1:30 AM and 9:00 AM and that alcohol sales be ended at
1:30 AM. The reason that I am okay with and think it is reasonable to leave the hours to
2:00 AM and cutting the sales off is a lot of college, Stanford University, people do go
here. They don’t have a normal workweek they utilize the enterprise every day of the
week. If other Commissioners would agree to that I would like there to be no patrons
entering after 1:30 and no alcohol sales after 1:30. I look for your comments.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Karen, first I believe that in the original Staff Report of October 8,
which is Attachment F, it states that. state ordinances limit serving and consumption of
alcohol after 1:30 on any night of the week. Is that correct, Staff?. This is on page four of
the Attachment F, the third full paragraph, last sentence. My understanding is that is
already a condition and maybe we need to clarify that in whatever conditions we place
here but it would be a reiteration of state law as I read the Staff Report.
Chair Griffin: So basically Pat you are agreeing with Karen’s proposal?
Commissioner Burt: I am agreeing but I am also stating that whether we include it in our
conditions as a clarification it appears that it is a mandate.
Ms. Grote: Steven was indicating that he did speak with someone at the ABC and was
informed that it was 1:30 so that is why it was included in the Staff Report the first time.
So 1:30 would seem to be consistent with what you are recommending tonight.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so we may just want to make it clear under our conditional
use permit that that would apply if those were the hours that we agree to.
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: That you for the clarification Pat and how do you feel about
patrons not entering after 1:30?
Commissioner Burt: Yes I think that is appropriate and for those evenings that they are
having their longer hours Commissioner Packer had stated that other similar bars in town
are allowed this 2:00 AM sort of closure. I need to have Staff clarify because in
Attachment D, page three where the other similar businesses are listed there are a variety
of hours and it is a little bit confusing as to what is being stated there. Bonnie, do you
have a comment you were trying to make?
Commissioner Packer: No I am just reading. I am on page three and it varies but most of
them are 2:00 AM. The Edge nightclub is open until 3:00 AM.
Commissioner Burt: Excuse me, Bonnie, I was trying to ask a question of Staff. To me
it is not clear what is being stated there and I just wanted to get a clarification from Staff
as to what these hours are meaning. It is just not crystal clear what they are stating.
Mr. Turner: These are just the operating hours of each business. It is not stating when
they are serving alcohol or not.
Commissioner Burt: So for instance under The Edge we have these different operating
hours and the last one says nightclub 9:00 PM to 3:00 AM. Does that mean how many
nights of the week they are operating as a nightclub and what hours is alcohol allowed to
be served?
Ms. Grote: At The Edge they do stop serving alcohol at 2:00 AM they do remain open
later than that though and that was a specific condition of their use permit to allow music
to go on a little bit longer than the 2:00 AM period and also to allow people to leave the
nightclub over a gadual period so that people wouldn’t be exiting all at once.
Commissioner Burt: Is that seven nights a week? What is this where it says 5:00 PM to
10:00 PM, Tuesday through Thursday? That is referring to what?
Mr. Turner: That is referring to the restaurant.
Commissioner Burt: The restaurant alone?
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. So the nightclub is seven nights a week under those hours?
Mr. Turner: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: Nola and the Blue Chalk what are their hours at which they serve
alcohol and operate?
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Turner: They probably serve until 1:30. The table there is intended to show the
restaurant hours and the times that they are generally open until. I did not query at what
time they specifically stopped serving alcohol.
Commissioner Burt: They say they are open until 1:00 AM but you are saying they are
serving alcohol until 1:30 under Nola? Then under Blue Chalk it says closed at 1:00 AM
as well.
Mr. Turner: So they may be serving alcohol up to 1:00 AM.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t know all we seem to have here is that their hours of
operation are up until 1:00 AM. It is my experience at bars that you don’t have last call
at the moment of closures. Maybe I have a little more experience at that than some of us.
Chair Griffin: On the other hand don’t they say last call for alcohol is about 15 minutes
before they shut off the bar and then you still have another hour or so to drink your
beverage?
Commissioner Burt: That is what I am trying to get clarified here. If the hour of
operation is until 1:00 AM does that mean that the premises closes at 1:00 AM or that is
last call or what? If we are looking at imposing similar hours to Antonio’s or at least
using this as a reference point those establishments are not open until 2:00 as we are
considering allowing Antonio’s be open until two. We are talking about Antonio’s seven
days a week until two and we have other establishment that are properly permitted for
this sort of function that are only open until one on certain nights of the week and shorter
hours on other nights.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering really whether Staff is going to be able to respond to that
level of detail.
Commissioner Burt: If not then I think we need to just use our assumptions.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I was the one who asked for this comparison of other business
hours for similar institutions. I was told at that time, if memory serves correctly, that The
Edge nightclub is seven days a week. Now somebody from the public just said that is six
days a week but nevertheless the reason I am willing to go to 2:00 AM at Antonio’s with
this CUP is again because they have a fairly short period of time to prove improvement.
So if we set this at four months as we have agreed to do they must demonstrate that there
is improvement so I am okay living at 2:00 AM trusting that their information is correct
about that being the high profit that they have is the alcohol sales, based on comment
from people in the public that a lot of their revenue would come from alcohol sales. It is
not just what the applicant has submitted. But again they have a period of time that they
have to perform.
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Packer: I think Karen’s proposal about nobody entering in after 1:30 and
stopping the alcohol sales at 1:30 is a good compromise to allow them to stay open until
two every night.
Chair Griffin: Any further comments on that?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. I would favor that sort of consideration on the weekends,
Friday and Saturday. I don’t a two o’clock closure is appropriate for weeknights. I
would recommend a 12:30 closure as a compromise. I wouldn’t characterize compliance
with state law on suspending alcohol sales at 1:30 AM is a compromise.
Mr. Sodergren: Just a point of clarification. I believe statutorily the state law time is two
not to say that you couldn’t impose more stringent requirements but that is the time under
state law. I think the 1:30 time is probably the last call time and at two everything has to
be cleared.
Commissioner Burt: We were referring to alcohol sale. So that is last call that would be
1:30.
Mr. Soder~en: That is probably what Steven was referring to and then as far as alcohol
service that is at two.
Commissioner Burt: Can you differentiate what you mean between sale and service? If
somebody has been served a drink at 1:30 is it service between 1:30 and 2:00 and they
are sipping it?
Mr. Soder~en: I would have to actually look at the statute but that is part of the state
statute that it has that two o’clock time frame and I just don’t know the term it uses. I
don’t know if Mr. McDonald does.
Chair Griffin: Yes. Mr. McDonald could you clarify this?
Mr. McDonald: I’ll try. For instance I could go into the bar at one o’clock and order five
drinks and only drink three by the time 1:30 rolls around and I couldn’t drink the others.
At two o’clock I am out of there I have to stop they can’t serve me any more. They can’t
sell me any more. Now it’s their policy to stop sales earlier, 15 minutes before two
o’clock, last call is at 1:30. So that is their last time to sell or serve but two o’clock under
law I can’t buy or be served alcohol. I hope that clarifies it.
Commissioner Burt: Well that is contrary to our previous Staff Report so it is
disappointing to me.
Mr. McDonald: No, I think the earlier Staff Report says that under state law, I am
reading from page three of the earlier report, it says as the State of California Law
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
requires no liquor may be served to any person after two AM and that is a correct
statement of law. I am looking at this says January 14, 2004, page three at the top.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, and I am looking at October 8, 2003, page four, third
paragraph down, final sentence. It says, "In addition state ordinances limit serving and
consumption of alcohol after 1:30 AM on any night of the week." So I don’t know which
is correct I am not an expert on this. I am saying that this is what our Staff Report has
said in the past. I was assuming that the Staff Report is accurate. If it needs to be
corrected we need to get that correction so we can make well-informed
recommendations.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: In this particular instance I don’t disagree with you Pat but in
this particular instance if we want to stop alcohol sales at 1:30 that is what we can put in
the conditional use permit and the state law actually whether it is 1:30 or 2:00 really
doesn’t matter.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if I could get Karen to restate her condition again about
1:30 being the time when patrons shall no longer be allowed to enter the building.
Commissioner Holman: As it is written here is says patrons shall not be allowed to enter
the building between 2:00 AM and I am suggesting it say 1:30 AM and 9:00 AM. Then
add to that another sentence that says no alcohol sales will occur after 1:30 AM.
Commissioner Burt: Karen, would you consider accepting that that would apply for
Friday and Saturday night and on Sunday through Thursday having shorter hours of
operation?
Commissioner Holman: They may end up there but I am willing to give them a shot at
making this work. Again the consequences are high. If they don’t perform the
consequences could be pretty severe. That is why I shortened the timeframe to four
months. Four months should be an indication of especially given that part of that is over
the summer months should be an indication of whether an improvement has been made or
not. If improvement isn’t made the consequences are pretty severe, could be pretty
severe. So I am willing to leave it at 2:00 AM and give them a shot at making a go of it.
Chair Griffin: I think I will support that for the same reasons that you state that it is
pretty clear that this has serious consequences if this situation doesn’t look good to the
Director after the first four months. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I support Karen’s proposal for all days of the week.
Commissioner Burt: I will just reiterate that as we see in the table of the alternative
establishments we have examples of Nola’s and Blue Chalk that operate earlier hours
successfully as bars. So given the problems that we have already had established with
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
compatibility with the residences nearby I don’t think we should give longer hours on
weeknights than we allow for other comparable establishments elsewhere in the City.
Commissioner Packer: I would just like to have the last word. You could also for the
same list point out those establishments that have late hours all nights of the week such as
The Edge. We heard testimony ~om the patrons of Antonio’s about the evenings that
they tend to go there. Thursday night was apparently a big night and there are certain
days. As Karen pointed out people have different ways of viewing the week than other
people do and for some people the middle of the week is the time to go party as opposed
to the weekend. So I just would like to throw that into the hopper. I think we have
beaten this one.
Chair Griffin: I was just going to say, how many times do we want to ping-pong this
back and forth? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I don’t mean to beat this one to death but I do want for the
record to say that the other reason I am willing to stay at 2:00 AM is because there has
been a lot of discussion about this being an area situation. I have made those comments
in the past too. So if there is improvement leaving the hours at two o’clock and there is
improvement in the area it will be some indication about how much of the problem has
been Antonio’s or not and the other establishment that is in the area is The Edge which
goes to three o’clock whether it is six or seven days a week. So given that they are in the
same proximity that is why I am willing to go to two.
Chair Griffin: Can we go to the telephone number item, which is paragraph three where
the operator of the Nut House will provide a telephone number to be available to
members of the public? My understanding and perhaps Steven you could clarify this, this
is supposedly the manager that is on deck that night in the facility so that if somebody
says they are wrapping up their motorcycle outside your establishment that that manager
would then be able to immediately go out and address the situation.
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: Do my colleagues have any additional comments they wish to make on
this item? There being none we will move to four where the operator shall attend
homeowner meetings at the request of the condominium association not more than twice
annually. I notice Steven that it doesn’t say when this ends. So this is a perpetual
condition, is that right? That every semi-annually the owner will attend the meeting?
Mr. Turner: It is a perpetual condition however it is at the request of the homeowners
association. So if the association doesn’t request a meeting with the operator for a
particular year then that is fine. This is more of an allowance for the homeowners
association to request a meeting.
Chair Griffin: So just because the meeting takes place doesn’t necessarily mean that
there has to be any action taken but the innuendo here is that if this communication
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
device doesn’t work it would eventually result in complaints from the homeowners
association to the Director of Planning.
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: Do my colleagues have any comments to make on four? No. Number
five, these are the plans for educating the public and for suggesting alternative parking
solutions. Do colleagues have comments here? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Only one I think. Staff did say earlier that they would be
working with the applicant regarding the graphics for handouts and signs. I don’t think it
needs to be in the CUP but one comment I would make here would be that people don’t
know where parking lot X-23 is. I think a graphic would be exceedingly helpful on the
handouts and on the signage. So it is really just a comment not anything that needs to be
added to the CUP I don’t believe.
Chair Griffin: Item number six dealing with the institution of a security plan utilizing a
doorperson stationed at the door along the California Avenue side of the building on
Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights from 10:00 PM until closing. Karen do you want
to start us off on that? Then I will.
I would like to suggest that we have an item here that even though applicant has said this
standard procedure I would like to have it here as a part of this condition that in fact the
doorperson would stay on station until such time that there were no more patrons in the
bar. I am getting affirmative reactions so I guess don’t have to explain the rationale for
that. It makes a lot of sense to me. So if anybody has any comment on that you might
make it.
Karen.
Commissioner Holman: The operation is seven days a week and noise has not occurred
just on these three evenings or at leagt that is as reported. So I would like there to be a
doorperson there each night and also would like to include that this person would be, I
don’t know what the phrase is. Maybe Staff might need to help with this. There are
public parking lots behind so I don’t know if monitoring is the right word but patrolling
certainly isn’t the right word but I would like there to be some presence by this
doorperson just in the parking lots occasionally to monitor, for lack of a better word, the
situation there so that they can put to rest any situations that might arise. I do need help
with that wording.
Chair Griffin: Dan, do you have some suggestions for avoiding private individuals
policing a public facility?
Mr. Sodergen: We were just kicking around maybe something to the effect that that
person would report any problems in the public parking lot.
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, do you have a comment?
Commissioner Packer: I think that would be a little difficult to implement because if you
have one doorperson standing on the California Avenue side and there is a requirement to
report any problems in the parking lot they have to have eyes in the back of their head.
There could be a risk then that you are out of compliance with the conditional use permit
for something that you failed to report. You are imposing an additional duty on this
person about reporting that I think from a practical sense is impossible to implement.
Mr. Sodergren: I see your point. I agree.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Well I might make a simple suggestion in terms of video
surveillance of the back lot. For $150 at Costco you can have a video camera and a
monitor and that doorperson could watch both places at once.
Mr. McDonald: What is he going to do with it?
Commissioner Burt: Well if we are taking as a condition that we have generally talked
about here that if patrons of Antonio’s are out of line in the parking lot behind the
establishment it seems to have been unanimous that this is part of what we expect
Antonio’s to take care of. So one condition of trying to rein in the patrons if they are out
of line is to know they are out of line.
Mr. McDonald: Can I be heard on that?
Chair Griffin: Yes. Mr. McDonald.
Mr. McDonald: I hear what you are saying Mr. Butt but the problem is with liability in
enforcing or monitoring persons on public property, which the parking lot is. We have
talked about this with Staff and I think the City Attorney agrees that Antonio’s first of all
doesn’t have any liability for that public parking lot and second of all it would be
dangerous for the City to impose conditions on Antonio’s or any other business to patrol,
report or monitor a public parking lot. It has liability problems written all over it. I think
the City Attorney would agree with me. What I would suggest to the Commission and to
the City is maybe providing security and have the City pay for it as they have done at the
Cambridge garage and three or four other garages in the City of Palo Alto where the City
has hired security to do that very job. Those are my comments.
Commissioner Burt: So my suggestion was in response to the issue of whether it would
be reasonable to have a security guard who is responsible for the front door also be
responsible for the rear and be two places at once. If it is acceptable to have that security
have some responsibility for the lot then perhaps a means to do so would be with a video
camera. If it is not something that can be legally imposed then we should reconsider that
requirement.
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Dan could you comment on that?
Mr. Sodergren: I think the focus should be on the relationship with the actual patrons
rather than the requirement that they somehow monitor the public parking lot. I could see
a requirement, we already do have one for the educational campaign, I could see maybe a
supplement to that that the doorperson shall make further requests of the patrons to
comply with the parking requests or to comply with the noise requirements and whatnot.
I think the conditions should focus on that rather than focus on monitoring the public lot.
Commissioner Burt: Also if there are problems with the exterior privately owned
property then this might something that we would want to impose. I am unclear as to
what extent problems with people outdoors who may or may not be Antonio’s patrons to
what extent are the problems solely in the public lot and to what extent have problems
been emanating from the private property. If there are problems from the private
property then it seems to be reasonable to impose this kind of requirement if it is merely
on the public property it may not be.
Chair Griffin: Actually it is my worst fear, just to pick up on what you are talking about,
is that we impose all of these conditions on the applicant and after four months or six
months the neighbors come forward and say you know, everything is great over at the
Nut House but that parking lot is still out of control and that is where the major problems
come from ifI understand what the members of the public have said tonight. I don’t have
a solution for that but I am throwing it out as something that is of real concern to me. I
don’t know whether you want to add anything to that or not, Dan. You don’t want to
touch that with a ten-foot pole, do you?
Mr. Sodergen: Other than what I stated before I think really the focus has got to be on
how they control their patrons while they are on the premises.
Chair Griffin: While they are on the premises, it is when they get into that parking lot.
Mr. Sodergen: I understand what you are saying. I don’t have any really effective way
of addressing that.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Just a comment on noise in public places. There is only so much
we can control and we have to just recognize that we can’t make it perfect from
everyone’s perspective. I will just share an experience. There is a conditional use permit
that I am very familiar with at the YMCA. Now the YMCA is not like Antonio’s Nut
House but there were issues with noise. Conditions similar to this were imposed on the Y
when they did their expansion almost ten years ago. Just the fact that the conditions were
there raised a level of awareness on the part of the management which they kept on
sharing all the time with the thousands of people that use the Y to say remember we are
in a neighborhood we need to behave when you leave this place be quiet and don’t rush
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
out of the parking lot and it does help. I think what we are trying to do here is help raise
that level of awareness, the relationship that the employees have with the patrons of the
Nut House to keep that discussion going hopefully will help. There is only so much you
can do. If it is people from The Edge or just people walking from the real late night train
that comes through. Whatever. There are a lot of reasons that people are in that
neighborhood having a good time. It could be the inversion layer is just making every
little noise amplify. There could be so many reasons and we can’t impose all of those
issues on Antonio’s to solve. But I think what we are doing here is doing what we can
within a private space. I think we have to relax with that and not try and do everything
here as Commissioners.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering could Staff recap what the items were that we have so far
under paragraph number six.
Ms. Grote: Under condition number six is that the doorman would stay onsite until the
bar is vacated seven days a week. That is how you have discussed it so far. You haven’t
yet made a motion or taken the vote but that is how you have discussed it.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering if we have any more comment on that. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just one. Where I was going with that is that this doorperson it
looks like they are required to be stationed at the door. I am really sensitive that a private
party does not have purview over a public parking lot. I am very sensitive to that. What
I was trying to arrive at was some way, and I probably went about it in an awkward way,
what I was trying to get at was the doorperson should be aware of what is going on
outside the building too where it is their private parking lot which they do have purview
over. If there could be some notification or maybe we just don’t need to try to put that in
here. It is probably too much of a dicey issue but if there could be some lang-uage added
which I am not going to be able to pen right now that they also would have purview over
their private parking lot and to monitor noise and disruptions in that locale. That would
be agreeable to the other Commissioners? Maybe Pat’s suggestion of the monitoring
camera might be a good idea or a helpful tool for Antonio’s since it seems to be not a big
investment.
Chair Griffin: I would support the monitoring camera if it were trained on the subject
property to look at the back door and the Birch Street side because he is stationed on the
California entrance. I would absolutely support that.
Commissioner Packer: I have a little concern about what implication the camera has and
whether that indirectly implies some kind of liability that somebody could use as a tool. I
just think that could be very risky from a liability perspective because people could say
oh, you had a security camera you should have known therefore we are going to sue you
because you didn’t take care of this criminal incident that took place. As a former lawyer
I can see the issues that could come with that.
Chair Griffin: I understand what you are saying although.
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Packer: If they want a security camera on the private parking lot but not
anywhere that would be looking at the public parking lot. I think that should be at the
discretion of the owner. I don’t see where it is going to get you anywhere because are
you going to have somebody looking at the security camera all the time? It seems sort of
Big Brother-ish to me.
Commissioner Burt: Bonnie, first I think we already did clarify that we were referring to
the private property. I think each of the Commissioners was clear. So I don’t know why
you are bringing it back to as if it were being discussed at this time on having that
surveillance be of the public lot. You misunderstood the other Commissioners if you
thought that was still the subject matter.
Commissioner Packer: If the surveillance camera is at the Birch Street door where else is
it looking except at the public parking lot?
Chair Griffin: At the Birch Street door is on the side that is the subject properties private
parking lot.
Commissioner Burt: If you look at the map, Bonnie, I think it will be clear.
Chair Griffin: Wait a minute. I am proposing or I thought I was supporting that we
would have let’s say two cameras. One of them what would survey the side parking lot
which is the subject property’s own private parking facility on Birch Street as well as
what I am going to call the alley door, the rear door.
Commissioner Burt: Michael, I would be comfortable with deferring to Staff come up
with a reasonable means to provide additional surveillance of the exterior private
property in a way that does not inffinge on either create a requirement to have
surveillance on the public property nor infringe on the public using public property
without having surveillance on them. So just a camera that would look at their own
private property the area that they can’t see and just keep an eye out for misconduct. It is
that simple. It is not a rare thing Bonnie. Private security cameras exist on private
property right and left. I don’t know why you are so concerned about that liability.
Mr. Soder,m’en: Just a point of clarification. That type of condition is a permissible
condition as long as the security camera is like you pointed out on the private property.
In fact there was a recent case on that on the conditional use permit requirement for a
surveillance camera and the court did uphold that.
Commissioner Burt: I will just say it is a common practice in not just retail
establishments but many businesses.
Chair Griffin: Have we discussed that? It looks like we have at least three of us that are
up for that.
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Packer: Well with Pat’s clarification I am in agreement.
Chair Griffin: Great. Now we move to number seven and we are talking about
emergency ingress and egress after ten o’clock, which was my favorite little example
when I erroneously entered. I went back today to take a look at that and see how I goofed
up on that one. I guess it is not possible really to put anything in the conditions on this
but I will describe for the applicant what I saw which was the Birch Street door is pretty
well plastered with bumper stickers and humorous signs intermixed with some legitimate
regulatory signs, for example, no one under 21 allowed, as well as after 10:00 PM please
use the front entrance. I totally did not see that because I was distracted by all the
bumper stickers. I am not going to quote them back to you because you are all pretty
familiar with them. It does cause a certain amount of confusion when you are just
walking up to a door and you are confronted with all of these posters and banners and
whatnot. If you would consider that and removing some of those perhaps or making it
somehow easier to see the sign that says move around in front.
Mr. Montooth: How did you get in?
Chair Griffin: I opened the door and walked right in.
Mr. Montooth: Well, somebody goofed.
Chair Griffin: Well, we probably shouldn’t dialogue back and forth off-mike this way. I
am asking you to consider that in any event. Do any of my colleagues have other
comments that they wish to make on number seven? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes I would like to add the rear door that after 10:00 PM it is
only used for emergency egress because I think that will also discourage use of that rear
parking lot.
Mr. Montooth: That is the rear door, Birch Street.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: First can Staff clarify what measures exist to assure that both the
side and the rear door are not being used for other than emergency purposes after 10:00
PM?.
Mr. Turner: Other than signage there may not be anything specific mechanically that we
could do to the doors. I think it was brought up that there could be potentially the use of
the panic bars or maybe a fixture that would allow people to egress and swing the door
out to leave the building and that could be a locked from the outside if that complies with
safety guidelines and safety codes then that might be an appropriate addition to the
conditions.
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: The applicant would like to address us on the microphone if you have a
comment on that.
Mr. Montooth: That has already been done. Both the front door, the alley door and the
Birch Street door both have panic bars and at ten o’clock my bartenders lock them so
they can only exit not enter. That is why I asked how you got in because they have
instructions after ten o’clock those doors are closed. Somebody must have just gone out
and it didn’t latch properly. I will check that out. Both those doors they have those
emergency exits already.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Who was next?
Commissioner Burr: Then on that basis if we can have that as a condition then I think we
already have the applicant saying that it is reasonable and that they have it as a current
practice and we include it as a condition.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for that. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Same thing but maybe there needs to be some clarification
because from the drawing and from my familiarity with the site it looks to me like the
Birch Street is a side entrance and there is a door drawn on the applicant’s drawing that
shows a door at the back of the building. So however it needs to be described those two
doors need to be emergency only egress after 10:00 PM.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, you are all right with that? Good. We have consensus. Anything
else on number seven or are we moving to eight, which is serving alcoholic beverages
only in conjunction with the operation of a bona fide restaurant. This is where the
discussion turns on the point of a late night menu being available to accompany the
serving of alcoholic beverages up until 1:30 in the morning. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think that is more clearly addressed under number nine.
Chair Griffin: All right, if we have no more comments on eight then let’s take up nine
where indeed the full service menu is discussed as well as the late night menu being
available to customers after 11:00 PM. We had a question about every night of the week
and Staff did clarify that despite the fact that the applicant’s menu and plan in fact there
were two comments there in the applicant’s materials that specifically said that Sunday
night was not included. If I understand Staff correctly we are back to saying that is a
seven night a week operation of having food available. Am I correct? I am seeing
perhaps a difference of opinion in the audience.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. The intent of both conditions eight and nine was to include
Sundays and that is what Steven commented on in his report that the applicant should be
made aware that it does include Sundays.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, you are all right with that? Okay. Pat.
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Burt: The other aspect of that is the requirement for a limited menu after
dining hours. I thought we had moved on to nine as well or are we still on eight?
Chair Griffin: Actually we are at nine and that is covered.
Commissioner Burt: Right. So the other question is is that a necessary condition? For
me, I don’t know that that is so important. I will go back to I think it is more important to
strike a compromise on the hours of operation and cut them slack on the late night menu
if that is not economically viable for them to be having to provide the late night menu.
Chair Griffin: You are saying you are trying to open up that discussion again?
Commissioner Burt: I will just reiterate it for the record that I think there may be places
where we can have a compromise that may avoid unnecessary economic burdens on
Antonio’s that don’t really provide value and an exchange have a different condition that
addresses the real concerns of the neighborhood at least on weeknights.
Chair Griffin: Do we have any more comments no nine? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: If as License 47 was read even by the applicant’s attorney it
stated that food service would be available during regular business hours which were
interpreted or considered to be six to nine, eleven to two, six to nine. Those aren’t the
hours that are identified as food service being required in the CUP. So I would suggest
that regular business hours be clarified in the CUP for ease of interpretation in the future
and that regular business hours be called out as they are. Maybe there is some flexibility
here that can be given the menu that is included in our packet for the limited menu starts
actually at 9:00 PM, which would bring it into compliance. It wouldn’t help that. I
would suggest that we have the food service whether it is full food service or the limited
menu that there needs to be food service provided between the hours of six and nine.
Actually it is kind of a question among the Commissioners but it is also a question to
Staff but would the limited menu satisfy full service menu requirements between the
hours of six and nine based on the menu that they have provided?
Mr. Sodergren: I would imagine it would satisfy the City requirements but the license at
least the description that was given to me says that must make actual and substantial sales
of meals during the normal meal hours. I am just not sure how the ABC defines those
terms but that is up to them. For the City’s purposes it would be fine but again that is
something that they would have to check on with the ABC.
Commissioner Holman: I understand that so thank you for the clarification. So what I
am suggesting to the Commissioners is for this CUP to even be legal and conforming that
there needs to be food service provided between the hours of 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM. It
sounds like it would need to be full service menu available to customers.
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
!4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Let me just ask if the applicant wishes to clarify for us what are the hours
of operation of the Taqueria unless that is already in the Staff Report. I have the menu
and it talks about the hours for the late night menu being nine to one and we are now
wanting that to go to 1:30 ifI understand colleagues. But I don’t seem to have the menu
or the hours of its availability.
Mr. Montooth: They open at eleven o’clock for lunch and they open until nine, ten,
eleven o’clock it depends on the day. As for the late night menu that is the one that you
have. We had the other menu in there too. They are open except on Sundays. Sundays
there is no use us opening it there is no business. We would have people standing there
doing nothing. It would be a real hardship on us. People have breakfast and they don’t
have Taqueria for breakfast on Sunday. It would be a real hardship on us to open on
Sundays. It would be just a useless thing.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.
Commissioner Packer: I have a recommendation. Maybe what we could ask Staff to do
is to put language in here that says that there is food available in accordance with their
license and reference the license and maybe put in those hours and make sure it goes until
at least 1:30 because that is when alcohol is being served but it could be a reduced menu
and that the sense of the Commission is that we certainly want it to be in compliance with
the ABC license and a little then some so that it complies with the times that they are
serving alcohol. The actual times as to when the reduced menu starts and stops is
something that could be worked out with the owner but the sense of the Commission is
that it be at least in compliance with the ABC license.
Chair Griffin: Personally I am comfortable with way it is written here in the text of
paragaph number nine but I am open to discussion.
Commissioner Holman: But the way it is written, never mind.
Chair Griffin: Are we ready to?
Commissioner Burt: Can you clarify where we are on this issue one more time on this
late night menu thing? Both hours and days of the week.
Ms. Grote: It appears that from the license requirements, license number 47, that they
would need to have a full service menu up until 9:00 PM, when they are open up until
9:00 PM. Then they could reduce that and have a less than full service menu after 9:00
PM. The way the condition is written now in condition nine we said 11:00 PM. It
appears that that could actually be a reduced menu at 9:00 PM because that supplements
the state license number 47. It does not conflict with state license number 47. It allows
them to have a full menu up until 9:00 PM and then a reduced menu after 9:00 PM until
closing. That would then be consistent with what we have done with other restaurant/bar
situations where we do say they can have areduced menu in late evening hours.
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: I am trying to recall what the applicant had said, they were
amenable to a seven day a week menu but that the late night Sunday menu was a
hardship. Is that correct?
Ms. Grote: I believe they said, and you may want to ask the applicant this too, but I
believe they said that any food service on Sunday after breakfast was a hardship. I
believe that is what they said. What we are saying is that Sunday food service ought to
be available just like it is on every other day.
Commissioner Burt: And didn’t you just clarify that under state law that is a requirement
on any of the days that they are serving alcohol that they have it during normal food
hours?
Mr. Sodergen: On the license number 47 it reads, "must make actual substantial sales of
meals during the normal meal hours that they are open at least five days a week." So
what we have done is the Staff recommendation supplements that by adding to it
additional days.
Chair Griffin: Mr. McDonald? Sorry, fine. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I need to either clarify for myself. I had written on my notes
during our meeting here that regular business hours were interpreted as nine to two. I
didn’t write down who said that and that is where I got off track. Then the license 47
identifies normal hours as six to nine, eleven to two, and six to nine. So that is why I do
think it would be really good to have in the CUP the hours that are considered normal
business hours and that that’s when the full service is allowed.
Mr. Sodergren: I think maybe just one point of clarification. The ABC license appears to
make the distinction they use the term "normal meal times." What we use in the
conditions of approval are "normal business hours." So we are making that throughout
the whole day in which they are open and the ABC has these distinct meal times. So
what we have done is basically again supplemented what the ABC requires because we
are making it throughout the day and the ABC only makes it required during those certain
meal times.
Ms. Grote: Maybe we ought to use terminology in the use permit as defined business
hours rather than normal business hours because I think business hours change based on
the type of business it is. So maybe we ought to say defined business hours as and then
state the hours that this establishment would be open and then state the hours when a full
menu would be available and state the hours when a reduced menu would be available so
it is further delineated.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Well, I don’t have a problem with accommodating the proprietor on
reducing their days and hours at which they have a menu somewhat. If Sunday is really
Page 43
1 an economic hardship to attempt to provide a menu for what we are redefining as a bar
2 establishment and not a restaurant establishment primarily then I don’t see a point in
3 imposing a restriction that is a financial hardship that does not provide clear value that
4 has been demonstrated here. So I would be willing to cut them slack there. I want to put
5 the restrictions where there is value.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Griffin: I am going to ask colleagues if they would consider scaling back Sunday
restaurant service to what normally is considered to be this late night menu so at least
there would be a food service available with the service of alcohol but at the same time
we wouldn’t expect the full bore kitchen crew to be in there waiting for large orders of
whatever when it is not going to show up. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Even on a limited food service do we really need to require these
guys to sell tacos at 1:30 in the morning on a Sunday?
Commissioner Packer: No. I agree with you, Pat. In fact certainly the menu itself and
the type of restaurant should not be part of the conditions. I don’t think that is the intent
because that can change. Is that the understanding? That we are not going to have a
menu as part of the conditions.
Commissioner Burt: That was my understanding as well. I used that because that is the
type of menu that they are proposing therefore that is the example that is appropriate of
what we are imposing on them.
Chair Griffin: Would Staff want to re-justify their position to refresh our minds here why
you thought that that was a worthwhile thing to propose in your SR?
Ms. Grote: The concept of serving food with alcohol is to reduce the potential impacts of
the alcohol and therefore to potentially help manage the behavior of people who are
drinking is that there is less boisterous behavior when you are eating with alcohol than if
you are just drinking. So that is the concept behind requiring food with alcohol service.
It appears to be reasonably successful in other instances. A reduced menu can change.
We don’t hold a restaurant to always serving the same kind of food. It can change from a
Mexican restaurant to another kind of restaurant we just would require that upon request
they would provide us with whatever food service menu that they do have. So if we
requested it as part of this four-month review or an eight-month review or at any time that
they would be able to provide us with their full service menu and then if they had a
reduced service menu with that as well. So we would know food is being sold in
conjunction with the alcohol. We would not tie them to a certain type of food.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think we might have a two/two opinion on this. Having tipped
one or two myself in the past I know that having food available is really crucial and if it
is only just the scaled back menu I am okay with that but I think there is value to
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
customers and ultimately to the enterprise for having on Sunday even just the scaled back
menu I am supportive of that.
Chair Griffin: I am thinking of just bar food from the standpoint of a plate ofnachos with
melted cheese and you put it in the microwave or something like that. It seems to me that
I have been in bars and I have asked the bartender if there was some bar food and it is
pretty minimal stuff. I think the applicant understands this in more detail than I do.
Commissioner Packer: I agree with reduced. Food doesn’t have to be self-serve kind of
thing on Sunday.
Commissioner Burt: So it doesn’t have to be a limited extension of the Taqueria. It can
be any form of limited food availability.
Chair Griffin: I think we have talked our way through that and come up with I hope an
amiable resolution.
Commissioner Holman: Sorry to be going around this so much. Could Staff clarify
where we are on specific hours that a regular full service menu needs to be provided to
the public? Where are we with that?
Ms. Grote: I believe the full service menuwould be available until 9:00 PM and then a
reduced service menu would be available after 9:00 PM. I don’t think you decided on
hours on Sunday but I think you wanted a full service menu Sunday morning and then a
reduced service menu for the rest of Sunday but I don’t know that there were hours
attached to that at this point.
Commissioner Burt: So we want them to have a Sunday morning taco with their cocktail.
Chair Griffin: Do we have the hours that we are requiring her for number nine or are we
missing the Sunday hours? We are missing the Sunday hours.
Commissioner Holman: And before we finish up with Sunday are the other
Commissioners in agreement that full service would be all day from 9:00 AM to 9:00
PM?
Chair Griffin: I thought yes except for Sunday, which we are about ready to get into.
Commissioner Holman: I am wondering if that isn’t an undue hardship on the applicant.
Most restaurants, of course this one serves alcohol, excuse me while I think out loud. A
lot of restaurants close down so they are not serving alcohol and they have hours that are
more like the eleven to two, six to nine so maybe because they are serving alcohol the full
service restaurant would be more appropriate. Forgive me while I think out loud but I
would like to be just really clear on what we are doing here and hear from other
Commissioners what their thoughts are.
Page 45
1 Chair Griffin: Let me just jump in and say that once the oven and the burners and the
2 . kitchen is up and running and you have a hot kitchen you are pretty well set for a full day
3 operation and you don’t necessarily close it down in the afternoon. Would the applicant
4 respond to that on mike? Thanks.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Montooth: The restaurant opens at eleven o’clock and normally closes at nine or so
except Thursday, F.riday and Saturday when they are open later until eleven or twelve
o’clock or so. It depends on the business. On Sundays we don’t do any bar businesses.
Sometimes the bartender just makes enough money to survive. Sundays, you have been
on California Avenue, it is not really - I would have a kitchen staff standing there doing
nothing. I could put microwave sandwiches on that’s no problem or something like that.
We go through 250 pounds of peanuts. They eat a lot of peanuts. The people in the
restaurant complain because everybody is eating peanuts and not ordering food.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for that. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to propose that Staff ask the applicant to come back
with some alternative limited menu for Sunday and not have a requirement that they have
their regular Taqueria restaurant menu be provided on Sunday but something that they
propose that has limited food service on Sunday.
Chair Griffin: I would support and Karen would support that and Bonnie would support
that. Good. Moving to item number ten removal of all litter associated with its operation
in the vicinity. Litter removal commencing no earlier than 8:00 AM and completed by
10:00 AM. Now we seem to have a disparate opinion on that from what I recall from the
applicant. Staff do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Turner: Well the condition was intended to have litter cleaned up in a short period of
time starting at 8:00 AM. The applicant is requesting that that be the case for bar litter
but that the restaurant litter would have up to 10:00 PM to clean that up. We would
expect that the restaurant operators are picking up litter continuously. Staff’s opinion
may be that we don’t need to have a specific timeline for the restaurant litter pickup but
the Commission may find that that would be appropriate.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues?
Commissioner Packer: I think it is reasonable to add the clarification otherwise
somebody could find that they are out of compliance with the conditional use permit
when they are cleaning up the restaurant stuff. So it seems to me it is reasonable to put in
a distinction between the bar litter and the restaurant litter.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: How about if we simplify this and just say that litter removal
shall commence no earlier than 8:00 AM each morning and no litter removal activity will
occur after 10:00 PM. Then we don’t have to differentiate between what kinds of litter.
Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Or what about inside litter versus outside litter? I take it that Staff is
talking about litter on the property’s exterior am I correct?
Commissioner Burt: The objective is that we don’t have a bunch of noise from bottles
being dumped before 8:00 AM and after 10:00 PM. Right?
Mr. Turner: Yes.
Commissioner Butt: So why don’t we write it in a way that addresses the real issue?
Chair Griffin: I am going to also ask that we add as a condition that the dumpsters
continue to be padlocked. I did take a look at the dumpsters today and the cardboard
recycling dumpster was not locked but the other one was. I am presuming hopefully that
that’s the one that contained the bottles. I was pleased to see that it had a bright shiny
new padlock on it. I would like to see that included as a condition in paragraph number
ten.
Commissioner Burt: Michael, for clarification are you wanting the condition that the
bottle dumpster be padlocked or that all of them be padlocked?
Chair Griffin: I think the bottle dumpster was the one that was causing the most
problems.
Commissioner Burt: Right. I just want to make sure if that is our concern that we don’t
need to impose a requirement where the problem doesn’t exist.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Would that be a separate condition or an attachment to this?
Chair Griffin: I was going to put it into paragraph number ten because we are dealing
with clean up and litter removal, etc. I don’t have a strong opinion about that one way or
the other. I’ll just standby for colleagues to comment.
Commissioner Packer: It is a good idea, Michael. Go for it.
Chair Griffin: In ten, right? Does Staff understand what we are trying to accomplish
here in number ten?
Ms. Grote: You do want the bottle dumpster locked continuously?
Chair Griffin: Correct. Then there is the issue about the litter and whether or not we are
going to just say it shouldn’t start any sooner than eight o’clock in the morning and delete
the 10:00 AM termination time.
Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Packer: To be completed by 10:00 PM.
Chair Griffin: So we are going to change the 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Are colleagues all
in favor of that? Evidently. All right, good, we have consensus on ten. Moving to
eleven, access to bathrooms for patrons waiting in line. I don’t think we have any
comments on that one. Nor on twelve, nor on thirteen. I think we are done. Not quite.
Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think we have covered everything except I did have one follow
up to what may have been a part of number ten, Michael I apologize. We did ask the
applicant previously to implement a recycling program because it turned out they had
mixed garbage and that was resulting in a lot of people fishing through the garbage to get
recycling materials. It is probably not a condition but something that should happen and
those containers should be padlocked as Michael mentioned for number ten.
Commissioner Burt: Is there anything that restricts us from requiring them to have
recycling containers as a condition?
Ms. Grote: I don’t believe there is anything that would prevent recycling containers from
being required.
Commissioner Burt: I think it is a good practice and we ought to require it.
Commissioner Holman: I am game with that.
Chair Griffin: Are they lockable? Are they provided by Pasco or do you know?
Ms. Grote: I believe they are. We can check with our Public Works Department they
have the contract with Pasco and we can check with them. I don’t know if they are
lockable or not. They may be adaptable so that the applicant could lock them.
Commissioner Burr: So I will condition it based upon the premise that the bottle-
recycling container must be lockable.
Chair Griffin: I would support that. Cans? Please come forward.
Mr. Montooth: As far as recycling goes we have one back there and it is not lockable.
They are just plastic containers and everybody gets into them and that is what the
neighbors were complaining about. The neighbors were complaining about the people
getting into the big garbage can because we have these people come by and dig all the
bottles out because they recycle them and get money. The neighbors were complaining
about this. So making us recycle, I do it at home, but there because we have the beer
bottles and that’s it. It is almost impossible to do it without making any noise.
Commissioner Burt: So Mr. Montooth you are saying that the City recycling containers
are not lockable?
Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Montooth: Right. Yes. They are just plastic and we had a couple out there and
people come by and just grab them and they are all over the place. They end up in the
alleys and everywhere. The dumpster we have now, I would be willing to even have the
guys come in and get the lock and take the bottles out but the neighbors are complaining
about this.
Commissioner Burt: Then I think that the condition that I included we could still apply
and I think by all means we ought to approach Pasco. We have a lot of recycling that is
done that are bottles from bars. If we have a situation where they can’t recycle them
without creating a ruckus for the neighbors then we have to reconcile those two
objectives.
Chair Griffin: Are we in agreement on all of the above?
Commissioner Holman: A big hear, hear on that one.
Chair Griffin: So we are now to the point of returning to page one of the SR and the
recommendations and I am wondering if anyone would like to make a motion to
recommend option A with the changes that we have discussed this evening? Would
anyone like to make that motion? Karen.
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: I will make that motion incorporating all the changes that we
have made.
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I will second it.
Chair Griffin: Have we discussed it sufficiently or do you have other comments in
support of your motion?
Commissioner Holman: I think we have had sufficient discussion.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Packer: I think we have come up with a good compromise and I hope in
the four months after the, assuming this does get approved by the City Council, that there
will be good results and that we can still have a viable establishment and less noise to
bother the neighbors.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to state for the record I support all of the aspects of
the motion except for the hours of operation. I think that we have not struck an adequate
compromise between the needs of the neighbors for their well-being and the needs of the
restaurant in that regard. So I won’t be able to support the motion as proposed but I do
support all the aspects of it except for the hours of operation, which I think on
weeknights, should be shortened.
Chair Griffm: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I will make a comment. In a perfect world we would be able to
satisfy everybody’s needs and concerns and wants. Hopefully we can get pretty close to
that with this. I would suggest to the applicant that they get a head start on applying all
of these before it goes to Council. That gives them a longer period of time to bring all of
their situations into compliance and address the residents concerns. I wish everyone good
luck with this and hopefully we have come up with conditions enough that many of the
concerns will be addressed.
Chair Griffin: Just to tack on to that. It shows good intentions and a willingness to be
good neighbors and I think that will look good in the eyes of Council who are going to be
looking at this pretty soon.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to say something to the neighbors who have
expressed concern with the activities in the area. How do I say this? Let’s not try and
pin the blame on one establishment. Let’s try and live and respect everyone and
understand that this is a city where people walk around and they talk and they laugh and
they cry and this is to be expected in a vibrant city. Silence is the sound of dying things.
Happy noise is a sound of life. This is what we should embrace. Too much noise of
course is upsetting and we can control that and I think Antonio’s and its patrons will
make every effort to do so but it is not going to be perfect. If something happens don’t be
too quick to lash out. Let’s give everybody a chance to have a good life.
MOTION PASSED (3-1-1-1, Commissioner Burt voted no, Commissioner Cassel absent
with Commissioner Bialson not participating due to conflict)
Chair Griffin: All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) The
motion carries with Commissioner Burt in the negative.
That now concludes agenda item two.
We now move to New Business. We have before us an item involving the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee, which Staff is requesting that we continue. I am wondering if
Staff would like to make any comment on this?
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Page 50
Attachment D
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Steven Turner, Planner
January 14, 2004
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:321 California Avenue [03-AP-08]: Appeal by Tony Montooth of
conditions of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 73-UP-26
(amended July 2003) requested by Tony Montooth to allow alcoholic
beverage service as a conditional use, in the Community Commercial
Combining Zone District (CC(2)). Environmental Assessment:
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section
15301
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend
that the City Council:
Find that the current alcohol service use is being conducted in a manner that is
detrimental to public heath and safety, as described in the Draft Record of Land
Use Action contained in Attachment A.
Deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s original approval, based upon the findings and conditions of
approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A)
BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2003, the Commission heard an appeal of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’s decision to gant a conditional use permit for alcoholic
beverage service in conjunction with a bona fide eating and drinking establishment at 321
City of Palo Alto Page 1
California Avenue, for the business known as Antonio’s Nut House.
The Commission heard from members of the public who spoke in support of the amended
use permit as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in July,
2003 and from those who support the appellant and the 1973 use permif2 Evidence of the
testimony is contained in the approved Planning and Transportation Commission minutes
of October 8, 2003, in the minutes of the June 5 and June 19, 2003 Director’s Hearings,
and in the Administrative Record (Attachment H).
The owner and operator of the establishment, Mr. Tony Montooth, has appealed the
Director’s decision based upon the restrictions of the use permit as contained in the
conditions of approval (Attachment E). A detailed discussion of the use permit and
conditions of approval is contained in the October 8, 2003 Planning and Transportation
Commission staff report.
Alternative Conditions Presented bv the Appellant
At the October 8, 2003 meeting, the appellant presented the Commission with alternative
conditions of approval (Attachment D. that the owner of Antonio’s Nut House could accept.
DISCUSSION
Commission’s Request for Additional Information
The Commission requested additional information from staff prior to making a formal
recommendation to the City Council.
¯Review the conditions provided by the appellant on October 8, 2003.
Staff has reviewed the applicant’s proposed conditions. A comparison of the proposed
conditions with the Director’s conditions is contained in Table 1: Use Permit Conditions
Comparison (Attachment E .).
¯Provide information regarding hours of operation of other eating and drinking
establishments in Palo Alto that have alcohol use permits.
Staff reviewed hours of operation of several Palo Alto businesses. Eating and drinking
establishments may serve alcoholic beverages upon issuance of a conditional use permit.
Establishments that do not operate in conjunction with a bona fide restaurant may not
serve alcohol.
Cib/ of Palo Alto Page 2
The hours of operation of these businesses are similar. Most are open to either 1:30 A.M.
or 2:00 A.M. on the days the establishment is open. Most do not remain open after 2:00
A.M., as State of California law requires that no liquor may be served to any person after
2:00 A.M. Each business offers a regular menu and late nig!at menu to patron during
operating hours. Examples of these business and their hours of operation are listed below:
Business Restaurant Name
The Edge same
Operating Davs/Hours
5pm- 10pm T-TH
5pm-1 lpm F
6pm-1 lpm Sa
Nightclub: 9pm-3am
Q Caf6 same 4pm-2am Sat-W
11:30am-2am Th-F
Rudy’s Elbe 11:00am-2:00am Sun-Sat
Nola same 11:00am-12am M-Th
11:00am-lam Fr-Sa
5:30pm-9pm Su
Blue Chalk Caf6 same 11:00am-2:30pm M-F
5pm-lam M-Sa
Antonio’s Nut House offers entertainment such as recorded music, pool tables, darts and
other games and operates in conjunction with Casa Azteca, a Mexican restaurant. The
businesses described above are similar businesses within Palo Alto that offer live or
recorded music and other entertainment in conjunction with an eating and drinking
establishment or service.
¯Comment on security, issues; the need for licensed security guards versus a visible and
easily identifiable door person.
Security personnel provide a presence that can act as a deterrent to patrons who may wish
to cause nuisances. Uniformed police officers on patrol are an example of a visible
presence that can minimize the potential for unlawful or disruptive acts by individuals or
goups. Uniformed security guards can provide a similar role for business owners that
want to minimize the potential for crime on private property.
Many restaurants and nightclubs employ door persons to provide security and crowd
control for patrons waiting to enter an establishment or who may be loitering in the area.
Cit7 of Palo Alto Page 3
Although they may not be uniformed as a patrol office or private security guard, the door
persons provide a visible presence in a similar but somewhat lesser extent as a uniformed
guard would provide in a similar environment.
Staff is aware that door persons can provide a certain level of security mad conduct crowd
management fimctions. The Commission may want to consider recommending to Council
that a full time door person provide security and crowd management fimctions at
Antonio’s Nut House in lieu of a licensed security guard.
¯Comment on private security firms patrolling public parking lots.
The City would not allow private patrols of public parking lots without prior agreement
and an established contract for services.
The intent of the Director’s original condition for a private security guard to patrol public
lots would be to provide a security presence and deterrent against public nuisances. The
private security guards employed by Antonio’s Nut House would discourage loitering and
noise in the public areas, but would not be authorized to intervene in situations when
suspected illegal activity is t "aking place. The guards would be expected to call the Police
Department to report illegal activity. It would then be the responsibility of the City to
respond to a call for service.
¯How would enforcement of a requirement for a desiguated parking lot away from
residemial uses be implememed?
The parking managemem plan as required in the original conditions of approval
(Condition #5, Attachment E) was intended to encourage, rather than require, patrons
who may use the public parking lot behind Antonio’s Nut House (Lot C-7) to park in a
specific facility that would not impact neighboring residential properties. Encouragement
would be communicated to patrons by "sandwich board" type signage at the entrances to
Lot C-7, posted signs at Antonio’s Nut House, and through handbills and leaflets that
would be distributed to patrons.
The City would expect the management of Antonio’s Nut House to abide by the
requirements of the parking management plan, which would be reviewed and approved by
City staff. Failure to follow the approved plan could result in the revocation of the use
permit for alcoholic beverage service.
¯Comment on sidewalk cleanliness/Review options to reduce bottle and can recycling
City of Palo Alto Page 4
noise/Provide information on any existing building code violations or code
enforcement issues at Antonio’s Nut House.
The Public Works Department conducts regular maintenance of the sidewalk and other
public right of way areas. Although property owners adjacent to these areas are not
required to maintain these areas, they are encouraged to keep them clean and free of
obstructions. The Public Works Department may cite property or business owners who
consistently allow sidewalks to remain dirty or do not clean spills or litter in these areas.
The Director’s original conditions required that trash and recycling disposal associated
with the operations of the business shall take place daily after 8:00 A.M. (Condition #2,
Attachment E) This would help minimize the impacts of noise from the dumping of glass
bottles and metal can in to bins that are near residential properties.
The Commission received testimony at the October 6, 2003 meeting that the trash and
recycling bins have been fitted with key locks, but that the keys were often lost. Staff
would recommend that a more suitable locking mechanism be installed that would
prevent access to the bins by those other than Antonio’s Nut House staff.
No known building code or zoning code violations currently exist at the site.
¯Consider changing deadline to submit security, parking and crowd management plans
from 15-days to 30-days.
Staff could accept a revision to the use permit that would allow the business owner to
submit the plans as required in the conditions of approval no later than 30 days from the
council decision.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project does not represent any change to existing city policies and is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-28 that maintains the existing scale, character, and function
of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center
intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood
business areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15301.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, October 8, 2003
(without attachments)
Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes, October 8, 2003
Appellant’s Alternative Conditions of Approval
Table 1: Use Permit Conditions Comparison
Amended Conditional Use Permit, July 2003
Director’s Hearing Verbatim Minutes, June 5 and June 19, 2003
Appellant’s Appeal Letter, July 18, 2003
Director’s Administrative Record (Commission only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Tony Momooth, Antonio’s Nut House/Paul J. McDonald, Esq
Greg Kerber
John K. Abraham
JeffHerman
Lisa Habbeshaw
Midori-Kato Maeda
Peter Holland
Dea Smith
Kelly Gorman
Andre DePass
Don & Carol Mullen
Lawrence Haussler
Brian Bolitho
David Struck
Josh Peskin
Deborah Love
Ronna Devincenzi
Christine Andihzabak
Joy Ogowa
Michael Gaillard
David Mann
Prepared by: Steven Turner, Planned~i
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Cu~lanning
Department/Division Head Approval: ~2 ~’ ~~
Lisa Grote, Chi~Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2004-
RECORD OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 321 CALIFORNIA AVENUE: AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE FOR A BONE FIDE EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENT 03-AP-08 (TONY MONTOOTH, APPLICANT).
On , 2004 the City Council upheld the July 9, 2003,
Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval to allow
alcoholic beverage service in conjunction with a bone fide eating
and drinking establishment, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Pa!o Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
fol!ows:
A. The Director of Planning and Community Environment
held public hearings on June 5 and June 19, 2003 to review an
existing conditional use permit (73-UP-26) to allow alcoholic
beverage service at 321 California Avenue, Antonio’s Nut House (the
"Project").
B. On July 9, 2003, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment determined that the current alcohol service
use was being conducted in a manner that was detrimental to public
health and safety. The Director amended use permit 73-UP_-26, adding
additional conditions of approva!.
C. On July 18, 2003, the business owner of Antonio’s Nut
House, Tony Montooth, submitted an appeal request, contesting
specific conditions of approva!.
D. The Planning and Transportation held public hearings
on October 8, 2003 and January 14, 2004 and determined that the
current alcohol service use was being conducted in a manner that
was detrimental to public health and .safety.
E. On January 14, 2003, the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommended that the City Counci! uphold the Director’s
Decision and deny the appea!.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review.This project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act per Section 15301.
SECTION 3.Conditional Use Permit Findinqs
1
I. 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: -
The sale of liquor, beer and wine, as conditioned, will be
associated with an existing eating and drinking establishment;
~e proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of this title in that:
This use, as conditioned, is consistent with the underlying
commercial zoning in that an eating and drinking use is a permitted
use in the CC(2) (R) (P) zone district. Furthermore, the use is
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, Regional/Community
Commercial land use designation and the surrounding land uses.
SECTION 4.Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit No. 73-UP-26 is amended to allow alcoholic beverage
service in conjunction with a bone fide eating and drinking
establishment.
SECTION 5.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Enviror~ment
Planning Division
The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall hold
a public hearing annually to review the conditions of the
amended use permit, police activity report, fire inspection,
building inspections, complaints and public testimony to
determine the business owner’s compliance with the use permit
conditions of approva!. If the business owner has not
complied with al! the conditions or there have been three or
more officially documented infractions of the noise ordinance
within the i2-month period, Use Permit 73-UP-13 may be revoked
or modified. Officially documented infractions means that the
Pa!o Alto Police Department has conducted noise readings and
found the establishment to be in violation of the Palo Alto
Noise Ordinance. The date and time of this hearing shall be
noticed in accordance with the provisions of section 18.90.030
Pa!o Alto Municipal Code [PAMC], including publication in a
local newspaper of general circulation and by notice to
residents and property owners within 300 feet of the property.
Hours of Operation shal! extend no later than the following:
Sunday through Thursday
Friday and Saturday
9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M.
(closing time)
9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M.
(closing time) -
There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of
i:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Monday through Friday and 3:00 A.M.
and 9:00 A.M. Saturday and Sunday, except for cleaning the
premises, or for compliance with the provisions of the litter
removal plan established in Condition #10. Trash and recycling
disposal may take place after 8:00 A.M daily.
Patrons shall not be allowed to enter the building between
11:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. Sunday through Friday and 1:30 A.M.
Saturday and Sunday. The serving of all alcoholic beverages
shall terminate one-half hour prior to closing, and shall not
be allowed to commence until the reopening of business later
that day, but in no event prior to 9:00 A.M. All patrons shall
be vacated from the building one-hour after the posted closing
time.
The business operator shall submit a plan, which addresses
crowd control, specifically the management of patrons outside
of the establishment and patrons waiting to enter the
facility. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by both the
Police Department and Manager of Current Planning. The plan
shall identify methods for controlling and dispersing patrons
in the private parking lot and those waiting to enter the
establishment. The plan shal! include quantitative objectives
such as the maximum allowable number of patrons in the parking
lot and a time limit for achieving the objective once a crowd
forms. The plan shal! be submitted no later than 15 days after
the issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately
upon approva! unless otherwise specified.
o The business operator shall submit a plan for the utilization
of a security guard in directing patrons to designated public
parking lots for the purpose of reducingnoise levels in the
California Avenue district and the residential areas to the
southeast of the site. The plan shall be reviewed and approved
by both the Police Department and the Manager of Current
Planning. The plan shal! identify the boundaries and specific
areas the guard will patrol, specific public parking !ots to
which patrons wil! be directed, and the manner in which the
guards are to approach and direct motorists and patrons
loitering in parking lots. The Manager of Current Planning may
require the operator to make changes in the security plan,
upon determination that the approved plan in not effective in
reducing complaints. The Manager of Current Planning may also
require changes to the boundaries of the security area, and in
the number, location and actions of the security guards, upon
a determination that such changes are necessary to reduce
complaints. Al! security guards used to implement this plan
shall be licensed by the State of California and uniformed in
a manner that satisfies the Police Department and also clearly
identifies them as guards for the facility and not Palo Alto
Police Officers. 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.
o The business operator shall submit a temporary sign program
for the California Avenue district that effectively directs
patrons of the facility to the specific public parking lots
identified in the approved security guard plan required by
Condition #4. Specifically, the temporary sign program shall
direct patrons to public parking lots other than Lot C-7. The
placement and wording of the signs and days for which they
will be utilized shal! be reviewed and approved by the
Transportation Division. The plan shal! be submitted no later
than 15 days after the issuance of this use permit and
implemented immediately upon approva! unless otherwise
specified.
The owners and operators of the facility shall insure that a
minimum of one uniformed security guard, licensed by the State
of California, be stationed outside the building during the
hours of evening operaticns to insure compliance with al!
applicable conditions of approval, codes and ordinances. The
Police Department will respond on a complaint basis only.
Violations of any nature, including noise may lead to a
revocation of the permit by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment.
o The business operator shall submit a plan to educate patrons
that the use of property is only permitted under certain
conditions, particularly with 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 California Avenue district, to
eliminate litter and vandalism, and to be respectful of
property and residents in the California Avenue district. 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 Manager of Current Planning. 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.
o
I0.
ii.
12.
13.
The serving of alcoholic beverages shall only be allowed in
conjunction with the operation of a bona-fide restaurant. The
restaurant shall be in operation and easily accessible to and
from the entertainment area during the times in-.which alcohol
is sold and consumed on site.
The owners and operators of the club shall provide a full
service menu to customers during regular business hours and a
late night menu to customers after II~00 p.m. which shall be
available until closing.
The business shall remove all litter associated, with its
operation in the area patrolled by the security guard, as
defined in Condition #4. Litter removal shall commence no
earlier than 8:00 A.M. and shall be completed by I0:00 A.M.
the morning after every business day.
The business operator shall allow all patrons waiting in line
to have ful! access and use of the bathroom facilities within
the building, weather or not that patron has paid the required
cover charge (if any). This service shall be advertised in
conjunction with the education program specified in Condition
#7.
The sale of beer and wine 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 al! of the
terms and conditions of this use permit.
This use shall comply with all applicable City codes,
including but not limited to, Title 9 (public Peace, Morals
and Safety), Title 15 (Fire Prevention) and Title 18 (Zoning).
In addition, this use shal! comply with the requirements of
State of California Administrative Code, including the
requirements for licensing from the Department of Alcohol
Beverage Control.
SECTION 6.Term of Approval. If the Conditional Use
Permit granted is not used within one year of the date of council
approval, it shal! become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto
Municipa! Code Section.18.90.080(c)
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
ABSTENTIONS :
ATTEST :APPROVED :
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
6
Attachment D
ANTONIO’S NUT HOUSE
RE: CONDITIONS, Use Permit 73-UP13 for the
property located at 321 California Avenue
1. The business operator will comply with the hours of operation set forth under the
California Alcoholic Beverage & Control Act and rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder. The hours of operation shall extend no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than
2:00 a.m. (closing time). All patrons shall vacate the premises one-hour after the posted
closing time. There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m. except for the cleaning the premises, or compliance with the litter removal plan
established in Condition #6. Trash and recycling disposal may take place after 8:00 a.m.
daily.
2. The business operator shall submit an educational plan, including a temporary sign
program and handouts, which addresses crowd control, specifically the management of the
patrons loitering outside of the premises, for the purpose of reducing noise levels in the
residential areas to the southeast of the site. The plan shall identify methods to educate
patrons that the use of the property is only permitted under certain conditions, particularly
with respect to the surrounding businesses and residential neighborhood, and to be respectful
of property and residents in the California Avenue District. The plan shall identify methods
for informing, controlling and disbursing patrons in the private parking lots of the premises
located along Birch Street and the rear of the premises. The plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Police Department and Manager of Current Planning. The plan shall be
submitted no later than 15 days after issuance of this use permit and implemented
immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified.
3. The business operator shall submit a plan for the utilization of one (1) doorman stationed
at the door on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights from 10:00 p.m. to closing, to direct
patrons to designated public parking lots other than Lot C-7, to manage patrons loitering
outside of the premises, for the purpose of reducing noise levels in the residential area to the
southeast of the premises and to ensure compliance with applicable conditions of approval,
-1-
codes and ordinances. The doorman shall patrol an area within twenty feet of the premises,
specifically the private parking area of the premises located adjacent to Birch Street and the
private parking area to the rear of the premises. The plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Police Department and Manager of Current Planning. The plan shall be submitted no
later than 15 days after issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately upon
approval unless otherwise specified.
4. The business operator shall submit an educational plan including a temporary sign
program and handouts directing patrons to designated public parking lots other than Lot C-7.
The plan shall include wording for handbills to be distributed in the facility and signs within
the premises. The Transportation Division shall assist the business operator in identifying
the specific public parking lots to which patrons shall be directed. The plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Transportation Division. 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.
5. The serving of alcoholic beverages shall be allowed in conjunction with the operation of
a bona-fide restaurant pursuant to the laws set forth in the California Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
6. The business will remove all litter associated with its operation, commencing no earlier
than 8:00 a.m. and shall be completed by 1o0:00 a.m. the morning after every business day.
7. The business operator shall allow all patrons full access and use of the bathroom facilities
in the building. This service will be advertised in conjunction with the education program
specified in Condition #2.
8: The sale of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed to be an agreement
on the part of the applicant, the owner, their heirs, successors and assigns to comply with all
the terms and conditions of this use permit.
9. The use shall comply with all applicable City Codes, including but not limited to, Title
19 (public Peace, Morals and Safety), Title 15 (Fire Prevention) and Title 18 (Zoning). In
addition this use shall comply with the requirements of the State of California Administrative
Code, including requirements for licensing from the Department of Alcohol Beverage
Control.
-2-
Attachment E
Attachment G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Director’s Hearing
Thursday, June 05, 2003
REGULAR MEETIIVG- 2:00 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Staffi"
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning ~/[anager
Steven Turner, Planner
Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
NEW BUSINESS:
Beginning at 3:00 pm:
321 California Avenue [73-UP-13]: Review of an existing Conditional Use Permit for
the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Antonio’s Nut House. Zone District CC (2) (R) (P)
Ms. Jutie Caporgno. Advance Planning Manager: This is a public meeting, and it’s being
videotaped. The hearing will be conducted by the following procedure: I will open the
public hearing b) introducing an item and then ask staff for any staff presentation. The
project representative will then be afforded an opportunity to provide any information.
After that, I will ask for any public testimony. At any time during the hearing I may ask
questions for clarification of the speaker. At the conclusion of the testimony I will close
the public hearing. I have ten days in which to make my decision regarding the item. If
anyone wishes to receive a written copy of that decision, please fill out a card on the table
and submit it either to me or to Alicia who’s sitting right by the door. If you wish to
appeal any item on this agenda, the appeal must be filed within ten days of my decision.
Please contact the Planning Department for any information regarding the fee, or if you
have any other questions regarding the appeal process. And if you challenge the landuse
decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city. I want to
add that I am acting as the hearing officer even though I’m in the Planning Department, I
am independently reviewing this project, so staff is providing me with information. The
city attorney is here today who will be advising me, but he’s not representing staff. So if
I have issues that I can ask him regarding this, but he’s not providing staff with
information.
NEW BUSINESS:
321 California Avenue [73-UP-13]: Review of an existing Conditional Use Permit for
the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Antonio’s Nut House. Zone District CC (2) (R) (P)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
Julie Capor~no: Is there any staff report? Thank you.
2 Steven Turner: Similar to the project at 260 California Avenue we’re reviewing 321
3 California Avenue, also known as Antonio’s Nut House. The Palo Alto Municipal Code
4 Title 18, Section 90, speaks to the case of where in the judgment of the Zoning
5 Administrator substantial evidence indicates that the use conducted pursuant to a
6 conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner that’s detrimental to public health,
7 safety and welfare, the Zoning Administrator should set aside a date for a public hearing.
8 The notice of the public hearing shall be noticed in accordance with PAMC 18.90.030.
9 So it allows the Planning Department to hold a public hearing on the use permit.. An
10 administrative record was prepared for this item. It was made available today. The
11 administrative record is comprised of publicly available documents that are available at
12 the Planning Department’s Development Center through the Building Optical Database
13 System. It’s the computerized database that allows staff to scan in printed records into
14 the database. Those documents have always been available at the Development Center.
15 The administrative record merely compiles that publicly available information. That
16 record was also done for 260 California Avenue, (The Edge). That is available here, and
17 it’s available for anybody’s review and we can make copies of that document available.
18 The administrative record explains that the history of the use permit at Antonio’s Nut
19 House starting in 1973 with the original use permit modified in 1980, with an additional
20 use permit to allow a card room at the site. However, card rooms were prohibited within
21 Palo Alto in 1993. The administrative record also contains records from the police
22 department regarding a document request by Mr. Kerber. The administrative record also
23 contains letters from neighbors in the area, one Miss Lisa Habbeshaw dated May 29, and
24 another letter dated - from Mr. Jeff Herman on June 4, and the third letter from Miss
25 Midori Maeda on June 4. All those public letters are made a part of the administrative
26 record, and they indicate that they have issues with Antonio’s Nut House and noise
27 problems in the area.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
That concludes the staff report. Any questions?
Ms. Caporgno Is the operator of Antonio’s Nut House available, andwould you like to
provide some testimony?
Mr. Tony Montooth. Proprietor: Yes
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you.
Mr. Montooth: I’m Tony Montooth from Antonio’s Nut House. You sure that’s right, ’73
or ’72?
35 Mr. Turner: ’73
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Montooth: Oh, had my 30th anniversary too early. My records show it was ’72.
Anyway, we have no music. The only problem we have that I’m aware of with noise is
the patrons leaving right through my place or The Edge in the parking lot where these
folks live, because I went to arbitration with this gentleman before, and he was
complaining about the garbage cans, the garbage people making too much noise. I don’t
know what he calls noise or whatever. We tried everything. The only thing is that we
had a problem for the no smoking because in my building you can’t hear anything from
outside. It’s a concrete building and you can’t hear anything from inside the building.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
But the people go outside to smoke, so some of the young ones maybe yell, scream - I
got young ones at home that yell and scream - but just after they had a few beers. But as
far as my nighttime manager here, she runs things at night and we try to tell the people,
keep it down, keep it quite. But the people that are coming from the Icon (260
California), we have a parking lot in between our place and their residence. So the
people park back there, so when they’re leaving at night. And we in our place, like I said,
you can’t hardly hear anything. But the people do go outside and smoke. And the police
department’s been very helpful and in fact I know- we have it very good with them, we
have very few problems. I think I seen the report the gentleman had next to me had our
report. The calls are very minimal compared to some really nice places and everything.
Our people, we try to take care of our own and got a bunch of nice people and we have
fun and sometimes you know, when you’re having fun, a little bit of noise. But I don’t
think it’s anything to worry about. In fact I think - I know my wife wakes me up snoring
so I can’t sleep maybe. So that’s bad for my health. But I don’t think this has anything
to do with our business or anything. So we run a nice business. Like I said we’ve been
there for 30 years. So what else can I say? What do you want? We enjoy Palo Alto;
Palo Alto is a beautiful town, and I’m sorry to see the police having to be out for
something like this when they have more important things to do, I’m sure.
Ms. Capor.~no: Thank you.
Mr. Montooth: Want to ask me questions or anything?
Ms Capor.~ono: I may have some after I take the public testimony, so if you could be
available. Thank you.
I now will open the public hearing to testimony. I have several cards. The first one,
Peter Holland to be followed by Midori-Kato Maeda.
Ivlr. Peter Holland. Resident: My name’s Peter Holland. I live at 342 Grant Avenue in
Palo Alto which is just outside the boundary here. I’m here today as the president of the
Birch Court Condominium Association of which Miss Midori, Mr. Kerber, and Miss
Habbeshaw and Jeff Herman are all residents. I’m here primarily in my capacity as
president because their problems have now become my problem. And I have perhaps a
particular insight to this problem because I used to live in one of the units that is severely
affected by the noise from Antonio’s Nut House back in ’83 to ’85 rou~y. So I then
moved to another unit in Birch Court, but I did live there 15 or so years ago.
And I do think it’s fair to say that the noise problem recently has gotten considerably
more severe than it was when I lived there. The problem from my perspective as
president, dealing with my homeowners is that the complaints are about very late evening
noise. These are events that happen 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00 in the morning, and it is quite
annoying. And I’ve been infrequently, given my location, been awakened by them, but I
know that they have been frequently awakened. The problems are more frequent on the
weekends, obviously, when more drinking happens. So that’s understandable I think. I
suspect the main reason, from my observation living in the neighborhood for almost 20
years, the main reason for this recent increase in the noise volume is .that they have had to
add a smoking area outside of Antonio’s Nut House to comply with the no smoking
regulations inside. But the effect of that has been quite severe because what it has done is
it has effectively encouraged and allowed patrons to consume alcohol outside. And the
City of Palo Alto
Director’s Hearing- June 5, 2003
Page 3
]effect of that is that slowly the rowdy behavior that may be happening inside the bar and
2 quietly maintained within the bar moves out onto the patio and eventually onto the pubic
3 parking lot, Lot 7. And I think recently there’s been an inability on the part of the police
4 to be able to respond to that because frequently those patrons are out there for a brief
5 period, they go back in, or they go to their cars and leave. And so by the time the police
6 get there on a low priority call within 30 or so minutes, it’s too late and they’re gone.
7 Nevertheless, everyone’s been wakened up in that comer of our condominium.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’l! just mention that we have had a few incidents of people urinating and defecating in
our condominium complex in secluded areas. And I haven’t really tied that to - I cannot
tie that to Antonio’s or The Edge, but it seems to have increased in the last couple of
months. And I have no real explanation for that.
So thank you very much for the opportunity.
Ms. Caporg-no: Before you go Mr. Holland, so you are in this part of the complex over
here?
Mr. Holland: Yes. I live right in this comer, and formerly I lived right in this spot here.
And we are -these series of three buildings here.
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you.
Ariel Calonne: I have a question. Mr. Holland, you mention the patrons drink outside in
the smoking area and then move onto Lot 7. Have you personally observed that?
Mr. Holland: I’ve seen people walking to their cars and you know, they’re carrying things
and I presume they’re carrying alcohol. I have not looked at it directly, not been close
enough to determine it is alcohol, but it’s some beverage of some sort.
Mr. Calolme: And have you seen people drinking in this patio area, is that routine?
Mr. Holland: Yes.
Ms.Caporg~o: Midori -Kato? I can’t read your last name.
26 Midori-Kato Maeda. Resident: My name is Midori-Kato Maeda, and I am a resident in
27 25/12 Birch Court. And he mentioned, I also sent a written statement. And I would just
28 summarize some key points. I have been living in this Birch condominium for eight
29 months. And unfortunately, I have had very bad experience, and this is mainly because
30 of the noise. And as has been stated by Mr. Holland, this is mainly because of the
31 excessive noise on the outer patio area. And the problem also as stated is because patrons
32 come outside, and yes, I have been witness that they are carrying something in their
33 hands which I assume is a glass of something. I cannot see exactly what kind of beverage
34 or what kind of things they have in their hands, but it can be seen that they are doing
35 something, looks like drinking, from the balcony. And the problem is that this happens
36 between 11:00-2:00, and this of course wakes me up, and it takes me a long time before
37 falling asleep again. And there is the issue that was commented by Mr. Antonio was the
38 trash. Actually because of the hearing I have been measuring the time. But around 6:45,
39 7:00, sometimes 7:15, they empty all the bottles to their big container. So besides me
40 sleeping after 2:00 in the morning, 3:00, I of course, need to be awake by 6:00 in order to
41 be able to go to work. But I can hear all the trashcans when they empty all the trash into
42 the big container. And these are important concerns. I understand this is a business and I
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
think as he mentioned, it has been a success business. And I would like to try to figure
out ho~v can I get just some respect to my right for my night hours in order to be able to
sleep. Here he has mentioned the different effects of sleep deprivation like his own case.
But I think it’s obvious, and I will hand to you three articles that mention the direct
effects of sleeping deprivation in coronary heart disease and also in metabolic and
endocrine function. And they are related very clearly to some aspects of problems like
increasing heart rate after a night of deprivation. And unfortunately, even though it gets
worse during the weekend, there is some days it happens Monday, Tuesday, Thursday -
every day- so it gets accumulated.
The other issue is that I’m a little bit worried about if the police number of calts will be
counted as a way to measure how bad this is. The officer has mentioned we are a~vare
that noise is not a priority. And because we know that these are screams or yelling or
chit-chat like happen, that at the time that they will come, they will not fred anything.
We just call one time and this was because there was a fight and it was evident that there
were bottles there. Unfortunately I don’t have the number of- called the incident
number - yes we have that which we called because we were worried about that there
will be some problems or some fight and problems with the health of the persons
involved. So I really would like to mention this. I think that - I’m hoping that there
should be a way where we can participate as neighbors in order to get the best. But I
think that we as a citizen of Palo Alto we have the right to have our night hours respected
as all the people.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Capor.ano: I have one question of you. Where is the area - I keep hearing patio area.
And I went over there, and the only area I conld see that ~vas any - w-as kind of in the
front. There were a couple of seats. But then there are some doors around the side but
there’s not really a patio area it looked like to me. Is that what you’re talking about, right
in the front?
Ms. Maeda: Yes. They have like a little roof, and then there’s like a veranda or
something. But there is an area, like they extend to the patio area and to some parking
space. Andthat is communicated with the rest.
Ms. Caporgno: So it’s in back?
Ms. Maeda: Yes, here. Yes, it’s this area, and I live here, right in front of the parking.
So I have a nice view of Antonio’s.
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you. The next speaker, Jeffrey Herman followed by Mr. Kerber.
Ms. Maeda: Scientific journals that are about
Ms. Capor,~ono: And before you begin I was just going to read into the record what they
are. I received "Effects of Insufficient Sleep on Blood Pressured Monitored by new
Multi-Medical Recorder," "Prospective Study of Sleep Duration and Coronary Heart
Disease for Women," "An Impact of Sleep Dep on Metabolic and Endocrine Function."
40 Mr. Jeff Herman. Resident: My name is Jeff Herman. I live at 25/12 Birch Street. I can
41 point that out. I believe it’s right here.
Ci(y of Palo Alto Page 5
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
1 Just to elaborate on some of the points that have been made, the patio is here. One of the
2 issues is it’s very tiny, so it kind of encourages people to stand around it, and it actually
3 becomes an extension of Antonio’s, so people are standing around very late into the
4 evening talking, shouting, yelling. That’s I think part of the problem, is that that small
5 patio encourages the rest of the crowd to kind of form there. The other issue which I
6 noted in my letter is that occasionally the back door is open as well. And I think that
7 again kind of reinforces to people that the parking lot is an extension of Antonio’s, and so
8 they kind of use that space as well, standing around. Again, there’s yelling that happens.
9 I know that the owner of Antonio’s mentioned that in his opinion, some of the health
10 issues that we’re pointing out aren’t very important because everyone’s sleep is
11 disrupted. I would just say that the previous speaker is actually my doctor, and because
12 these issues are affecting us and they’re affecting us on a nightly basis, to us they’re very
13 important issues. And I think part of the reason why the noises are affecting us so much
14 are that acoustically that area is very live. You mentioned that you went do~vn there. It
15 doesn’t take very much and the noise kind of echoes. So if you can imagine a crowd of
16 20-25 people drinking, shouting. People are revving their car engines, the motorcycles
17 are very loud, people are playing their car radios. It creates actually quite a significant
18 amount of noise. And for us, that’s our back yard. So these are the kind of issues that
19 we’re talking about.
20 I mentioned a number of issues in my letter. Just to kind of reiterate on one. So there’s
21 excessive noise caused by the people, the use of the outdoor patio area and the live
22 acoustics. Midori talked about the beer bottles. Antonio’s, their service people empty
23 those bottles very early in the morning, so we’re kept up late at night by the crowds and
24 then.we’re reawakened by the beer bottles in the morning. I think we talked about the
25 impact on us in terms of the health issues. I actually put together some recommendations
26 that I felt could help mitigate some of these problems. One is having Antonio’s close the
27 outdoor patio area at a reasonable hour of the evening so that other residents can sleep;
28 insuring that people don’t loiter in the evenings next to the patio area or in parking lot 7,
29 or on the adjacent sidewalks; insui-ing that the patrons of Antonio’s realize that there are
30 actually people living very close by, there’s very loud acoustics, and if they could just be
31 considerate of that fact and not yell, not rev their car engines, not play their car radios,
32 especially when the car is not actually even moving; again, insuring that Antonio’s
33 doesn’t prop open their back door so that people don’t see the parking lot as an extension
34 of Antonio’s; again, making sure that Antonio’s doesn’t empty their beer bottles very
35 early in the morning.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Another issue that we’ve had that hasn’t been mentioned already is that after Antonio’s
empties the beer bottles into the trash cans, there’s people who come by to dig through
the trash, getting the beer bottles. So if you can imagine this happening once or twice a
day ten or fifteen minutes, people are digging through all the beer bottles. And again,
because of the live acoustics, it actually creates a significant amount of noise. \
I feel like these solutions could be achieved through enforcement by Antonio’s staff,
additional enforcement and spot checks by the Palo Alto police department, as well as
posting signs in parking lot 7 communicating that loitering and loud noises are not
allowed and that the Palo Alto police department will actively enforce these rules.
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 6
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
-1 My understanding is that residents of Birch Court and other nearby areas have
2 complained to the city regarding these issues for some time. As a result, we would
3 appreciate action based on the issues that we’ve raised, and we are very interested in the
4 results of this meeting. Thanks.
5
6
7
8
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you Mr. Herman. Mr. Kerber.
Mr. Gre~ Kerber. Resident: Would it be possible for me to just let Miss Habbeshaw go
ahead?
Ms. Capor~no: I’m sorry, I can’t hear you.
9 Mr. Kerber: Would it be possible for me to just let Miss Habbeshaw go ahead of me?
-10 Ms. Caporgno: That’s fine. Miss Habbeshaw followed by John Abraham -(Correction)
-1 "1 followed by Mr. Kerber and then John Abraham.
-12 Ms. Lisa Habbeshaw. Resident: Hi; my name is Lisa Habbeshaw, and I am a resident at
-13 Birch Court condominiums, 2504 Birch. I live in the unit that Mr. Holland had
-14 referenced that he had previously occupied, and Mr. Herman and Miss Midori are in the
-15 units above me.
16 I’d like to present to you some documents for the record. One is a May 23 letter to
"17 Steven Emslie, one is a paper I just entitled "Discussion Points Overview," followed by a
"18 paper, just a summary about discussion points, sleep deprivation and health consequents,
"I 9 and recommendations for bridging the gap between letting Mr. Montooth conduct his
20 business, make a buck, the folks in the neighborhood enjoy the bar, and the residents
2"I enjoy their homes and live harmoniously together. So with your permission I’d like to
22 just start my testimony by reading select parts out of these 2-!/2 pages followed by the
23 recommendations, followed with a couple of comments to address some points that other
24 folks have given. That’s pretty much all I have to say. If that meets with your approval
25 I’ll get started. Thank you.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
So anyway, the June 5 letter, in addition to the - I’m sorry - the May 23 letter to Mr.
Emslie, the document entitled "Discussion Points Overview" and "Discussion Points,
Sleep Deprivation Consequences and Recommendations," followed my summary of
incident report numbers, dates, and times, as well as police incident reports themselves.
Thank you. And here’s a software copy. And I’m sorry - there’s also an article,
Monday, June 4, 2002, from the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Smoking Bars the
Law to Butt Out." Thank you.
I’ll start with key points from my letter - Oh, actually where I really need to begin is by
stating where the spirit of my comments are coming from, and that is again two points in
common ground, figure out what’s reasonable for us to coexist harmoniously in a
neighborhood where we’ve got some mixed use in businesses, adjoining residences. So
my information gets pretty focused, and what it doesn’t focus on with equal attention on
the paper is my intention to be a good neighbor, to allow Mr. Montooth to have his
business and our folks in the community enjoying his business, having their moment of
fun but figuring out some common ground where we can have our sleep in peace and
health.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
2
4
10
"12
~4
18
20
21
22
2~
24
2~
2~
27
2~
2~
30
31
32
34
~7’
~8
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
So from the May 23 letter, beginning with the paragraph that Doug discusses the primary
problems. The primary problems are perhaps best characterized as any number of issues
created by drunk and disorderly patrons who frequent Antonio’s including the outdoor
patio and then congegate in the Palo Alto parking lot 7 and create a variety of
disturbances from Antonio’s patio and the parking lot. The problems are exacerbated by
several factors including (1) Antonio’s has business hours as late as 2:00 a.m. most
evenings; (2) Antonio’s has an outdoor patio that is situated only 300 feet from living
space occupied at the Birch Court condominiums, and the patio extends onto Antonio’s
parking lot which is essentially an extension of Palo Alto parking lot 7. The loud banter
and lively conversation extends onto Antonio’s parking lot - I’m sorry; the loud banter
and lively conversation of patio patrons echoes throughout Palo Alto parking lot 7 and
beyond, to our residents creating a persistent disturbance between the hours of 11:00 PM
and 2:00 AM most evenings, especially during warm weather; (3) The patio problem is
further exacerbated by the fact that the outdoor patio encourages several patrons and
others to con~egate beyond the patio railing and then engage the patio patrons in loud
banter and lively conversation, collectively by group, often ~eater in number than
intended for the capacity of the patio area. The echo from the noise generated by the
larger crowd carries more vigorously across Palo Alto parking lot 7 and beyond to our
residents and creating an even ~eater disturbance; (4) During Antonio’s business hours
and even after Antonio’s closes nightly at 2:00 AM, their patrons tend to con~egate and
linger in Palo Alto parking lot 7 and act in a disorderly fashion, including more loud
banter, yelling, and blasting music from their car radios; (5) Moreover, the patio
disturbances and parking lot disturbances are compounded by the fact that the southern
perimeter of Palo Alto parking lot 7 is situated nearly 65 feet from the section of the
Birch Court condominium property that houses the residents most greatly affected by this
problem; (6) Palo Alto parking lot 7 accommodates approximately 150 vehicles which
are retrieved by several seemingly drunk and clearly disorderly patrons, consistently
creating disturbances up to and beyond2:00 AM. As the numbers of the cars in the
parking lot increases, the problem escalates exponentially; (7) The disorderly and
seemingly drunk patrons depart Antonio’s premises and staggered increments such that
the disturbances are typically not isolated daily events, but rather the staggered depam~es
from Antonio’s tend to create a daily stream of disturbances .that often span over an
extended period of time throughout the late evening and early morning hours, typically
extending up to and beyond 2:00 AM; (8) Disturbances from Antonio’s patios also
includes loud crashing noises as glass bottles from Antonio’s are thrown into dumpsters
when Antonio’s staff disposes of their daily collection of empty bottles, again, typically
after 2:00 AM and before 8:00 AM. I believe that the operation of Antonio’s Nut House,
closing most or all evenings at 2:00 AM are unreasonable for an alcohol-serving
establishment which adjoins a residential neighborhood, especially considering that their
outdoor patio is approximately 300 feet from living space occupied at the bcc, and the
parking lot used by a large volume of their disorderly patrons is merely 65 feet from
residential living space.
Some suggestions that may help reduce or resolve the problems include - (1) Institute
reasonable hours of operations on the weekdays; (2) Close the outdoor patio at 11:00 PM
on weekdays; (3) Increase police patrols at Palo Alto parking lot 7 at 11:00 pm until all
drunk and disorderly patrons have departed; (4) Station a security guard to monitor the
City of Palo Alto
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
patrons at the parking lot from 11:00 PM until 3:00 AM; (5) Consider valet parking for
Palo Alto parking lot 7 on weekdays after 9:00 PM to reduce the ability of drunk and
disorderly patrons to congegate in the parking lot and cagy on after hours, partying,
yelling, horn-honking, and radio blasting, etc.; (6) Post warning signs at the entrances to
Palo Alto parking lot 7, advising patrons that people con~egating in the parking lot who
create disturbances after 11:00 PM may be cited for disorderly conduct; (7) Review
Antonio’s use permit and institute reasonable limitations and regulations to govern that
entity; (8) Carefully monitor these problems and consistently enforce such limitations and
regulations. These problems are in essence occurring in my back yard and are allowed to
persist, seemingly without checks and balances. This lies in stark contrast to the fact that
if these same disturbances came from the balcony of my residence, I’d be violating local
ordinances which ban such disturbances after 11:00 PM. I am confident that as such, this
situation were to persist from my balcony night after night, week after week, month after
month, I would be dealt with harshly by the authorities. While I’m not advocating harsh
action against Antonio’s, I do request that reasonable limits be explored and enforced,
especially since Antonio’s is a business entity profiting from the sale of alcohol to their
patrons, a notable portion of whom, in turn, consistently engage in the drunk and
disorderly conduct that is a nuisance to the neighborhood. In light of these facts, it seems
that Antonio’s should be held to a greater duty to abide by such regulations but at a
minimum, certainly at least during weekdays, they should be held at least to the same
standards as the private citizens that are most impacted by the nuisance they create.
Historically, this problem is ~eat enough to awaken me and!or prevent me from falling
asleep, even with my windows closed, together with the use of ear plugs. I’ve been
documenting dates of disturbances. I have also begun calling the police to report these
disturbances. And now I am also documenting incident report numbers issued by the
Palo Alto police department. Those are the most relevant parts of that letter.
So now, moving onto the relevant points in the discussion point page, captioned
"overview." This basically summarizes some of the key points such as noise, public
nuisance, sleep deprivation, loss of enjoyment of property, and interference with health,
safety and welfare as well as some other effects. And I’ll get started.
31 With regard to noise: Detrimental effects from excessive noise and a variety of
32 disturbances from Antonio’s, including the bar patrons, patio patrons, patrons
33 con~egating in the parking lot yelling, shouting of obscenities, fighting, horn-honking,
34 radio blasting, engine motors racing, motorcycle throttle rallies, car alarms, bins of empty
35 beer bottles crashing into the dumpsters, etc. The noise disturbance is essentially several
36 nights per week, month after month and has continued for years. Now I would like to
37 clarify a point there. I’ve only been a resident in the property since September But as
38 you wil! see as I go through reading this that there folks who’ve been there much longer
39 and this has been a persistent problem for them for much longer than myself. The noise
40 disturbance is compounded by extremely liberal hours of operation; i.e., 2:00 AM
41 nightly, and the duration of disturbances are not isolated events but rather drag on for
42 hours between 11:00 PM and 2:00 AM, typically allowing only 3-4 hours of
43 uninterrupted sleep per night - I want to emphasize, only 3-4 hours of uninterrupted sleep
44 per night. Very critical point.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Do’ector’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
Then I mentioned Palo Alto Municipal Code 9.10.010 which is the declaration of policy
that states in part: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City that the peace,
health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Palo Alto are required - the citizens of Palo
Alto require protection from excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises from any
and all sources in the community. And my footnote here is that may help Mr. Hernandez
focus his attention on whether or not this part of the code encompasses the yelling and
people’s voices, because by my reading of this, °’any and all sources of noise" are any and
all sources of noise. So that may be something for you to contemplate. The declaration
of policy further states that it is the intention of the City Council to control the adverse
affects of such noise sources on the citizen under any condition of use - which is why
we’re here today - especially those conditions of use which have the most severe impact
upon any person. And I cite the Municipal Code Section 9.10.050. As such, the Council
is respectfully encouraged to draw upon their collective wisdom in order to immediately
remedy these problems and help neighbors, intending to be good neighbors, find some
means by which Antonio’s and the local residents may coexist in harmony. Time is of
the essence, based on the detrimental effects noted below.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Then I move onto adverse effects and severe impact which are included in but are not
limited to the following: (1) Public nuisance - Public nuisance from Antonio’s premises
and drunk and disorderly patrons, trash, littering, public exposure, and urination, etc.
interfering with the residents’ ability to enjoy common rights other afforded to the
general public and behavior which unreasonably interferes with our health, safety, peace,
comfort, and convenience. I cite the governing authority as Municipal Code 9.56, section
010 talking about abating nuisances. "Abate" means to repair, replace, remove, destroy,
or otherwise remedy the condition in question by such means and in such manner and to
such extent as the enforcement officer in his judgment deems is necessary in the interest
of the general health, safety, and welfare of the community- health, safety, and welfare
of the community - emphasis added by the author and the speaker.
I also then reference City of Palo Alto discussion paper which is available on your Web
site which talks about land uses and classifications which was dated July 4, 2001. I direct
your attention to page 4, "land use categories and regulations regarding conditional use"
states in part, "While conditional uses are generally considered to be compatible where
appropriately mixed with permitted uses, the nature of the use of the operation requires
special review and regulation to ensure conditional does not result in a nuisance. I
suggest that we have a nuisance. And it is that operation that is compatible with the
environment and the existing land uses.
I also cite, too, Municipal Code 9.48.040 regarding the issues of trash and urination in
which the code states, "No person shall place, put, throw, or in any other manner deposit
rubbish, debris, or discard any material of any kind or character upon a sidewalk, street,
alley, gutter, or any other place in the city."
Moving onto the next adverse affect, sleep deprivation. I’ll actually save the sleep
deprivation comments to take that off the point paper that talks about sleep deprivation.
Loss of use of enj oyment of property and interference with health, safety, and welfare.
I’ll limit the comments there to saying the activity described in my testimony interferes
with the residents’ ability to enjoy our common rights other afforded to the general
Cir. of Palo Alto
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
public, and the attendant behavior from the patrons unreasonably interferes with our
health, safety, peace, comfort, and convenience and welfare.
Next point is - I mentioned earlier from the May 23 letter - that this noise continues even
beyond closed windows and use of earplugs. With the extremely warm temperatures
we’re subject to here in the summer, to keep windows closed in a building where we have
no air conditioning puts me at risk for heat exhaustion issues. There’s also issues
concerning offensive behavior that offends my moral values such as pubic exposure,
public urination, shouting obscenities, drunk and disorderly conduct. There’s other issues
concerning financial impact which can include health care expenses, relocation expenses
if we can’t reach reasonable ground and I’m forced to relocate, issues impacting my job
performance, increased risk of injuring myself or others from lack of sleep. And it’s welt
documented and there are medical journal citations that say one evening of sleep
deprivation renders an individual equally as incapacitated as someone who’s legally
drunk. So let me reiterate - increased risk of injuring myself or others from lack of sleep.
Based on the above, the conditional use at 321 California Avenue, under existing
circumstances, has been and continues to be detrimental and injurious to our residents at
Birch Street and the adjoining properties in the ways noted above. For example, one
resident, Sylvia Smythen whose comments I believe you’re going to read into the record.
I don’t recall-that happening. I’m not sure if that happens at the end. Sylvia Smythen has
stated I believe to Mr. Turner that she has lived in the property over 18 years, and this has
been a problem her persisting throughout that duration of time. You’ve heard Mr.
Kerber’s testimony, or you’re about to rather. He’s lived there for an extended period of
time as well. Mr. Herman, two years; Midori, eight months, such as myself. These are
persistent problems. Other considerations include enforcement challenges faced by the
police and others to obtain compliance with the rules and regulations governing these
issues. The inherent ability of Antonio’s to consistently attract large crowds of patrons is
a problem. Also the unexplored issue of over-serving alcohol, alcohol beyond the patio
railing - and I am an individual, you may want to question me after I’m done reading that
has witnessed people carrying alcohol beyond the patio limits and into the adjoining
Antonio’s parking lot as well as Palo Alto parking lot 7. The persistent and unwanted
noise is also a recognized form of torture, and I don’t need to overstate that, but our own
US military uses persistent and unwanted noise as torture, and I’m feeling tortured by this
whole series of events.
34 Moving on - Pursuant to the conditional use permit findings and conditions, Palo Alto
35 Municipal Code Sec. 18.90.060B: "The Zoning Administrator may impose such
36 reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purpose
37 of this title and to insure the operation of use in a manner existing with the potential uses
38 of the adjoining properties." I also direct your attention to Palo Alto Municipal Code
39 18.90.080, Section B, which states, "In determining whether the use is conducted in a
40 manner that is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, the Zoning
41 Administrator shall consider, but not be limited to, the following: increased traffic,
42 insufficient parking, increased hours of operation, increased noise level, and increased
43 capacity." At least four of these factors are serious issues. And the gravity of the
44 problem becomes even more apparent once the above-noted bullet point items, which
45 were those that I’ve just enumerated moments ago, are added to the equation, the issue
City of Palo Alto Page l 1
Director "s HearhTg - June 5, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
becomes egregious. In light of the duration of the problem, nearly two decades, the
frequency of the duration - several nights per week seemingly night after night between
the house of 11:00 PM and 2:00 AM, the health impact, the security issues, the history of
repeated code violations, the enforcement issues, etc., the City should carefully
contemplate the facts and draw on their collective wisdom of the Council to find
reasonable solutions that can be effectively managed and enforced, and enforcement is a
difficult challenge here, and I’ll speak to that after I’m done reading the next half page.
Then I cite, too, Muni Code Sec. 1.04.040 that states, "The provisions of the conditional
use permit are to be construed with a view to effect its objectives and promote justice.
And again, the objectives were addressed earlier on about the citizens of Palo Alto
require protection from excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises from any and all
sources in the community. Justice calls for imposing some reasonable conditions upon
which the commercial interests and the residential interests may be fairly balanced.
Please consider the suggestions that I’ll get to on this next page.
This is a summary regarding inadequate, or sleep deprivation consequences.
Ms. Caporgno: Miss Habbeshaw, I think that the fact -that aspect of it, if you could just
m~ybe focus your...
Ms. Habbeshaw: I’ll read the three...
Ms. Capor,_.~o: ...the recommendations
Ms. Habbeshaw: I’ll focus on the three points that are in red. The gravity of these issues
concerning sleep deprivation and public health has compelled the National Sleep
Foundation to commission a public service campaign that warns about the dangers of
sleep deprivation. Again, the gravity of these issues concerning sleep deprivation and
pubic health has compelled the National Sleep Foundation to commission a public service
campaign that warns about the dangers of sleep deprivation. In summarizing, amid a
study of 56 studies, experts recommend that a range of 7 to 9 hours of sleep a night is
necessary for adults of every age. And finally, sleeping five hours or less per night is
associated with an astounding 30% increase in risk of cardiac heart disease, and sleeping
six hours per night is associated with an 18% greater risk. Women who sleep eight hours
per night have the lowest risk of cardiac heart disease.
31 Moving onto the recommendations - (1) Based on these findings, Antonio’s hours of
32 operation should not extend beyond 10:00 PM on weekdays and 11:00 PM on Friday and
33 Saturday so that the local residents may get the full eight hours of sleep that our bodies
34 require so that we are not needlessly left to suffer dramatic and potentially fatal health
35 consequences; (2) Carefully manage the noise conditions and nuisances issues regarding
36 Antonio’s premises - and "premises" incidentally by the code extends to, as I’m sure you
37 know, the attendant public parking lots and public sidewalks. So carefully manage the
38 issues regarding Antonio’s premises, the two patios, side patio as well as the front patio,
39 and adjoining sidewalks and parking lots, implement and strictly enforce use permit
40 conditions and city ordinances, albeit it’s a challenge to try to reason with intoxicated
41 people and to effectively encourage them to behave appropriately. And these
42 enforcement challenges actually have had recently an extensive conversation with Officer
43 Wilke who validated my comments and concerns about what is a reasonable way for
City of Palo Alto Page i2
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
local police to enforce this as well as the owners and management of Antonio’s. Close
the side patio and!or limit the use of the patio and limit the patio hours. It should be
noted that the patio is not - the patio noise a nuisance is not just limited to warm weather.
According to Antonio’s owner, Tony Montooth, outdoor heaters are provided, and he
uses a couple of propane tanks per night, as he cites in a November 18, 2002 article in the
News Journal in the Wilmin~on Delaware, an article entitled °’The Effects Out West"
which talks about moving smokers outside. Mr. Montooth is also quoted in that article as
saying that if a smoker comes into the bar and lights up, he asks that person to leave and
go to the outdoor patio. Mr. Montooth, in that article, states - and I quote - "There are
often more of his patrons gathered on the patio than sitting around the bar." To manage
the crowd that Antonio’s draws, the local and neighboring boozing patrons - and I use
the word "boozing" because there is an article, "Boozing Down the Line" which
encourages folks to use CalTrain to come off the California Avenue stop down to 321
California Avenue and booze it up. And the article comments that it’s a haven for young
folks and the boozers, which is fine; they’re entitled to their fun. But at some point they
need to go home and we need to go to sleep.
Insure that Antonio’s does not prop open their back door, which incidentally is a fire code
violation, which encourages their patrons to loiter in parking lot 7 and to ensure that
patrons don’t carry alcohol beyond the patio railing, parking lots, and sidewalks. Ensure
that Antonio’s does not empty their beer bottles or trash from 11:00 PM or before 8:00
AM, so on and so forth. There’s citations to all of the medical journals that are
referenced above. And I incorporate by reference anything else that I didn’t read into the
record that’s in these documents.
24 And I just want to echo what others have said about the police reports. When they show
25 no violation, that there’s a variety of factors - some legitimate, some perhaps less
26 legitimate - that may account for the fact that the report is as such when in fact, the
27 disturbance has occurred by the time the folks get there. And also let me point out -
2[3 when the disturbance happens, the harm is done at that point. So this needs to be really
29 focused On from a prevention standpoint in how we can reasonably limit the use of the
30 property so that we don’t have these nuisances and noise problems.
31
32
33
So that pretty much summarizes my comments. Any questions?
Ms. Caporgno: I have one. You gave us a very complete testimony, but did you have
any problem accessing anything from the City? I know you had some ....
34 Ms. Habbeshaw: Yes I did. I actually was down trying to get the file, I believe it was
35 two days ago, and it was not available. There was, however, of course - I forget the
36 name of the computer system that you can pull up information live - that was obviously
37 available though I will note, it seemed to be incomplete in that there were no records in
38 there about when the patio extension was made, what the capacity of the patio is, what
39 the permit conditions are associated with that. When I asked where the file was, they said
40 that they believed Amy French (Manger of Current Planning) would have it. And I
41 pointed to the clipping from the newspaper, saying "Look, it said it would be available
42 during these days and such time. Here I am, I came down specifically to look at it, it’s
43 not available." And based on that, if you are accepting additional live testimony or facts
44 to present to the record at a later date, I’d like to add on.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
1 Ms. Capora-no: Mr. Kerber, followed by Mr. Abraham, and I think that’s the end of the
2 cards that I have on this item. If there’s anybody else who wants to submit something,
3 make sure you do it now. Thank you. And Mr. Kerber, I would ask both you and Mr.
4 Abraham to cut it so we can ???.
5 Gre~ Kerber. Resident: This will be short, or I’ll try to make it short. I think Miss
6 Habbeshaw pretty much covered anything that I could possibly say. But a couple of
7 things - Once again, I want to ask that this be continued (1) because of the information
8 that I got like I said, recently, that covers both the 260 and 321 from the police
9 department, that was yesterday; and also the fact that I did the same thing. I came down,
10 I think John came down to look at the file. This is the first time I’ve seen the file.
11
12
14
15
16
Mr. Kerber: I understand that, but I mean, as I indicated, the paper indicates that it should
be available to us, and here we are at the meeting and now, this is the first time we’re
getting a chance to look at the file. So all I would ask is that either we be allowed to add
in materials in the next week or that you continue this at another time so that we will be
able to add in the materials that we haven’t been able to prepare because the
documentation was just not available to us.
17 The only other thing that I can say I guess is since I’m probably the longest standing
18 resident who’s here who’s been affected by this, I’ve lived there for 19 years. These two
19 establishments have been a problem for 19 years. This hasn’t just happened yesterday.
20 Once again, I’ve made - I think unfortunately, the police department reports only go back
21 now to ’99. I don’t think they go back further than that. That’s my understanding that
22 before that, I’m not sure there’s anything available. But if it was available, you would
23 see me as a complainer calling in the police department on numerous occasions to
24 complain about the kinds of things that Miss Habbeshaw was talking about, for Antonio’s
25 and for The Edge. And The Edge has gone through an infinite number of incarnations.
26 It’s been under different names, different management, but I’m just saying there’s a
27 history, a history over the last 19 years for both establishments with regard to noise. And
28 I guess with regard to the use permit for Antonio’s, it does say under Section 3,
29 "Compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances including Title 9, Title 15, Title 4,
30 and Title 19." Then a little bit further down it says, "The use permit is ganted in
31 accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 which Miss Habbeshaw
32 cited of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. As far as I’m concerned, once again, this
33 is not only a noise issue, it’s a public health issue, and for the reason that she stated.
34 Nineteen years of having problems with sleep deprivation is enough. I think that at some
35 point this needs to be amended, the use permit needs to be amended, and I think that the
36 suggestions that have been made would go a !ong way. All we’re asking for is that after
37 11:00 at night, once again as with The Edge, we have some peace and quiet, and that’s
38 not available to us.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
I just want to add that some of the sources of noise - Lisa went over these, but I’ll just
tell you the things that I’ve noticed over the years - People yelling and screaming in the
parking lot, honldng horns, car alarms going off, car radios, fights going on, bottles being
thrown, cars leaving, even up to 4:00 in the morning, cars leaving. Somebody - I don’t
know what it is, maybe it’s an employee, but somebody down there has what I guess -
show my age here - people used to use glass packs on cars, on mufflers. You rev those
things up and they sound like some diesel trucks coming down the road. Well somebody
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Director "s Hearing - June 5, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
is leaving that parking lot every night at 3:00 and beyond doing just that - sitting there,
revving up a car for an interminable amount of time, creating more noise. I don’t know
who it is, but it’s happening on a consistent basis, so I’m assuming it’s not just somebody
who’s in the neighborhood by coincidence.
By the way, one other thing with regard to this whole issue of noise and public safety.
One of my calls - this is ironic - one of my calls, I thought noise was coming from The
Edge, so I called up and I said, "Hey, listen, I’m hearing music. Can you send somebody
down, give me an incident number." They gave me an incident number. The officer
came down; no, the noise wasn’t coming from The Edge, it was coming from a car radio
in Antonio’s parking lot. And that’s in the incident report. So I mean, this is the nature
of the kinds of complaints that we’ve called in about. And I want you to be clear about
this - this happens on a routine basis. This is not something that happens infrequently. I
think everybody who’s testified before me has indicated that.
14 I want to say one thing about the police. Once again, as Lieutenant Hernandez has
15 indicated, often there’s a delay between the time the call is made and the time they get
16 there. Often the patrons have left. It’s probably even worse in this instance than it would
17 be with The Edge. Within five or ten minutes of people out there yelling and screaming -
18 bingo, they’re gone. They’re in their cars and they’re gone. So the problem is people
19 being outside the bar. If they were in the bar or they were immediately leaving, we
20 would probably have less of a problem than we have now. But that’s not the problem.
21 They’re loitering in the parking lot, they either go back into the club or they leave. And
22 so that’s the nature of the problem. With the regard to no violations, if they’ve left and
23 the officer arrives, there’s no violation - that’s it, they can’t cite anybody for anything.
24 So every time it says "no violation" on an incident report, I would caution you that the
25 police reports generally would not necessarily be an accurate reflection of what’s going
26 on I the parking lot at Antonio’s because if nobody’s there when they arrive - and by the
27 way, I’m just going to add one last thing - I was told by the police department that no
28 violation - I think this is wrong, and Lieutenant Hernandez can refer to this - I was told
29 by another police department staff member that "no violation" as far as they were
30 concerned, could mean that there might have been a violation taking place, but they
31 decided not to cite. Now I don’t know if that’s accurate, John can refer to that, but that’s
32 what I was told. So once again, when yOU see no violation, you don’t necessarily know
33 what that means. So that’s basically it. And I guess all we were going to ask for is if
34 there’s any way to supervise or make sure that in that parking lot on a nightly basis,
35 somebody can make sure, because of restrictions that may be added to that use permit,
36 that these kinds of problems don’t happen on a routine basis, we would be pleased.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you Mr. Kerber. Mr. Abraham. And I again would like to urge
you to be quick. These other individuals are waiting for a hearing that was to start hours
ago.
Mr. Kerber: I’ll try to be very brie£ I would suggest that if you do a little bit as I did,
make a site visit over there at Antonio’s and along California Street, either as you go
across the other establishment and Antonio’s at the corner. The little patio area is about -
the owner could verify this or not - I would say it’s not too much different in area as this
table here. It’s a small area that we’re talking about. The problem is that when this was
constructed or added, I guess some time in ’98, it never got an impact study, it never got
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Director’s HearhTg - June 5, 2003
.1 any noise analysis. There was no conception of how much problem this would cause.
And so if you do a visit, I think you’ll agree with me. At the comer there you’re going to
3 get 70 or so decibels. It’s a pretty noisy area just from there. And as you proceed down
4 that parking lot to parking lot 7 you’re going to hear intermittent noise. People do all of
5 the things that have been talked about.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
The other thing is that when you’re talking about people living there, basically you need
ten decibels less to rest at night. Everybody needs ten decibels less at night in order to
get some kind of sleep. So you need that quiet time of the evening to recover from the
day, and that is precisely when all these problems are occurring. And I’m not saying that
there’s a conspiracy by Antonio’s or their patrons. It just happens that people
individually make noise on a random basis. And there’s a crash her, a slam there -all of
these things that everybody’s been talking about - that area is already at a threshold. It
really does need appreciable help for the residents. Like I say, I don’t think there was
any noise impact study when that patio was added. I don’t believe it was a good idea. If
it were to be closed it would make sense to me. It migaht help the problem. By all means,
I hope you will be open to restrictions on parking in those two parking lots. Parking lot
7, it does have a sign there with restrictions, right at Antonio’s. So if you do make a site
visit, if you can make sense of that sign, it may be that it just needs to be enforced. But at
any rate, I would encourage you to make a site visit and keep the neighbors in mind on
this. Thank you.
Mr. Turner: To that I just wanted to read one more set of comments in that I received
from a Miss Sylvia Smythen who lives at the Birch Street condominium complex. She’s
a resident there, she could not make it at the meeting today. She does a~ee that there’s a
noise problem, that it is very noisy bet~veen the house of 1:00 and 2:00 AM. There seems
to be a persistent problem with motorcycles that in the warmer weather there seems to be
more of a problem. But she also stated that she has no objection to the use permit itself.
She’s looking to have Antonio’s just be a better neighbor to the community.
Ms. Capor._~no: Now is there anyone else who has any - who wants to provide any
testimony? Mr. Montooth, would you like to respond?
Mr. Montooth: Yes.
Ms Capor,~ono: And I have a couple questions for you, and I’ll try to hurry this along
because I know there are other items on the agenda.
33 Mr. Montooth: See if I can remember all this. One thing that they didn’t mention that
34 how far, they’ve mentioned how close they live to my place, but how close are they to the
35 railroad tracks, too? I lived on the railroad tracks in Palo Alto, and they’re noisier than
36 hell - excuse me - and they live almost as close to the railroad tracks as they are to my
37 place, and the railroad train comes through there. And see if I can remember all this - my
38 janitor, he usually works between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning when he dumps in the
39 garbage can. I’ve actually heard that noise myself because sometimes I get there early.
40 But they’re 100 yards away, I would like to address maybe who built this building. You
4"1 say you’re the manager, but has it got double pane, single pane, three pane glass? Are the
42 walls insulated?
43 Speaker: Double-paned windows.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Ms. Capoggno: .You can just ??? the comments.
Mr. Montooth: Okay, I’m sorry, okay. I was trying to remember everything I’d like to
read. And if it’s this bad for 19 years, ifI lived someplace that bad 19 years, man, I’d
move. And we run a nice business, people enjoy it, I’ve been there 30 years, and the
outside patio, like I said, the only reason I did it because of the non-smoking thing. And
we control our patron but we can’t control them once they leave the place. But most of
our people are really nice. The police department are great. And if there is a noise back
there, if they come, they take care of it. And I don’t think, you can ask the officer here,
we have very few fights or any real things wrong in our place. It’s a nice nei~hborhood
place. Most of the people - like he read that last letter - most people enjoy the place.
And we are in a college town, Palo Alto is a beautiful town, and we provide a little
service to them. They party, have a good time. It’s a nice place and we’d like to
continue.
Ms. Caporgno: I just have a couple questions for you. The neighbors have mentioned
emptying bottles early in the morning. Is there any reason why you have to empty or put
bottles I assume from...
Mr. Montooth: No, that’s when the janitor works because we open at 9:00 or 10:00 in the
morning so the janitor, he takes...
Ms. Capor~ono: I mean, would it be possible for him to put them in containers at 8:00 in
the morning as opposed to...
Mr. Montooth: Well I can talk to him about it, sure, no problem there. Oh, that’s another
thing. We close our back door at 10:00. The back door and side door is closed at 10:00
Ms. Caporp~no: I’ve also got another question in mind. I assume that after 10:00 then,
can you insure that it’s only used for emergency purposes and it wouldn’t be allowed for
entrance.
Mr. Montooth: We’ve done that. In fact, I jump on my girls if they don’t at night.
Ms. Capor._~o: And do you have a security guard on the premises?
Mr. Montooth: Just Thursday, Friday, and Saturdays - not a security guard, we don’t like
to call it that. We have a doorman that check IDs, that - younger ones that don’t get in.
Ms. Capo~gno: So does he go around in the rear of the premises.
Mr. Montooth: Yes. He’s right by the door where that patio area is and he checks IDs
coming in and everything. And we’ve told him - I mean, I don’t know; I’m not around
that much at night - we told him to keep the drinks, keep them inside there if we can,
keep the noise down as much as we can. But once they leave our area, we don’t have any
control. There’s a public parking lot back there. When they leave our area, we can’t -
we could get ourselves in trouble. We go back there, start a fight. Some of the officers
have been very nice. We try to handle everytNng ourself. But the officers told the
bartenders and everything to call them, if we have a problem, call them, let them handle
it.
Ms. Caporg-nof: Now my final question deals with this outdoor patio area. As I
mentioned earlier, when I went out there, I couldn’t fmd it. I found that there was a front
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Db-ector’s HearhTg - June _~ 2003
"1
2
3
4
5
door seating, but I never could see the outdoor, the outdoor patio area. And you
supposedly built this in the late 90s. There’s not any indication - wouldn’t we have to go
through a permit process for that?
Mr. Turner: Yes, there’d be an architectural review- for that.
Mr. Turner: And so I don’t have any information in the record regarding that.
Mr. Montooth: I didn’t get one. I just, because this no smoking thing came up in the bars
and everything, I had patio table - had picnic tables out there before, just a picnic table,
just open, because it’s in my parking lot. She made a mistake. She says it’s in the public
parking lot. But that is, I pay rent on that space, it’s my own parking. And the public
parking is behind back there. And so when - I was just trying to keep the people from
getting run over, people coming in the driveway there. And I used to have two patio
tables out there, been there for years and everything and people used to car, you know.
But then I put this up there, just a fence, just to keep the people from standing out in the
parking lot. And most of the time, I mean, they’re leaning over it or partying, visiting
with their friends and stuff like this. The police come by and tell them to keep the
alcohol inside there you kn0~v, at last while they’re there, whatever. But we keep them,
that’s up in the front, and that’s a full block from their house, it’s a full block. We’re on
the other corner. And if they can hear anything, the noise everything, I’ve stood out there
myself with our jukebox. We only have a jukebox. When they get going I can’t hear
anything, I myself. So we’d like to continue like I said.
2"1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you, Mr. Montooth. What I’m going to do is I’m going to continue
the hearing on this item also. I want an opportunity to go Out to the site one more time,
particularly to see this patio area. I also - this will enable anyone to look at their record
closely. I want everyone to know that at the next hearing on this, or a continuation of this
hearing, we’re going to just restrict the comments to anything new. I don’t want to have
to go through all of this all over again. So with that, I will turn it over to Amy.
Amy French: You’re going to continue this to a date certain with...
Ms. Capor,no: It’s going to be continued to June 19.
Ms. French: That’s at 3:00 PM.
Ms. Capor,no: Yes, it will be at 3:00 PM on that date.
Mr. Turner: Just for anybody who’s interested regarding the public records and the
administrative records, that binder will be available at the Development Center starting
tomorrow morning, and you can take a !ook at it.
City of Palo Alto
Director’s Hearing - June 5, 2003
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Director’s Hearing
Thursday, June 19, 2003
REGULAR MEEThVG- 2.’00 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Staff:
Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Steven Turne~; Planner
NEW BUSINESS:
Beginning at 3:00 pm:
321 California Avenue [73-UP-13]: Review of an existing Conditional Use Permit for
the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Antonio’s Nut House. Zone District CC (2) (R) (P)
Julie Caporgno. Advance Planning Manager: This is a continuation of the public hearing
from June 5. I believe all of you have been in attendance at the meeting at the beginning,
so I probably don’t need to go through the procedures again. But I would like to ask - I
have five speaker cards and I would like you to urge you to try to limit your comments to
any new information. I was hoping that the hearing would end by 5:00, so if we could try
to meet that I would appreciate it. And I said I have cards. Lisa Habbeshaw, Jeff
Herman, John Abraham, Midori-Kato Maeda, and Greg Kerber. And Miss Habbeshaw,
if you want to be the first speaker followed by Mr. Herman.
Mr. Steven Turner: Hearing Officer
Ms. Capor,ano: I’m sorry Steven...
Mr. Turner: Just wanted to give a summary of the points that we have brought up
generally. The testimony could be summarized in the following manner: (1) There was
testimony that there were siga’fificant noise problems to the residents at the Birch
Condominiums, that this was very late evening noise, that there were more problems with
noise and issues on the weekends, that smoking outside led to drinking outside, and that
could have led to public nuisances in the area. Other testimony involved indications that
sleep patterns were being disrupted and this was a public health issue, that cleaning
services and janitorial services for the facility, including the disposal of recyclable
materials, were a nuisance and that these were happening very late in the mornings -
early in the morning or late in the evening. There are also concerns about using calls for
service data as a tool for measuring the problems at Antonio’s. We received testimony
that patrons of Antonio’s were using the public lot C7 for mingling and loitering.
Testimony regarding that there were significant automobile and motorcycle noise and
City of Palo Alto
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
that the patio area, which includes a metal fence on the sidewalk adjacent to the building
did not receive proper planning reviews.
After listening to the testimony from last week staff is prepared to make some
recommendations in terms of modifications to the use permit. (1) We would like to have
Antonio’s come into compliance with his front patio area, and that compliance is dictated
by a letter written by Paul Camileri, our Code Enforcement Officer, dated June 13. And
in this letter it states that Antonio’s had not received the proper planning approvals for
construction of the patio fencing and that the patio fencing should be removed. Staff
would support that and would encourage if the proprietor of Antonio’s would like to
construct such a fence that he apply to the Planning Department for architectural review.
Ms. Caporgno: And I would just add, if that were to be the case, there will be a public
review process, so it would enable any of you who have concerns about this project to
comment at that time.
Ms. Amy French:: Actually if I can interject, too. I think that might involve something
related to the use permit, not just the ARB, because it involves...
Ms. Capor~no: We’d have to modify the use permit, that’s right.
Ms. French: Yeah, having a patio area legitimized through these process...
Ms. Caporgno: So there would be probably an ARB review as well as a director’s hearing
with a conditional use permit, so there will be two separate review processes is what
you’re saying.
Ms. French:: Yes.
Mr. Turner: Staff is also willing to recommend that Antonio’s have designated personnel
to control their patrons within their own private parking lot. Furthermore, we’re looking
to recommend that the refuse and recycling disposal take place between certain hours. A
recommendation is between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Furthermore, we would request as
a further condition to have Antonio’s return to a public hearing within 12 months or as
needed to review these conditions of approval. And finally, we would like to have
Antonio’s provide a menu, just to confirm that they are a bona fide eating establishment.
Antonio’s has indicated his willingness to provide that. So those would be staff
recommendations from the testimony received last week.
Ms. Capor.__~o: Thank you staff. And Mr. Montooth, do you have anything that you
would like to say at this time, or would you like ....
Mr. Tony Montooth, Proprietor: You pretty well covered it. There’s just one thing...
Ms. CaporgT~o: Would you come up to the microphone please.
Mr. Montooth: I had this whole thing [incoherent]. I did receive everything on the patio.
I’ve had picnic tables out there for 25-27 years. The fence was constructed to protect my
patrons from the cars coming through the driveway there into the parking lot because it
kind of got a little congested because of people smoking out there. And the last time I
went to the Planning Commission they told me that their computer didn’t go back that far
to get my use permit, so they were going to call me, and they never did and then I just
forgot about it. My neglect. But I had picnic tables out there, it was no problem taking
City of Palo Alto
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
Page 2
1
2
3
4
the fence down. And in my letter here - and again, there’s no reason to even consider
change or alter my use permit. There is real reason I will take care of it. I have for 30
years. I lived in Palo Alto for 30 years and intend to continue for another 30 years,
without or with my good neighbor.
On the refi_~se thing - my janitor doesn’t go to work until 7:30 and he gets the garbage at
8:00. Where they come up with that or anything, but I checked with him, I says, "Do you
ever get here earlier?" He says "no." He dumps the garbage at 8:00, he said 8:30,
because then we open at 9:00.
Ms. Caporgno: Now is there any access to your garbage bin by people for instance in the
parking lot who could be just throwing in bottles. Is there some way of locking the
garbage?
12 Mr. Montooth: I actually had locks on them before, and then they changed the sanitation
] 3 - the company changed and gave us new bins. I still have the key for the old locks, but
] 4 they just changed the bins for some reason. In fact, I went to arbitration with the
] 5 gentleman over here a year ago, and he was blaming me for the cardboard dumpsters
] 6 recycling the cardboard which is shared by all my neighbors. And that’s one thing in my
] 7 comments here. Blame me for something like that, there’s a bakery three doors, four
] 8 doors I think, from me. And they go to work at 3:00-4:00 in the morning. And I don’t
19 know about their garbage or whatever. I don’t think their garbage makes any noise or
20 whatever, flour sacks.
21 And I have security, I have people working to secure the parking lot, our parking, any
22 patrons, everything. I have two of my top managers here. They police the area every
23 night and make sure there’s nobody out there drinking now and keep them quiet, and they
24 work very hard at it. They go through a lot of abuse. Officer Wilke - they support them,
25 they help them, we have a really good thing with the police department becauge we have
26 very few calls and even the calls that we do have is just a social call where they come and
27 walk through.
28 Anything else? I forget. Oh - we have no live music, no amplified music or anything
29 like that. And I will take care of that outside area. Okay? Anything else?
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ms. Capor.ano: I have this available. I just got - the hours that your menu is available.
It’s my understanding, and Steven and Amy correct me if I’m wrong, but the menu, one
of the conditions of approval is that since you are operating as a restaurant, the entire
time that you are open, your menu is to be available to the public. And you list here that
your menu is available on Monday through Wednesday from 11:00-9:00 and Thursday
through Friday 11:00-11:00, Saturday 11:00-7:00. Could you explain the discrepancy
there? Am I correct in my...
Ms. Amy French: Yes. The existing use permit says that this establishment shall be a
bona fide eating place in that it does have a restaurant as bona fide restaurant. However,
how the City operates is that you need to be able to serve food the entire time you’re
serving alcohol.
41 Mr. Montooth: Not the entire - I think you can serve alcohol one or two hours after you
42 [incoherent]. That’s the ABC rules. I don’t know about the City.
Ci~ of Palo Alto
Director’s Hearing - ,Iune 19, 2003
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ms French: Okay. So the police department was handed something that was from the
ABC saying what the business and professions code ...
Mr. Turner: And Julie, staff will go ahead and confirm. Palo Alto may have other
ordinances that are more restrictive than the ABC rules for serving alcoho! and providing
food. So we’ll check to make sure of that.
Mr. Montooth: Okay.
Ms. French: And the attorney’s office who - [incoherent] not here, but he can certainly
Ms. Caporgno: I will consult...
Mr. Montooth: Because I have the restaurant leased out and see, they operate the food.
So I can change that where I can have them open more hours, it doesn’t matter.
Ms. Cap0r~no: Okay. Thank you Mr. Montooth. Now we will get to the public
testimony. Again, Lisa Habbeshaw followed by Jeff Herman followed by John Abraham
followed Midori-Kato Maeda, and followed by Greg Kerber.
Ms. Lisa Habbeshaw. Resident: I’d like to submit a couple documents. I don’t intend to
read everything I’m submitting, much to I’m sure your delight. To begin with, if I may.
When we were here last you had mentioned during your site inspection you had not seen
the patio. And here’s a view of the patio with three up-close shots - actually four up-
close shots, excuse me - followed by my view of the patio from my balcony, and the
door where they empty the trash is here. When there’s not leaves on that tree I can see
that. From basically the edge perimeter of the building, looking at Antonio’s building,
looking to Birch Street condominium. The front patio at Antonio’s and I think Steven
Turner just referenced the front patio, and I would like clarification - are we talking
about the side patio that’s gated or the front patio area that has seating as well?
Ms. Capor.~n0:: The side patio is the one over here?
25 Ms. Habbeshaw: ... and finally, just the front door at the hours of operation which
26 highlights the discrepancy that you guys just pointed out with regards to the menu. That
27 takes care ofphotogaphs.
28 There were some things in the public record with regard to The Edge. Erica Spencer’s
29 inspections of The Edge when she went out to do these inspections, but she ended up on
30 three occasions commenting about commotion at Antonio’s, so there’s those e-mails. A
31 copy of the amended use permit for The Edge which has a couple ofpara~aphs of
32 language with regard to security which I’m going to comment on, and patio operations.
33 Just by example, what has been implemented or suggested with regard to The Edge.
34 Newspaper article from yesterday’s San Jose Mercury about two robbery suspects that
35 were at Antonio’s and the fact that they’re under age, at least one is under age. The
36 actual article is attached behind.
37 Mr. Montooth: Can I respond to that now or later?
38 Ms. Caporgno: You can respond to it later. Let me take the [incoherent].
39 Ms. Habbeshaw: We had touched on this last time so I won’t read this today. But this is
40 just more information on public and private nuisance and what constitutes that. Statutory
41 authority for enforcement of noise codes and nuisance. By example, a memo from
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
Officer Wilke to Lieutenant Fisher of May 13, 2002, where he mentions his night safe
program and adopt-a-bar program. But he also mentions something perhaps problematic
about whether or not continued enforcement of individual noise complaints is warranted.
And finally, a white paper on security. I’m going to read some excerpts from that with
your permission. And then frankly I’d like to focus on solutions. I am talking
coincidentally with Steven Turner just briefly when I was inspecting the public record. It
was my tmderstand that the staff was going to come up with some recommendations. I’m
not clear where we’ve agreed there are our legitimate issues and problems, so it’s a little
hard for me to talk in abstract about proposed solutions. But as a side bar to that, when
we agree about solutions, the next point that I think Dee Smith’s story really punctuates is
where’s the enforcement leg of that? How do we insure compliance enforcement.
Ms. Caporgno: Miss Habbeshaw, I would just like to ask if you could try to limit your
testimony to five minutes. I don’t want to curtail anybody if they have something very
important to say, but I would like, as I said before, to possibly end the meeting by 5:00.
So if you could...
Ms. Habbeshaw: Refrain from talking too much.
Ms. Capor,~ono: And we have all of this information and if you could just focus on the
[incoherent] information.
Ms. Habbeshaw: All right. In light of that and in consideration of everybody here today,
I won’t read verbatim the security points. You can read that just as well as I can. But a
couple of things to note: Every bar including Antonio’s has a critical intensity period
which is roughly around last call. And while there’s been some inference today that well,
there’s not always noise between 11:00 and 2:00, or 11:00 and 3:00, or 11:00 and 4:00,
whatever it is, therefore we aren’t subjected to that. Actually there’s frequently noise
prior to 11:00. But as a good neighbor and someone who understands that we’re in a
mixed use community, I’m more than happy to indulge up until 11:00. So I wanted to be
clear on that. There’s a security expert, Chris McGuey, who writes extensively about
nightclubs and bars. And he has several articles out there, but one of his points is that
you need to constantly monitor these folks who are drinking, especially if it’s a popular
club, which I believe we’d get a consensus that Antonio’s is that. It tends to attract a
younger crowd. Frankly I’ve never been inside the fine establishment, but it would
appear to be, based on Officer Wilke’s comments, that he consistently draws a large
crowd, that it is popular regardless of the demographics. But I understand in talking with
people who are patrons that consistently there is a younger group as well.
35 So this Officer McGuey basically points to the fact that if you are over-serving or you
36 have overcrowding, or you’re allowing minors in the facility or that you’re attracting
37 known troublemakers, that you have some extra challenges. So even separate and apart
38 from that - and I’m not here to debate how many of those McGuey elements are
39 necessarily at issue - I think it’s fair to say that at least from my perspective, several Of
40 them are. But even assuming they’re not, we have the issues before us that we do. And
41 the broader issues as we highlighted the last time are the noise, the nuisance, but not just
42 as such but as the public health and safety and welfare issue.
43 So Ill turn my attention to some of the suggestions or areas where I think we could
44 hopefully come to some agreement. Steven Turner had touched on some of these in his
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
]opening remarks, but I’m interested in clearly identifying hours of operations indoors.
2 I’m also interested in clarification now at this point with regard to the outdoor patio. My
3 understanding is that it needs to be demolished and it may or may not be able to be
4 reconstructed based on applications and so on and so forth. I would also like clarification
5 whether an environmental impact study will be done in advance of that in addition to the
6 use permit and whatever ARB regulations there are, and whatever studies would be
7 necessary, given the public health, safety and welfare issues. So we touched on the fact
8 about the hours to serve alcohol need to be consistent with a menu service. Hours of
9 deliveries, having bouncers on the premises, having security guards on the remises -
] 0 security guards that are licensed by the State of California. And I believe in The Edge
] ]amended use permit they do talk about the requirement that these security guards actually
] 2 be licensed and trained by the State of California which is a very important factor so
] 3 you’re not having ad hoc people stepping in and assuming the role of a bouncer, having
] 4 someone who’s not particularly trained in managing the crowds and these particular
] 5 issues.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The hours of janitorial services, from my balcony, I have seen the bottles being emptied
after 11:00, after 12:00, after 1:00, after 2:00, and again at 7:00 AM. So be that as it
may, I’m not here to debate that point per se at his moment. Increasing police patrols and
response I think is also important. But as we established last time, they are not
necessarily there at the operative moment, and I think really managing the crowd from
the inside as well as managing the parking lot and the sidewalks where the patrons linger
is really key.
So in focusing on that, I think the next critical element is really how to manage the crowd
in their ingress and egress, particularly the last call exodus into Palo Alto parking lot 7.
And I’d be very interested in staff comments about what kind of restrictions would be
available to the parking lot. I recognize Hotel California is nearby and their patrons also
would need use of the parking lot. Perhaps people who are not hotel guests could have
some restriction about not parking in the parking lot after the hours of operation have
closed. So whereby if they linger and loiter they can be ticketed, they can be towed.
People can be ticketed for disorderly conduct or harassment or whatever else they’re
doing that is documentable. But I think a critical element is how to manage the parking
lot. And whether that’s having a security guard there or chaining it off much like they do
at The Icon, directing the patrons to alternate parking spots. And we’ve got a $2 million
parking garage easily within walking distance, right behind Country Sun that
accommodates a huge number of patrons. So there’s other Palo Alto services to be
explored such as shuttle services and the outreach drive programs and what-not, but that
pretty much covers that, other than to say I really am interested in getting a commitment
about what kind of complaints documented, in what form to the police versus to Planning
is going to trigger additional review. And Steven Turner had mentioned, I think knowing
that there’s a mechanism that will refocus everybody, should an agreement be reached
that is reasonable, and then people fall off the wagon so to speak, that we don’t have to
suffer and have our health impacted for a whole year before we revisit this issue. And
from my perspective, four complaints in a month should be the triggering mechanism and
a combination of calls and - calls and police but also notifying Planning. As we’ve
established before, calls to the police don’t necessarily result in incident reports or
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
violations or what have you. But I think we need some clear mechanism for what’s going
to trigger an additional review.
And I think I’ve gone slightly over my five minutes. Thank you very much unless you
have any questions.
Ms. Capog,~no: You had asked about - I think, about the - what would be the process if
someone were to apply an environmental review. I think you mentioned that. If there
were an application made to the City, there would be for an outdoor dining area, there
would be an environmental review that would be undertaken in conjunction with
whatever proposal the applicant put forward. And I don’t know if the staff wants to
mention anything about the possible restrictions in parking lot 7, if there would be any we
could impose, I don’t know what the city could do.
Mr. Turner: I checked with the attorney’s office and they indicated that there would be
significant legal issues for conditions of approval that related to private overseeing or
private policing of a public parking lot. Having representatives or employees of
Antonio’s go into the public parking lot and disperse ~oups of people, if the City
requires that, that may open up significant legal issues and challenges to the City that the
City may not be able to - and that this may not hold up in court. So the attorney’s office
is of the opinion that it would be difficult to require private security to police a public
parking lot. And so we would be looking for other opportunities to add conditions to this
use permit to regulate the activity of that parking lot, if it’s working with the police
department in a way to enforce the rules and restrictions of gathering within a parking lot.
We’d be interested in looking at that.
Ms. Caporgno: So it wouldn’t really be tied to this conditional use permit, it would be
that the City could restrict the parking lot use period, and it would prohibit use by patrons
at later hours, possibly.
Mr. Turner: You would need to check with the attorney’s office. It sounds like that it
would be difficult actually to limit how that parking lot is used for one particular
business. And so we’d want to be careful in how we condition the use ....
Ms. Caporgno: Oh, I was thinking more in terms of just restricting the parking lot use in
general to only certain hours that anybody could use it. And I don’t know, we would
need to see if that is something that the attorney’s office would allow, I don’t know. But
it wouldn’t be necessarily just that Antonio’s wouldn’t be allowed to use it, it would be
any business in that area or anyone in that area.
Mr. Turner: That could be a possibility.
Ms. Habbeshaw: Thank you. Two comments with regard to that. One, I believe in the
amended use permit for the Icon part of their conditions were that they needed to
specifically direct their patrons to particular areas. So it’s interesting that that seems to
be okay for them, and I’m interested to see how we reconcile that with regard to
Antonio’s. Secondly, at the first hearing I recall having the code section fresh in my
mind, and I apologize, I’m not recalling it precisely right now by number, but there was
some language in there that did say that the owner of the establishment creating the
nuisance has the duty - you know-, don’t quote me on this - but to the best of my
recollection, has a duty to control people on the premises. "Premises" is defined as the
Cir. of Palo Alto
Director’s Hearing- June 19, 2003
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
four walls of the property as well as the adjoining sidewalk - public sidewalks and public
parking lots. So I’m also interested then to see how the city attorney or whoever it is -
the DA, whoever you talk to - reconciles those sections. Because as I read that section of
the code, Mr. Montooth does have that obligation.
Ms. Caporgno: The next speaker is Jeff Herman.
Mr. Jeff Herman, Resident: I won’t really read my statement, but I just wanted to touch
on a couple things. One is I wanted to thank the staff for the recommendations that
they’ve made so far. I think they make a lot of sense. I wanted to just correct one thing.
You mentioned in the summary at the beginning that most of the problem was on the
weekends which I think is not accurate. Actually Sunday night is probably the quietist.
Monday is usually not too bad. The worst are usually Thursday and Saturday and Friday
as well.
I think just briefly, I wanted to point out that we’ve heard from a lot of neighbors who’ve
come to experience these issues for a long period of time and have dealt with them in
different ways. We heard from Miss Smith who actually moved away based on the issues
that we’ve been talking about. Mr. Kerber, he’s been dealing with them for almost two
decades now. The last time we heard from Mr. Holland who experienced these problems
also years ago. And now there’s newer residents moving to the neighborhood and we’re
having the same problems. It sounds like there’s improvements that people are talking
about. Mr. Montooth is following up on some of the issues, and so I feel encouraged that
there’s progress being made.
One question I had, actually I don’t know if you can answer questions, but I had a couple
questions. One is i.n the meantime, until the patio issue is resolved, are they allowed to
use the patio?
Ms. Cap0~0: I think they would.
Mr. Turner: I think that they have a code enforcement case to close the patio. They have
30 days in which to shut down the patio, so we’ll be looking for compliance.
28 Mr. Herman: I think one issue that we were talking about Palo Alto parking lot 7, and to
29 me a big issue is just kind of loitering. I don’t know if that could be a city ordinance that
30 you can’t loiter in that parking lot. That would help a lot I think. Mr. Montooth has said
31 a couple times that people don’t hear what’s happening in the building which I think is
32 true. We’ve lived there for awhile. We’ve never heard anything happening in the
33 building. It’s the people are coming and going and standing around that creates the
34 problem. So if there could be an ordinance saying within a parking lot you can’t really
35 !oiter, that would I think help a lot.
36 Mr. Montooth said he had followed up with his nighttime janitor about emptying of the
37 beer bottles. And I myself haven’t noticed the early morning incidents since - actually
38 the following morning after the session last time, I did, but not since then, so I think that
39 that helped, and I appreciate that.
40 Something I brought up last time, and Mr. Montooth referred to as, other people were
41 kind of driving up and picking out the beer bottles. I’m not sure if that’s resolved in
42 terms of is there a lock on it, and it is preventing people from doing that. What happens
43 is they’re going after the beer bottles and so it happens at least once and sometimes twice
City of Palo Aho Page 8
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
1 a day. Actually I haven’t been home very early in the evenings lately, so I don’t know if
2 it’s still happening. But people will drive up, they want the beer bottles, and so they’re
3 kind of digging through and it creates this noise for ten or fifteen minutes. It seems like
4 he mentioned the lock that they used to have. And if there’s a way to make sure the lock
5 is still there, I think that would help a lot as well.
6 Unless you have any questions for me ....I think that’s it.
7 Ms. Capor~no: Thank you. John Abraham.
8 Mr. John Abraham. Resident: Thank you very much. I would like to just reinforce the
9 comments that the neighbors and ask them direct a little bit of attention to parking lot 7.
10 As I understand, the patio will be removed, and that’s a very welcome development and
11 very happy to hear that. It does need an environmental review if it’s going to be
12 reintroduced. Apparently the security personnel will work with Antonio’s parking lot,
13 but it’s not the same as parking lot 7 behind. And evidently the City does have issues in
14 assigning security personnel to that lot. However, I would direct attention to somehow
15 managing the activities in that lot because that is the large source of noise for the
16 residents right next to Antonio’s, Birch and Sherman Street. Whether the lot can be
"t7 closed down - I read the instructions on the lot there, it’s not clear that there’s a
18 prohibition after 5:00 at night or 11:00 at night. But one approach could be to put a time
19 limit, just on everybody and then have the police start to cite people if they come by after
20 11:00 PM and find cars. I’m sure the word would get out and that would decrease
21 dramatically the number of cars in that lot. So either that approach or perhaps another
22 approach that I haven’t thought of- health problems. But that parking lot is central. It’s
23 very convenient to Antonio’s and I think it’s unrealistic to expect the problemto go
24 away. As long as that parking lot is totally and completely unrestricted after 11:00 PM.
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
The health problems have been - the three articles submitted in the last hearing - and I
thought it was a peat suggestion. None of us I suppose consider ourselves involved in
public health issues, but it’s impossible t6 avoid that subject when you have noise in the
wee hours of the morning. And those three articles do impact. One article said it causes
slower glucose tolerance, the effects similar to those seen in normal aging, and may
increase the severity of age-related chronic disorders. Another article says there’s a short
and long-term associated relationship between the self-rep0rted sleep durations and
coronary events, which means that if you run a risk of slightly increased coronary events
if you have too much sleep deprivation. The other final article says an insufficiency in
sleep raises blood pressure.
So anything that can restrict the nightmare that these neighbors have to go through - a
ten-second horn blast at 1:00 in the morning, it doesn’t do any good to call the police on
that occasion. The parking !ot is the problem. So it’s a difficult problem, but I do think
there is a solution. And I would ask you to make an effort to find some way of getting
that parking lot under control. That’s my approach to it, and I do appreciate the efforts to
look into the patio. That’s peat. Thank you.
Ms. Capor.a-no: Midori-Kato Maeda. I may be mispronouncing your name.
Mr. Midori-Kato Maeda. resident: Midori-Kato Maeda, Birch Court. I really want to
thank you for the opportunity - one, of reviewing all the public documents. I think it has
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Director’s Hearing- June 19, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
been very helpful. At the beginning when I came today, I was very, very disappointed of
all - that there is so many laws and so many reinforcements, and we do meetings,
planning meetings. But there were so many complaints. There is people that even left
the place, and that’s what’s very sad. I just moved here in October. I came and stayed in
this place before. And I thought I was already frustrated, frustrated of all these persons
that have tried to approach, and according to what we live now-, there was not too much
response. I was really happily surprised, and I really thank you to all of you and also Mr.
Tony here, and all the people that has taken time to come here and happily here, these
first five solutions to reconsider the patio and also the needs of the security. And I think
it will be important to have a certified security just to guarantee not just the peace of the
neighborhood, but also the security of the patrons. This is not the first article that we
read about problems, robbery, etc. related to alcohol. I’m a researcher, and it’s not just
sleep deprivation and noise. There is a lot of relationship between alcohol and a lot of
issues, accidents. So I think it’s important to have security that is trained and knows how
to act. So I think this is something that I really think it’s a very good suggestion.
Also, it’s very known from the health point of view that it’s important to have food in
order not to have some of the toxic effects of alcohol. So I completely agree that if there
is a possibility to reinforce the fact that alcohol should be served together with meals.
19 And one of the points that I really want to confirm and reassure that I’m really happy to
20 hear today is that this meeting should happen based on every year. I don’t think that the
21 police are the best way to - as I mentioned before - I don’t think that the number of calls
22 should be used to measure how much do we complain. Because we understand that for
23 the police department, noise and nuisance are not the priority, they have other things and
24 we recognize that. And we don’t want to wake up and do this. We’re already awake and
25 we understand that we don’t need to do all ttiese calls. But we need to find out a good
26 measurement, a good measurement that reflects what the neighbors of these boundaries
27 between residential area and commerce - what the neighbors - what is the objective,
28 have data measurement to see - well, they are having a nice relationship between the
29 commerce and the residents. I don’t think should be noise measurement. There is
30 already several tests that - I’m not expert in noise or noise measurement - but it’s evident
31 that all these tools are maybe not what is needed to measure the relationship between
32 noise and what we tolerate, what wakes us up.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
And also, the police calls. I’m glad that you mentioned it because if that’s measurement,
I will call every night. And I think what is very nice since the previous day and today,
when I called the first time to Mr. Turner to figure out what was the procedure of this
hearing, he told me about three minutes talk which I thought it was an intelligent thing to
do so we will not stay longer than 5:00. But at the same time, I really appreciate you
listened to all of our concerns, complaints and questions, because that is an important
sign to us that we believe that you are listening to us. And now I can say that I believe
that we will get something positive - not just for us as a resident, but also for all the
business here.
So just to close, I really think that as a neighbor from - as a citizen from - as a neighbor,
a person that lives in Palo Alto, this is a very good oppommity to try to fix a lot of the
things that have been happening for a tong time according to the public record. But I
think the most difficult part is to keep this. I think we reached a very good point. The
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
most difficult thing always is to maintain it, to enforce it. So I think that we should work
together to find a way to try to reinforce that. Plus if you can find some ways about the
parking #7, etc. I think the City and all the Planning Commission, the City Council, has a
lot of opportunities to make very clear the rules. And also this will help us to find very,
very defined decisions that can help to everybody. Thank you.
6 Ms. Caporgno: And finally, Greg Kerber.
7 Greg Kerber. resident: Well I think a couple of things - and maybe some of this will be
8 redundant; I hope not. But since I’m probably the longest standing resident who has
9 made complaints about problems from both The Edge and from Antonio’s, I think when
"10 we’re talking about solutions - and I think Lisa mentioned this - we have to have some
"l ~l agreement about what the nature of the problems are before we can address solutions to
"12 the problems. Now you’ve heard from residents here, and I know from over the years
~13 talking to other resident~ and the people that currently live there, that we’ve got a
"l 4 problem. There’s obviously a problem with regard to the patrons at Antonio’s, especially
15 after 2:00 at night when the place closes. It’s either there is a problem occurring, or there
~l 6 isn’t a problem occurring. I guess if you listen to Mr. Montooth, you’d have to think that
"17 perhaps there is no problem occurring. But there are five or six of us, perhaps more, who
"18 from personal experience that there is a problem occurring. That problem does occur
"19 from 11:00 on. It just happens to be that say between 1:00 and about 2:30 in the
20 morning, that’s when we get the peak problem. And I’ve even called in once or twice in
2~1 the last week, I’ve noticed sort of an upsurge in noise, and you can almost guarantee that
22 around 2:00 at night you’re going to have a problem with people leaving Antonio’s. We
23 indicated to you last time what the nature of all these problems were. And I think what’s
24 been said here tonight is really - I mean today - is really the crux of the problem. There
25 are two major sources of the problem: one is the patio and the area surrounding the patio;
26 the other is the public parking lot, all right? So the attention has to be focused on those
27 two because I think there’s enough information here to indicate, both based on calls for
28 service to the police department and just the problems that people have had, that those
29 two areas are where the problems exist, because that’s where people park, that’s where
30 they congregate.
3"I Two things about the report that Mr. Camileri gave to you. One is that not only is that
32 non-permitted, I asked him even a question about whether or not in the future, even if
33 somebody went back through the permit process, they would be granted a permit for that
34 usage in that area. I think I’ve got an alternative to this since that seems to be a specific
35 location for the source of the problem. If in fact - and smoking also is a factor here.
36 According to Mr. Camileri, smoking is prohibited within 20 feet of an entrance to a
37 building. Well, that patio is not 20 feet away from the building, and that’s where people
38 smoke. So you’ve got another code violation right there. My suggestion would be this:
39 That on California Avenue, in front of the establishment, there is an entrance. After
40 11:00 at night, there is relatively little traffic on California Avenue sidewalks or
4"1 whatever, because there are only three or four establishments open after 11:00 at night on
42 California Avenue - Kinko’s, the two bars - Antonio’s and The Edge - and then there’s a
43 bar further up the street. All the restaurants, everything else is closed down by 10:00 at
44 night. I don’t know if there’s another establishment on California. Well, I’d like to hear
45 what it is. If there is a place that’s open after ! 1:00 other than those four, I’m unfamiliar
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
with it. Printer’s Ink used to be open, but they’re out of business. So I’m unaware of any
other establishment. Plus, we’re not complaining about any other establishment, we’re
complaining about two particular establishments and in this case, the one that’s right on
the corner of Birch and California Avenue. So the problem is, as I indicated, the patio.
And if in fact the patrons of Antonio’s, instead of congregating in that patio, were asked
to do their smoking in front, on California Avenue, on the sidewalk in front, because
there are tables and chairs there - that would at least - I mean this could be sort of an
experiment on the part.of the City I think - that would buffer the sound to a certain extent
from our complex. In other words, they would be around the front of the building, not on
the side, and there would be - Antonio’s building would be - or the building would be
between us and his patrons, whereas now we’re in a much more exposed position with
them being on the side. The other thing, it’s as critical, is the parking lot. That’s where a
bulk of the noise comes from, whether it’s cars honking horns, people playing football as
I think Miss Habbeshaw witnessed, and I know that when Officer Wilke was down there
I think he confiscated a soccer ball. I talked to somebody last week about the police
department, and they said Wilke was on the scene and he’s confiscated a soccer ball, or
something to that effect. I have no idea if that’ s an accurate description for what was
going, but we know that this kind of activity goes on in that parking lot. So we’re not
hallucinating here, we know this is a problem.
20 So I guess the question would be, what do we do about parking lot 7? So people have
21 said - Look, we can’t have private security people getting involved. There may be a
22 legal question. To me it seems like there’s a solution. The Edge has been asked to direct
23 people to parking because of the problems with their patrons. They’ve got security now
24 and signs up all over the neighborhood, they have for years, about where their patrons are
25 supposed to park. And they try to funnel all their patrons into the parking lot behind - or
26 a number of them at least - into the parking lot behind The Edge. I think what we would
27 ask for is - Look, if we can’t get some kind of enforcement mechanism that’s going to
28 provide quiet in those parking lots - both the private parking lot next to his establishment
29 and the public parking lot. In other Words, if that continues to be a source of noise and
30 we can’t rely on either security from Antonio’s or the police to actually make sure that
31 patrons parked in those lots are not going to be creating a disturbance and a health
32 problem for people who live nearby, then it seems to me the City is going to have to do
33 something about parking in those public parking lots. And if people are saying - Look,
34 you can’t restrict it, there are already restrictions on there. You can only park in that
35 parking lot two hours at a time, and there are several other restrictions in terms of the
36 cumulative amount of hours you can park there. I’m not sure, I think there are two or
37 three or four restrictions listed on the sign that applies to everyone who parks there
38 between 8:00 in the morning and 6:00 in the evening. So I guess we would ask that
39 something to the effect that - restrict the hours or whatever after ! 1:00 at night. That
40 would be pretty simple and i think it could go a long way towards resolving the problem.
41 I suggest that if this creates difficulty for the establishment, Antonio’s, what’s the other
42 solution? If we’ve got a problem in that parking lot and the police often can’t respond
43 immediately to the problem, how are we going to solve the problem?
44
45
46
I do think that the critical problem for me, between 11:00 and 1:00. But I just reiterate
this: Around 1:30 or between 1:00 and 2:30 is when we really have the problem in terms
of the noise. And I think that’s essentially because of people leaving. And so
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
1 something’s got to be done about handling that crowd that’s leaving at that time of night.
2 And I don’t think there’s anything else.
Oh, one other thing -just as an aside. We now know from at least what Mr. Turner has
indicated to us - I thought that perhaps there just hadn’t been an updated use permit here.
We now know that there hasn’t been a review for 30 years on this use permit. I almost
dropped the phone when I heard that from Mr. Turner. But the fact of the matter is, there
have been a fair number of complaints called in and communicated to the police
department, even to Planning about this. And in 30 years there’s been no review. So
we’re asking for some kind of action on the part of Planning at this point to deal with the
chronic problem that has not been addressed for 30 years.
11
12
Ms. Capor,ano: Thank you Mr. Kerber. Mr. Montooth, do you have anything else that
you would like to add?
Mr. Montooth: Oh, I’ve got all kinds of things to say. I wasn’t going to read all this. I
never even knew there was a problem. Thank God we had this two-week review. I
wasn’t aware. These people say they’re my good neighbors - I never even knew them.
Nobody even talked to me or anything about this problem. And I understand that - I
don’t know how- many people live there, but they went door to door recruiting people to
come up and say that they - I have some friends and people who live back there myself,
they said they never even hear any noise or anything.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
And the issue - We cannot do anything about the parking lot. We do have a busy place, a
lot of people, it’s world-famous. People come from all over the world to Antonio’s. And
the police calls, like I said, most have been social. I didn’t know that I had this problem.
I thought there was only one person that was writing all the time. The police said ignore
his calls and everything. And while they lived there, I don’t know, I’ve been there 30
years, that apartment wasn’t even built yet. That parking lot you’re talking was a dirt, a
mud field. My patrons still park there. And this whole thing is ridiculous to me. But
anyway, she even complained - she called the police, we were having a thing: to raise
money for the Children’s Hospital on a Sunday afternoon at 3:00, talk to the bartender
and the owners. We raised $420 for the Children’s Hospital. They called the cops, we
were making too much noise. So I donated an extra $500 to the kids. They don’t even
like kids; they’re too noisy. It’s kind of outrageous.
So anyway, maybe I’ll just give this to you here because it [incoherent]. I wrote down a
lot of things. I pay taxes, I support the community, get people - my bartenders work
hard. These people come in, we serve food, we serve drink, they have a good time. They
leave if they’re laughing or having a good time, trying to get a date or something or other
- I’m sorry. But I proposed - I told Amy this morning. I never even realized this was a
problem. My good neighbors never told me or anything. This last - two weeks ago was
the first time I even heard about it. I got hold of an architect - actually, he made a little
sense there. When they go around the front to smoke, fine; that’s geat. The side patio,
I’m going to have an appointment tomorrow with an architect, and I would like to
actually build a beautiful patio there to enhance the. avenue and go along with the art stuff
that’s on the avenue now and build it to where it’s really nice, where people could sit
there and enjoy themselves and eat and have a good time and socialize. And I want to
bring this before the board and see if they’ll give me for it and build a wall - I’m willing
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
to build a wall between - right in the parking lot area there - I’d only lose two parking
places where that the sound from our parking lot, I mean from our area, would not
interfere with you folks at all. And if there is a problem, then I intend to take care of it.
And that’s all I can do. And if you live with the chickens the roosters won’t crow. Why
do you want to live - it’s a commercial building, it’s a commercial area. And it’s always
been there, and there’s other businesses there, it’s not just me. People come from all
over. Do you want me to leave this with you? That’s all I can say.
Ms. Caporg~o: Thank you. With that I will -
9 Mr. Calonne: Julie...
10 Ms. Capor~no: We have another speaker?
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ms. Caporgno: Would you identify who you are?
Andv DePass: My name is Andy DePass, and I work at Antonio’s Nut House. I’ve been
there for almost eight years. And I read the article myself about the under-age person. I
personally carded everyone that came into that door on Monday night. I stopped, it was a
goup of five or more people. I stopped them at the door, asked them to not move. not
going through any directions until I saw their IDs. I carded everyone. So the incident
that is mentioned in the newspaper is after hours. It happened - the 18-year old might
have very well met with someone outside of Antonio’s Nut House. But I personally
"know that the officers from the Palo Alto PD were at the bar that night, and they watched
me cover every ID in that place.
Female Audience Member:: Evening the officer claimed ....
22 Andy DePass: So even the arresting officer of that night, the incident that night, was at
23 the bar and watched me card everyone that came into thisbar. We are over zealous. I
24 think I’ve even been carding everyone that I know personally is 25 and over. I card
25 everyone that goes in there. So we are always zealous as far as being under-age drinkers.
26 We are very, very careful about that. We do not want the under-age people into that bar.~
27 As far as unwelcome clientele, we don’t allow them. We don’tallow any drinks outside
2[3 anymore. We don’t allow any noise outside. We have been working - Kelly and I have
29 been working very, very hard to comply with the City as far as the noise ordinance, also
30 at night. So we are over zealous, definitely over zealous over what the condition is at this
31 time. So we’re working really very hard on that. So thank you, that’s what I have to say.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Ms. Caporgno: Is there anybody else who...We need cards from both of you.
Kelly Gorman: Kelly Gorman, bartender at Antonio’s Nut House. I’d like to extend
something to all you guys. Not once have we gotten a call from you guys, so I’d like to
extend this to you. If you guys have a problem, Wednesday through Saturday night, call
me. I’ll fix it; it’s that easy. I’m not the police, but they do listen to me. They all know
me by name, it’s as easy as me going outside and going - What are you doing? And be
quiet. And if someone’s peeing or whatever you’re saying they’re doing - hey, call the
police, I’ll handle it. We just recently called the police because Stanford graduated, and
they all came down, all at the same time. And we’re sitting there going - Oh, no, no, no,
no. Why is this happening to us right after we had a meeting. So we called the police,
asked three cop cars out there at 2:00 in the morning, trying to make them be quiet and
get them out of there. So we apologize for the noise after - I empathize for you. I live in
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 14
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
a place where I have problems myself. Of course, it’s gunshots and neighbors beating
each other up. So Nut House, 321-2550, Kelly Gorman. Just call up - "Kelly, somebody
outside, can you handle it? I’ll be like "No problem, I’ll be out there."
Ms. Capor~no: Do you also want to say something?
Speaker: I just want to make a big picture comment, and that is that...
Ms. Caporgno: And I want you to fill out a card. You already - well, if you can fill out a
card for this item, please.
Speaker: The big picture item is that if you close - for example, if you close parking lot 7
that forces everybody down to Palo Alto Central which is residential. So whatever
solution is sought has to be sought for everyone. That was - my plea to you is don’t just
look at this little thing or that little thing. Just look at the bigger picture that has to do
with by closing #7 you’re shoving that off on someone else. So let’s look at a bigger
picture that says these kinds of businesses have these kinds of problems. And what is it
that we can do that will make a difference, if it’ s limiting hours, whatever it is, and I
don’t know the answer to that. I’d be happy to work on a task force that can work with
these businesses to come up with some solutions that make these model areas for
commerce and residential. But it’s not working, and we need to make a difference. We
all need to make a difference. Thank you.
Ms. CaDorgno: I’m going to give you one minute, Mr. Kerber.
Mr. Kerber: Just a quick response. One thing is that Mr. Montooth and I met in
mediation last year, and I basically described these problems to Mr. Montooth at that
time. So there’s been a year since that mediation, and he’s known about it. I guess he
didn’t believe me. But now we’ve got other people coming up - and believe me, I
haven’t paid all these people, Tony, to come down here to testify.
Mr.Montooth: How many people live there?
Mr.Kerber: How many people live where?
Mr.Montooth: How many apartments are there?
28 Mr. Kerber: Forty.
29 Mr. Montooth: Forty
30 Mr. Kerber: Well, I don’t think that’s really the problem. I think the problem is you’ve
31 got five or six people who are complaining here. Anyway, that’s one thing. In other
32 words, they’ve know~ about the problem, at least for a year. And secondly, I a~ee with
33 Dee to a certain extent. Let’s put it this way - if the noise problem didn’t exist in parking
34 lot 7, we wouldn’t be talking about closing parking lot 7 or doing something about it and
35 moving people out. Obviously, one of the solutions would be to make people park in the
36 parking lot behind The Edge. That would be inconvenient, but that’s a solution. If the
37 problem gets handled in those parking lots adjacent to Antonio’s, we don’t have to ask
38 anybody to go anywhere. I appreciate your suggestion about calling you, but we’ve
39 already had the planning people tell us that - you’re a bartender, not security, and I
40 appreciate the suggestion. But look, you want to go out there and handle the drunks, the
41 police tell us they don’t even like to deal with the drunks in the parking lot.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
Ms. Caporgno: Okay, we’re going to get - thank you very much. I just wanted to let you
know, the public hearing is now closed, and I will be making a decision within ten days,
ten working days. All of you who have filled out a card will be notified of that decision,
and then you will have ten days to - ten calendar days to which to appeal that decision.
So with that, I thank you for attending, and if you have any questions about the appeal
process, please call the Planning Department. If you have any questions regarding any of
the discussion today, you want to know anything about the procedures, please give us a
cal!.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Director’s Hearing - June 19, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Attachment E
1. 321 California Avenue*: Appeal by Tony Montooth of the Director 0fPIanning
and Community Environment’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit requested by Tony
Montooth to allow alcoholic beverage service as a conditional use, in the Community
Commercial Combining Zone District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. File No: 73-UP-13, amended July
2003.
M_r. Steve Turner. Planner: Thank you Chairman Griffin and Commissioners. This item is an
appeal of the conditions of the amended use permit to allow alcoholic beverage service. It was
previously heard at the Planning Commission meeting on October 8, 2003. As you are aware the
Planning Division initiated a review of the existing use permit based upon complaints the City
had received from members of the public regarding noise and other nuisances that they believed
were attributed to ~amtonio’s Nut House. The Director of PlarmSng then approved a revised use
permit with conditions in July of 2003 and the appellant subsequently appealed the Director’s
Decision.
Staff provided the Commission with administrative record containing evidence and testimony
regarding the operations of Antonio’s Nut House and the existing alcoholic service use. During
the public hearing the Commission heard from Planning Staff.. the Police Department and
members of the public who spoke in support of the existing 1973 use permit and from those in
support of the July 2003 revisions. At the meeting the appe!lant submitted a list of alternative
conditions of approval for the Commission’ s review. The Commission at that meeting voted to
continue the hearing to this evening so that members of the public and Staff could review the
proposed conditions. The Commission also directed Staff to provide additional information on a
variety of issues deaiing wdth alcohoi service and the Caiifomia Avenue area. Staff has
responded to the Commission’s requests in toni~t’s Staff Report.
Earlier today’ Staff received a request from the appellant for the Commission to continue this
hearing item to a date uncertain. The appellant indicated his intent to submit a formal
application to the City." for an amended use permit. This application would include proposed
conditions to allow alcoholic beverage service in conjunction with a bona fide eating and
drinking establishment. In addition the applicant would include a security management plan, an
automobile par*king plan for Nut House patrons and a plan for educating patrons about noise and
how- to be more sensitive to residential uses in the area.
Staff feels that this is a proactive action by the appellant to address the concerns of the
neighborhood. Members of the public will then be able to review each specific plan and provide
formal comments to the Staff and to the Commission regarding the adequacy of the application
and the plans to solve the problems in the neighborhood. Therefore Staff is recommending that
the Commission open the public hearing to receive corm~aents from the public and then continue
this item to a date uncertain. The appellant is here to make a presentation. Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Then I will indeed ask the appellant if he would like to step forward and make
any comments. Norma!ly you would have 15 minutes, I am unsure whether you will need that
but we would be very interested in hearing your presentation.
Mr. John Germino. 2500 E1 Camino Real. Palo Alto: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of
the Commission. I am not going to make a presentation. I just want to tell you that we concur
with what Mr. Turner just stated. We would like the oppommity to continue this hearing until
such time as we have had an opportunity to sit down with Mr. Turner and put together a formal
application on our behalf to amend the use permit. This is something that we feel we should
endeavor to get down. I have talked to Mr. Turner and several members of the Staff today and
they concur. So that is my presentation. We would appreciate your consideration of our request
for the extension.
Chair Griffin: Could you tell us your name please and your affiliation?
Mr. Germino: My name is John Germino. I am attorney and I represent Antonio’s Nut House
and Mr, Montooth.
Chair Griffin: That is helpful. Thank you very much. Unless Commissioners have any
clarif,ving questi.ons that they wish to ask of the attorney at this time my intention would be to let
the public make their comments. So there are no questions evident. Thank you very much.
Mr. Germino: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: If members of the public would like to have a chance to catch their breath at this
new news I do have about ten cards here. Each of you would have three minutes. If you could
move down towards the front so we could move through this expeditiously. The first speaker is
PeterHoltand followed by Jeff Herman and Midori Kato-Maeda. Welcome Peter.
MR. Peter Holland, 342 Grant Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. I am the President of the Birch
Court Homeowners Association. Those are the condominiums that are most directly affected by
the noise and nuisance issues from Antonio’s Nut House. I appreciate the opportunity to speak
to you tonight even with this last minute change of events.
I will point out that this now the fourth hearing I have testified at and still we have no resolution.
You are going to hear testimony from the residents in my condominium about recent, these are
occurrences within the last t~vo month after the last hearing, recent late night nuisances that is
issues in the par’king lot and you are also going to hear about early morning problems. Those are
primarily the dumping of the bottles. Both of those have continued since the last hearing and
have not really been effectively addressed.
So you can put this in context and particularly the appiicant’s attention to this matter i want to
relate to you an attempt I made to tW to solve some of these problems. In mid December and
upon the applicant’s attorney’s invitation I emailed Mr. Paul McDonald and told him about an
incident that occurred at 6:50 AM Friday morning December 12. This was a typical trashing of
the beer bottles and the liquor bottles from the night before. An employee of Antonio’s was
directly observed by one of our residents throwing these things away at 6:50 in the morning. My
hope was that by emailing Mr. Montooth’s attomey that lVk. Montooth could then directly speak
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1 with the custodian who was on duty that morning and try to resolve the issue. If I could do it
2 quickly enough maybe he could go th.e next day and talk to the custodian. Instead I frankly was
3 stunned when I received an email a week later from Mr. Montooti~ in which he said. I quote, "I
4 don’t appreciate your emailing my attorney with your complaints, with complaints from your
5 tenants, your owners or whatever they are." Mr. Montooth then claimed that the incident never
occurred and that it could not have occurred. So much for my efforts at diplomacy.
I think this refusal to ac ~knowledge any problem is what has us so frustrated. I think it is possible
Mr. Montooth is not aware of the problems after all he is not there in the late hours, he is not
there in the morning hours. I will point out that he is an ABC licensee and he is the owner ofthe
business and he is responsible for the conduct of his employees.
In summary I just want to point out that I feel that we are dancing around what perhaps is the key
issue here. A.ntonio’s today is operating as a bar. That’s free. Many people enjoy it. The
problem is they do not have a bona fide restaurant in connection with the operation of their bar.
Until they address that issue I don’t think we are going to reach a satisfactory answer. Thank
yOU.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Peter. Our next speaker is Jeff Herman. Welcome Jeff.
Mr. Jeff Herman. 2512 Birch Street. Palo Alto: Thank you. I have owned my home at 2512
Birch Street for almost three years. My home, which is on the third floor, directly faces
Antonio’s. As a result of a very clear unobstructed view of events that occur in Antonio’s
private par’king lot and Parking Lot 7. I fully support Staff recommendations to address chronic
problems regarding Antonio’s. As Peter said this is the fourth hearing that we have reported
these issues since July. There has been no improvement. Now- we have heard of another delay.
The neighbors are the ones being affected by these delays. A !or of these problems seem very
straightforward to address and they are not being addressed. So the main issues that I see are all
these are excessive noise issues. Number one, occurring la~e at night in Antonio’s private
parking area and Par*king Lot 7. Number two, empffing beer bottles before 8:00 AM. Number
three, people runznaging through Antonio’s trash to get glass bottles for recycling. These are all
things that you hear about in October. These are al! things that are still occurring. You have a
copy of my statement which includes dates and times of a!! these incidents as we!l as color
photo~aphs at the back. As I said these are still occurring on a regular basis. Ivlr. Montooth and
his attorney, his attorney from the October 8th hearing have all made statements to the contrary.
With all due respect, their statements are not consistent with my persona! observations as well as
the photogaphs that I provided.
So some details. Problem number one the excessive noise from Antonio’s private parking area
and Parking Lot 7. Since the October 8th hearing I have been awakened due to excessive noise in
Antonio’s private parldng area and Parking Lot 7 approximately 12 times including three times
this week. Most recently Sunday, January 11 at 1:50 AM. I have provided a list of times where
this happened, dates and times as well as a summary of what happened. There is actually a
police incident report number on the last issue.
Problem number two is emp~ing beer bottles before 8:00 AM. This one is particularly
interesting to me because if you !ook at the letter that Mr. Montooth wrote to the CiD~ on June
19th.. E ~xhibit J.. he said.. "The false statements about the garba~e~ bottles bein_~ dumped too early is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
a lie." I noted that this has happened actually eight times just since the October 8th hearing. It
happened several times before that. I have provided a co!or photo of this happening. I think the
earliest time reported was the one that Peter mentioned at 6:50 AM. There is also a 7:16 AM,
7:15 AM, 7:15 AM, and 7:20 AM.
The last issue, problem number three, bottle rummaging. Again this is happening on a regular
basis. It generates excessive noise often for a 20 to 25 minute period. Since the October 8th
hearing this has happened specifically seven times. I have provided photos of several of these
instances. This is another interesting one where Mr. Montooth in his letter.
Chair Griffin: Jeff, can you just wrap it up here?
Mr. Herman: Sure. I will just make one final point, which is again these extensions, these
delays these are harming us. We have made these points over and over and over again. We have
had no improvements, not even a sig-n of improvement and I appreciate your time. Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Thanks Jeff. Midori Kato-Maeda is our next speaker followed by Lisa
Habbeshaw and Lawrence Haussler. Welcome Midori.
Ms. Midori Kato-Maeda. 2512 Birch Street. Pa!o Alto: I also live in 2512 Birch Street. I fully
support the Staff recommendations that were dated July 2003 and also a percent ofAttachrnent A
in the last report of January 14. I also thank all of you for listening to our complaints and our
concerns regarding Antonio’s Nut House. Since the beginning we have been trying to have good
neighborhood relations and that I think is very clear in all of our statements. However, since
July 2003 we haven’t had improvements and what we are hearing today is that there will be
delay that will affect us and also residents of Palo .Alto. I think we deserve peaceful nights.
As it was mentioned in several comments in the last meeting on October 8 there were a lot of
issues about if the happenings that were awakening us were happening by patrons of Antonio’s
Nut House. Just an example, you can see the rest of the dates and times that JeffHerman
provided but just as an example on January 6th at 1 ! :30 1 was awakened to shouting. I went to
the window and I was able to see five people next to Antonio’ s back door. At that moment a
pickup truck drove away from the crowed at very high speed and very loudly. The people kept
shouting, tal -king very loud and the truck left and didn’t even stop at the stop sign at Birch and
Sherman. One hour later, approximately 12:30, I was again awakened and also there was
shouting. Now four people in the lateral or side door. I observed one of them going into
.amtonio’ s bar. That is just one example. So I really would like you to consider our problems
and also these extensions. It seems like it is very frustrating because we are the ones that are
affected by all these problems. I want to highlight a comment that Chair Griffin said at the end
of the last meeting. Although it is important to look at what closing hours are of other bars. This
particular establishment, ,~mtonio’s Nut House, being perhaps closer to neighborhood residential
situation is deserving of perhaps more restrictive closing times. I really would like you to and t
would appreciate if you would consider all of our complaints from all these four hearings. I
think that the only thing that will happen in the next hearing will be increase our list of problems
because really there hasn’t been a good improvement. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Midori. Lisa Habbeshaw. -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.29
3O
31
"9
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Lisa Habbeshaw. Birch Court Condominiums. Palo Alto: Thank you. I am a resident of
Birch Court Condominiums. I have lived there for approximately a year and a half. My home
faces Antonio’s Nut House directly across from Palo Alto Par’king Lot 7. I fully support the
Staff recommendations as Steve Turner laid them out in today’s Planning Division Staff Report
dated January 14, 2004.
Chair Griffin: Lisa, could you stand a little closer to the microphone, please? Thanks.
Ms. Habbeshaw: I fully support Steven Turner’s Staff recommendations in the report dated
January 14, 2004. The public health, safety and welfare issues have continued to be
compromised since the date of the last hearing. This has been an ongoing problem for me since I
have moved in and you have heard testimony- and read the history for 18 years for some of the
residents. As you can see from the delay that the appellant has asked for today there appears to
be an issue of a good faith effort to be made in bridging the gap betw-een the neigihbor’s issues
and the proprietor’s ongoing business concerns.
There is middie pound to be found. I think Steven’s report is excellent and the nuisances
continue, the noise continues. This does have a public health, safety and welfare issue
repercussions. Time is of the essence. This request for a date uncertain for some proposal that
they have had six months to put together and we don’t even have a draft presented is amazing
and this is a tactic. They keep wa ~lking into these hearings the day of the hearing and asking for
the same thing, k is rather remarkable. In any event wha~ Steven has recommended is excellent.
The hours of operation will be very helpful. The security guards, .the handbills as we have
already noted calls to the police are not an effective remedy. We are only as’king for the use and
enjo?~ent of our property and protection under the state and municipal codes that we are
afforded just like any other resident.
As a side note, Peter Holland and his infinite strides at diplomacy, omitted to share with you
extremely inflammatory ianguage that was aiso in that emaii that was very recent. So again i am
just confused as to where the good faith effort is going to show. I would like to believe we can
bridge this gap. I would encourage you guys to stick with Steven’s recommendations.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Lisa. Lawrence Haussler followed by Greg Kerber and John
Abraham. Welcome Lawrence.
Ivlr. Lawrence Haussler. 3357 South Court. Palo Alto: Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I
am rather nervous so I wrote down what I would like to say. I appreciate the open-mindedness
of the Planning Commission and their compromising with this issue. But I would like to
strongly object to the tactics being used by that tiny group ofpeopte trying to shutdown and ruin
Antonio’s Nut House. One person even lodged over 80 b%m.ls complaints to the City wasting
valuabte police officer thr~e, over and over and over. I work right next door to Antonio’s and I
have for years both in the daytime and sometimes late at night. You can’t hear anything from
over there especially in the summer you can hear a lot of crickets or you hear people par’king
their cars. For some reason there are a handful of people who have made it their goal in life to
tO" to.shutdown or ruin Antonio’s Nut House. That is the facts.
,The next thing they are going to say is that the copy machines in Kinko’s are too loud and that
Elvis’s records need to be piled up and burned. There are no real loud noises I have heard Dom
1 over there. There is no public urinating, all these other things that they say go on, no unruly
2 behavior that I have ever seen or heard from over there. What do I ~know? I have only worked
3 right next to them for years both day and late at night. Antonio’s happens to be one of the only
4 places left around here where all "kinds of people from all walks of life can come together and
unwind, watch sports, play a little sports and spend a lot of money here in Palo Alto.
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
2~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
So I humbly ask that you listen carefully to the vast majoriV,,; of people who come from all over
to patronize Antonio’s because it is different. It is not a chain, it is unique and it is a peat
atmosphere. Mr. Montooth is willing to try and make it even a lot better with some peat
proposals. But if you listen only to that small ~oup of haters we’l! have to put up another for
rent sig-n were Antonio’s Nut House used to be.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Lawrence. Greg Kerber. Welcome, Greg.
Mr. Gre_o Kerber. Birch Court Condominiums. Palo Alto: Thank you. It is a little hard to follow
that but I will try. I have lived in the neighborhood for nearly 20 years and been subjected to
ongoing disturbances and nuisances on a routine basis. I can’t explain the difference between
Mr. Haussler’s experience and my experience. If you look at the file that is on 321 over at the
Development Center you will see repeated references to complaints from a number of people in
the neighborhood inciuding the residents where we live in the Birch Court Condominium
complex.
I came tonight fully prepared to address what I thought was going to happen which was going to
be a donsideration of the Staffs recommendation. Thisis the second time at the eleventh hour
we have had someone come in from Antonio’s and ask for a delay. The first time at least they
came in with a proposal. This time they are just asking for a blank delay. We have got a Staff
recommendation. They made the proposal. The Staff rejected their proposal and came up with a
recommendation. Don’t you think it is about time to make a decision? I think it is.
Let me get back to what I really came to address tonight which is one, the problems have not
abated, they have continued. They got worse durin.g the summer. There has been no
improvement, no change. We still have the same problems. I have called the police a number of
times in the last month and a half with regard to the disorderly conduct that takes place adjacent
to 321 in both parMng lots. I fully support the Staff recommendation because I think the Staff
recommendation is based on the testimony and evidence that has been presented to the City, for
over six months at four different hearings. We all testified. There is ample evidence in that
record to justify the Staff recommendation. It is there, it is not fabricated, and it is not made-up.
I have no idea why five or six people living in a condominium complex would get together and
try "to shutdown" Antonio’s Nut House. The Staff recommendation doesn’t try to shutdown
Antonio’s Nut House. All they are trying to do is modify, his use permit and bring it into
compliance with the Muni Code and the conditions of his use permit. That is what the Staff
recommendation is trying to do. There is no attempt to shut Antonio’s down. He is going to be
able to continue to operate under this recommendation so it is absurd to make that point.
I also think that what is discouraging about this is that, I have to say this and be candid with you,
this is the second time we have had this happen. To me this looks like a delaying tactic
especially when you don’t put any timeframe on the consideration. We have nothing in front of
us from the other side to consider at all.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!0
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
z2
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4!
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chaff Griffin: Thank you, Greg. Our next speaker is Jotm Abrgnam followed by our last two
speakers John Germino and Ronna Devincenzi. John, welcome.
Mr. John K. Abraham. 736 Ellswor’da Place. PaIo Alto: Thank you very much. I support the
Staff. We have a Staff Report already, a full proposal for this establishrnent. It is in great detail.
I believe the City is entitled to make its conditions on the conditional use permit. If you allow
this you are defining a procedure whereby any applicant could simply stall indefinitely. We have
had two delays so far. I would ask you to bring an end to this. This is unacceptable and it makes
a mockery, in my opinion, of the entire process. We are not going to have any more hearings if
people can come in and put down a piece of paper and say these are the real conditions so you
don’t have to go along with that.
I would like to point out that in the report there is a clear disparity between the hours of the
restaurants and the bar’s hours. I would also like to point out that if you do a little experiment as
I did and sit in front of the Pink Pearl you can watch people going from Antonio’s lot. Nobody
goes to The Edge unless they go around in front on California Avenue and that is always closed
after 12:00. The people that park in Antonio’s par’king lot go to Antonio’s and you can verify-
that also by counting cars. I did this on a Friday. It went from 60 at 12:00 AM down to 15 cars
at 1:52 AM and on Saturday it went up from 24 cars down to seven cars at 1:56. At midnight
there were 27 cars in the lot and at 1:56 there were only seven cars. If you do sit in front of the
Pink Pearl and just watch people, what they do w-hen they go to The Edge, they" don’t come from
Antonio’s par’king lot unless they go to the wrong gate, which means they are first timers at The
Edge. So it is a destination for Antonio’s and that is where the crowd is and that is where the
problem is. I predict that Antonio’s will continue to be very profitable and popular with their
new- closing hours and the neighbors will be able to get enough sleep, which they don’t have at
the current time. The proposed plan is not to shutdown Antonio’ s. We are asking for a reduction
of hours for five nights a week. This is the most effective thing at reducing the noise. If you go
into the enforcement actions i wouid support that. Viaat could very weii help an additional
de~ee. You need to try it first and make an effort to get the plan in motion. Thank you very
much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, John. Our next speaker is John Germino and that was you, the
attorney, is that correct?
Mr. Germino: That was me, yes.
Chair Griffin: Then we will hold that in abeyance for the moment. Our last speaker is Rorma
Devincenzi. Any desire to speak there? Is there a Rorma Devincenzi here?
Ms. Ronna Devincenzi. 2600 E1 Camino Real. Pa!o Alto: Sorry, I thought somebody else was
going to speak. Thank you. I am President of the California Avenue Area Development
Association. We are an organization that represents about 225 businesses. We had our Board of
Directors meeting. There are nine members on our Board, member merchants and owners in the
district. We have had unanimous support for Antonio’s. We feel that they are a very good
business neighbor. The key word here is that it is a business district and the sad thing is we have
people living m a business district. They cant ~,~pec~ the same benefits of a bedroom
community. Sometimes there is some noise and sometimes it is hard to know- where it comes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
!6
17
!8
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3t
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
from. At the last Planning meeting I remember the Palo Alto Police Department came and said
that there was no problem with Antonio’s of any consequence. There was a resident, Brian
Blytho, who lives just across the way if you go out Antonio’s side door, you could just look right
at where he lives and he said that there was no problem. Most of the speakers against Antonio’s
are from one complex. Midori I believe said that they tried to have a good neighbor relationship
with Antonio’ s. Although I feel for them it seems as though they are focusing kind of a
microscopic attention to Antonio’s. If you have people calling someone’s attorney it costs
money. I think that is probably where, and I don’t ~know for a fact but I could only guess that,
that is where the owner, Tony. Montooth, would come from in being ahoy. It does not seem like
they were trying to have a real good faith relationship if they are calling an attorney. I would
like to see them actually become a little bit more friendly. I think they would find that there
would be a real benefit there. When they say they don’t want to shutdown Antonio’s by
reducing the hours it will shut it down and it certainly is not business friendly. We were anxious,
the Board was anxious to see the parking lot reconfigured. They have a wonderfu! architectural
plan for the parking lot. It would beautif.v the area. This was already on the Public Art
Commission and the Art Commission was excited to see it. So I think perhaps tensions are a
little high. You have photographs. It is almost like harassment actually of Antonio’s just
listening to what I have heard tonight and tmformnate. I think maybe if tensions are reduced and
I believe Antonio’s would act in good faith but sometimes you can’t disprove a negative. I think
the police report was probably about the best when they said that it wasn’t a problem. When I
",’as there one night and at about 11:30 1 was saying goodbye to somebody and I wondered ifI
was talking too loud for these people and I don’t have that big of a voice. The CAADA Board is
in full support and we want to keep it business friendly and as I say it is a business district.
Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Ronna. Our last speaker is Andie DePass.
Ms. Andie DePass. 321 California Avenue. Palo Alto: Hello. I work at .Antonio’s Nut House
and i ihave worked at Antonio’s Nut House for eight years, in the iast year we have made an
extreme effort to ask the public that attends Antonio’s to not stand on the side of the building and
go toward the front of the building so to minimize the noise at night for the neighbors. We also
have a doorman that does pay attention to the side of the building, the back of the building and
does go ask people if they do stand outside to come to the front of the building and converse over
there. I noticed many times when I leave the bar late at night sometimes The Edge does have a
later crowd and it is much, much noisier than our crowd. Another thing is the street sweepers.
Just two days ago I was outside about 12:30 and there was a street sweeper outside in the back
par’king lot going around and around. The noise was much louder than I could say. A lot of the
things as far as bottles are concerned I do not understand when we are talking about these early
hours because actually most of the people that get to Antonio’s Nut House in the morning to go
to work is around 8:30 or 9:00. I am just concerned about the people that do attend Antonio’s
from Palo Alto and we are trying to be very neighbor friendly. We care about the neighborhood.
We care about the peopte that come to Antonio’ s and we care about the City of Palo Alto. So
please take into consideration that our hours are very important to our business. Most of our
business is late on Thursday night, Friday and any other night it is very minimal as far as the
noise is concerned. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Andie. I have no more speaker cards for this item. The appellant has
three minutes to make a w-rap up comment here if you are interested.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Nk. Germino: Thank you Nix. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just so there vdll be no
misunderstanding Paul McDonald that was before you the last time this hearing was held, Mr.
McDonald is ill and I am pinch-hitting for him but he is a partner of mine.
I would just like to say that the reason I am not here putting together a proposal for your people
is because I had the meeting today with the Staff and it was my understanding that we were
going to sit down with them when Mr. Turner gets back from vacation and put together an
application. We did discuss with the Staffthe items that we had in mind. They indicated to us
that they thought that these were good ideas and they would help alleviate the problem but we
did not put it in writing for that reason. I apolo~ze to this Commission if that’s something we
should have done. Other than that I really have nothing more to say. I would hope that you
would be willing to gve us one more extension. I can tell you right now that we will not ask
another one. We are acting in good faith. We are working very hard to get this problem behind
all of us. I can tell you rigfnt now that not only is Mr. Montooth sincere about it but his lawyers
are too, we are very concerned about it. We want to be sure that not only are the neighbors taken
care of with the proposal that we give but that Mr. Montooth’s business will be able to run at
least similar to the way it is being run today. That is our concern. I can assure you again that we
are in good faith and we would tell you that I would make a promise to you today that we vdll
not ask for another extension. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Mr. Germino if you would stay, on for a moment here, we may have some
questions for you. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Can you explain to us why your client is changing course on their request
and doing so at this late hour in the process?
Mr. Germino: Again, I can only tell you that Mr. McDonald has been not in the office for two
weeks and i just got involved in this a couple of days ago. But tonight my thinking is that we
were under the impression that some of our proposal is going to be adopted by the Staff. When
we got the proposal, I think it just came in a few day, s ago, we saw what the Staffwas
recommending and I think Mr. McDonald called Mr. Turner and/or Mr. Emslie and discussed
that. At that time we told them some of the things that we had in mind in addition to what we
had proposed initially and that is how everybody decided to get together and have a conference
call. Unfommately we were not able to get that together until today because of Mr. McDonald’ s
problem. What was your question?
Commissioner Burt: You have answered that portion of it. The other portion of my question is
do you have a sense of how long it will take you.and your client to prepare their proposal that
they are now requesting?
Nk. Germino: Yes. I anticipate, I have already talked to Mr. Turner, that he is going to be gone
on a vacation or someplace until the 26th of January.. He is going to call me before the end of this
week, we are going to setup a time the week of the 26th to sit down with him and to try to work
out our application. I don’t know when you people meet again but I hope that we can get
something done that week that we can put before you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
!6
17
18
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Butt: Thank you. One final question. We now have a real continuation of
complaints about problems that t think after the Connnission had last met and had voiced some
good faith concerns on behalf of your client’s establishment I think there are perhaps concems
about these ongoing problems on some of the very things that had been discussed at our last
hearing. Are there any interim remediation measures that your client is willing to commit to to
address these concerns of the neighbors until we get the fma! application?
Mr. Oermino: All I can tel! you is that I took very good notes tonight on what I heard. It is my
intention to call the client tomorrow- morning and have him come in the office and discuss these
things with them and tell them we have to deal with them and deal with them now, not
tomorrow, not next week but now. That is all I can tell you sir.
Chair Griffin: We have no other questions. Thank you Mr. Oermino especially for that last
comment about dealing with some of the issues that seem quite relevant today.
Mr. Germino: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Griffin: At this stage I am going to close the public hearing and ask Commissioners if they
have any questions or clarifications that they want to pose to Staff. If that is not the case then we
can have some comments amongst ourselves. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I was wondering based on the information that was provided by Mr.
Germino if Staff maybe would be able to come up with a date certain to give the public some
certainty about the future review of this.
Mr. Turner: Staff is committed to working with the appellant to establish the framework of what
the formal application would be. I am willing to sit down this week to make sure the appellant is
aware of what that framework is. We would expect that we would have almost an immediate
response from the appetiant with the realization that they need to do more than just submit an
application form. In fact they need to provide a draft of the education plan and the parking plan
and the security, plan. That takes some time. This is a benefit that the public will be able to
enjoy that they haven’t been able to enjoy in some of the other use permits around tow-n. The
Edge has similar conditions on their use permits that require veD, similar plans however those
plans are reviewed intemally at a Staff level. With this proposal the Antonio’s Nut House plans
will actually be open to the public and available for public review and public comment to both
Staff and to the Planning Commission. So we want to make sure that the plans that Antonio’s
Nut House submits are complete and can be reviewed and can be commented on. That will take
some time. It is difficult to establish a date certain for return to the Planning Commission
without the application being filed yet. I would imagine based upon noticing requirements that
we would be able to turnaround a Planning Commission meeting perhaps within four weeks of
the receipt of the application if not sooner just based upon the noticing requirements.
Chair Griffin: Steve, would you like to add some comments, please?
Mr. Steve Emslie. Plannin~ Director: What you are doing by continuing this action is Staff is
able to bring this back to you. So should pro~ess not proceed on the proposals that the appellant
mentioned tonQ__.ht Staff can bring back this appeal to you and you can consider that. I a~ee with
Mr. Turner that we would be loo -king at probably a four to five week turnaround. Provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28,,
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
sufficient and expeditious prowess is being made we would be able to bring that back to the
Commission late February- I would imagine. Schedules are a little bit in flux. But if we did not
have a proposal that was in good faith and met the concerns that we have been hearing from the
neighborhood we would bring back this report. You would have jurisdiction and could act on it.
We do think this is an opportunity to be~n to start working in good faith. We think those are the
best resolutions when the parties are able to hear each other and begin to address the concerns
rather than have something imposed and have to rely on more stringent code enforcement
measures. I think this is a good way to start the dialogue and get the meaningful changes that
can bring meaningful noise reduction to the neighborhood.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Steve, would Staff be comfortable retaining it as a date uncertain but
placing a timeframe limit at which the Commission would either see the new application or a
return of this Staff recommendation.
Mr. Emslie: I think so. If you set a time limit of by your first meeting in March for either the
appeal to return or the revised application. I think that is acceptable to us. The reason we would
do it to a date uncertain for the members of the audience is that requires us to renotice this
because there is a lot of public interest we would want to make sure that we did renotice it.
Chair Griffin: ParticularIy because of the attention that this eventually is going to get the fact
that this has been continued now for a second time and yet apparently we still don’t have
satisfaction available in the neighborhood. Bonnie, do you have anything?
Commissioner Packer: No. The questions I was=~,oino~, to ask were asked. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: For clarification, I brought this up at the last time this was before us,
there was a list put in on page three of the Staff Report indicating what some of the operation
hours were of other establishments. I got clarification on the one about The Edge, which is 9:00
PM to 3:00 AM, and that is Tuesday through Saturday but really no restrictions on that.
Understanding that we are not reviewing The Edge could Staff comment on how that might
dovetail with how The Edge’s conditional use permit might compare and how you might be able
to work with The Edge in the future? The reason I am going there is because I don’t think it is
going to serve either Antonio’s or the people complaining about noise if there isn’t an area
pro~am that works, if you wi!l.
M_r. Emslie: Well, one of the legal plauning principles of a use permit is that the issuing body,
the City-, has continuing jurisdiction over use permits. So should conditions change in the future
that are different from when the permit initiated or granted the City, has the right to review. That
is how we got here ~vith this use permit. There was a review and there were modifications made
based on that review and those conditions were appealed. So we are aware of issues with noise
and exterior activity at The Edge. We are w-or-king with our Police Department and review- of
that use permit is certainly one of the options that we are considering along with others. It is not
on the agenda but just to let you know that that is an ongoing discussion and that there w~ll be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
!4
15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
.,..3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3!
~9
.30
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
continuing review of the land use provisions to make sure that they are compatible with our
district variety- of needs both residential and business,
Commissioner Holman: That is to say then that there will be more of a commonality between
the use permits, at least as far as hours are concerned, with The Edge and Antonio’s to give the
community some realistic expectation that the situation will improve as well.
Mr. Emslie: Again I don’t want to get into details as to what we might presuppose with The
Edge. We are loo "kLng at the district as a whole. Not that there would be any mandate to have
that be consistent hours or different operations and they have different needs that we would take
into account.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis, do you have a motion for us?
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes I do. I am going to move to continue this item to a date uncertain to
allow the applicant to file an application to amend the conditional use permit which would
include a parking, security- and noise control plan and there will be a time limit that it should
remm to the Planning Commission by the first meeting in March, it could be sooner.
Chair Griffin: Second?
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: Second.
Vice-Chair Cassei: I have comments.
Chair Griffin: Please.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thanks. I want to support the comments that have been made by the other
Planning Commissioners, Pat’s opening comments in particular. I would hope that some of these
aspects that we are talking about can happen long before we get this back to see us. There is no
reason why the noise in the morning for instance and the pickup of the rubbish can be done now.
It doesn’t have to wait until this happens. There are other issues and I think they can begin to be
implemented before it actually comes back to us so we can see that some of what’s being
proposed how it works and how it actually is implemented.
Chair Griffin: Does the seconder have any comments?
Commissioner Holman: No, I think enough comments have been made.
Chair Griffin: We will vote this item.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to emphasize that the ability of the applicant to
demonstrate their ggod faith efforts to address some of these issues prior to it coming back to us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
will have a bearing at least on my consideration of whether they are willing and able to abide by
the conditions that would be set forth in permit. I just wanted to emphasize that aspect.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I will support the motion but I would like to take a slightly different slant
on it. I tend to concur more with the concept that this is a place where evening and late evening
activities take place. It is not a ptay~ound it is an evening establishment and there is going to be
some evening noise. It is a night place. So I don’t ~know that we are going to be triers of fact as
to whether certain noises happened on certain days. But I do ~know that we have to be cognizant
of what ~kind of establishment this is, how long it has been here, the neighborhood that it’s in
when we look at the conditions that are being proposed. But I ~vill support the motion.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-0, Commissioner Bialson conflicted with this item).
Chair Griffin: All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? The item carries
unanimously with Commissioner Bialson being conflicted. That finishes item number one.
Attachment F
PLANNING DIF SION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TtL%NSPORTAT!ON COMMISSION
FROM:Steven Turner, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Enviromment
AGENDA DATE: October 8, 2003
SUBJECT:321 California Avenue [03-AP-08]: Appeal by Tony Montooth of
the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of
a Conditional Use Permit (73-UP-26, amended July _00_~) requested
~,,, Tony Montooth to al!ow alcoholic ~" ...... ~= se~wice as a
conditional use, in the Community Commercial Combining Zone
District (CC(2)). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend
that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and
Community, Environment’s original approval.
BACKGROU..WD
Prqiect Histov
Tony Montooth is the owner/operator of Antonio’s Nut House, located at 321 California
Avenue. Mr. Montooth has operated his business at this location for 30 years. A
conditional use permit was issued to Mr. Montooth in 1973 to allow the sale of alcoholic
beverages in conjunction with a bona fide eating establishment. The restaurant associated
with this use permit is Taqueria Azteca. The use permit was modified in 1977 and again
in 1980 to a!low a card room use, which ceased operations in 1993 when card rooms were
deemed a prohibited use in Palo Alto.
City of Paio Alto Page 1
The Police Departrnent and the Depart ~ent of Planning and Community Environment
have received complaints from members of the community regarding noise and other
disturbances in the vicinity of-the business district along California Avenue.
The businesses at 260 California Avenue (The Edge Nightclub) and 321 California
Avenue (,amtonio’s Nut House) are .typically the focus of the complaints. Both businesses
operate in accordance with the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control, which permits serving of alcohol until 1:30 A.M. Closing times for these
businesses can vary, but the typical closing time is 2:00 A.M., seven days per week. As a
result of the similar closing t;anes, patrons from both establishments return to the public
parking lots to retrieve vehicles and leave the area. Although Police Department Calls for
Service (CFS) for these businesses have generally decreased since the year 2000
(Attachment D), Director’s Hearings were held to review the use permits for each
establishment, based upon requests from the community to the Director of Planning and
Comlwunity Environment.
Conditional use permits may be periodically reviewed if, in the judgTnent of the Zoning
Administrator, substantial evidence indicates that the use conducted pursuant to a
conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimentai to the pubiic health,
safety and welfare. The Zoning Administrator may set a date for a public hearing with
the intent to revie~v the use and determine if the permit shoUld be modified (Palo Alto
Municipal Code, Section 18.90.080).
In the case of The Edge nightclub, an annual hearing is required as a condition of use
permit approval, to review the use, the conditions, and to modify the permit as needed to
meet the required findings for conditional uses. Director’s Hearings for The Edge
nightclub were held and the use permit was modified in January 1999 and February 2002.
The use permit was most recently reviewed at a Director’s Hearing in June 2003 and was
modified in July 2003.
The use permit for Antonio’s Nut House has essentially remained in its original form
since the mid-seventies. No other public hearings had been held to review the use or the
conditions associated with the permit, when it was decided that A_ntonio’s Nut House
would be heard at the same June 2003 Director’s hearing as The Edge nightclub, so that
the City, could take public testimony on both use permits. It was the City’s intent to
establishing consistent conditions of approval for each use in hopes of reducing
complaints in the area.
Public hearings were held on June 5 and June 19, 2003 so that a hearing officer on behalf
of the Planning Director could receive public testimony. On July 9, 2003 the Director of
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Ptanning and Com_munity Environment conditionally approved a revised use permit with
conditions similar to The Edge nightclub (see Attachment B). Mr. Montooth submitted
an appeal to the conditions of approval on July 18, 2003 (Attachment C), noting his
concerns that related to three genera! categories: 1) Alcohol permit requirements; 2)
Operational conditions; and 3) Patron management and security.
DISCUSSION
The use permit (Attac~ent B) contains thirteen conditions that can be ~ouped into the
following general categories:
1.Alcohol permit requirements:
2.Operational conditions:
3.Patron management and security:
Conditions ~"~1, #12 and ~!3
Conditions ~~~2, #8, ~,9, and #1 t
Conditions "~ .,-4, ~- .~,,~,~, #4, ~z, ~6, #7 and ~10
In the appellant’s letter of July 18, 2003, the appellant indicated that Conditions # 1
though #11 would seriously impact his financial ability to continue to operate his
business. The appellant has not contested Conditions #5, #7, #10, #12 and #13.
Alcohol Permit Requiremems
Condition #1 of the use permit relates to the requirement of the City to hold an annual
public hearing to review the conditions of the amended use permit, and set standards for
compliance with the use permit and applicable codes, including the noise ordinance
(PAMC 9.10). This requirement is intended to provide a forum for the business owner,
residents and property ow"ners in the California Avenue neighborhood to discuss how the
business has operated during the previous 12 months and recommend adjustments to the
use permit that would satisfy the business owner and other interested parties.
It is expected that this condition will help the business owner and the City to be more
proactive in addressing issues throughout the year. The standards set in this condition are
intended to set expectations that can be understood by the business owner and residents in
the area. It will be in the best interest of the business owner to address problems as they
arise and document the solutions, which can be reviewed at the annual meeting.
Conditions of O~eration
Condition #2, limiting the hours of operation at the restaurant and bar, will have the most
direct impact on the business owner. The existing hours of operation are typically 9:00
A.M. to 3:00 A.M., seven days per week. The new hours of operation, as contained in the
amended use permit are:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Sunday through Thursday 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. (closing time)
Friday and Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. (closing time)
There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 9:00
A.M., Mondays through Fridays and 3:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Saturdays and
Sundays, except for cleaning the premises.
The result of these limited hours is that no patrons will be a!lowed in the bar after 12:00
A.M. during the typical week night hours, Sunday through Thursday, and after 2:00 A.M.
on weekend nights. The restaurant and bar would be closed an additional 17 hours during
a typical week under this permit.
The intent of the adjusted hours was to keep the nuisances that result from patrons
departing the area at c!osing time from occurring in the early morning hours. Testimony
received during the public hearings indicated that most of the disturbances were occurring
in the City of Palo Alto Lot C-7, which is adjacent to Antonio’s Nut House, during the
nighttime hours at or near closing time. By closing early on weeknights, it is intended that
any nuisance activity would occur relatively early in the evening, thereby affecting fewer
numbers of people. Other conditions in the amended use permit focus on reducing the
nuisances in the area.
Staff also recog-nizes that weekend nights tend to be the most popular evenings for the
restaurant and bar and the time when the potential for revenue is high. Staff reduced the
hours on weekends by only one hour on Friday and Saturday nights to accommodate the
business ovcner on his busiest nights. It should be noted that no patrons are allowed in the
restaurant and bar one hour after the posted closing time. In addition, state ordinances
limit serving and consumption of alcohol after 1:30 A.M. on any night of the week.
Conditions #8 and #9 relate to the City of Palo Alto ordinances that require the serving of
alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the operation of a bona-fide restaurant (PAMC
18.90.120). These conditions require that the regular menu be available unti! 11:00 P.M.
and that a late-night menu offering be available after 11:00 P.M. until closing time. These
conditions are consistent with any other conditional use permit that allows set, zing of
alcoholic beverages.
Condition #11, which requires that restroom facilities be made available to patrons who
may be waiting in a queue to enter the building, is intended to reduce instances of public
urination or defecation. Instances of this nuisance were received during public hearings.
Cib/ of Palo Alto Page 4
Patron mana_~ement and securiW
Conditions #3, #4 and #6 relate to the management of patrons to Antonio’s Nut House.
These conditions attempt to affect the behavior of the patrons in the private outdoor
parking area on the restaurant and bar site, in the City of Palo Alto public parking lot C-7,
and in the public right-of-ways in and around the site.
These conditions require the business owner to submit two plans of management for
Antonio’ s patrons:
Condition #3 requires a plan for crowd control on private property, including standards to
evaluate situations and methods for dispersion once a crowd is observed.
Condition #4 requires a plan for the utilization of a security guard to direct patrons to
desig-nated public parking areas with the intent of reducing impacts to residential areas in
the vicinity of the restaurant and bar. The plan requires that security personnel will
monitor a defined area in and around .£ntonio’ s Nut House to direct patrons to the
designated lots. The plan is desig-ned to be flexible, in that the Manager of Current
Planning may make changes in the security plan based upon complaints or other factors.
The plan requires that the security persormel be licensed by the State of Califo~ia in a
uniformed manner so that it is clear that they are security guards rather than City of Palo
Alto police officers. Condition #6 relates similarly ih that a uniformed and licensed
security g~ard is required to be stationed outside of the building during evening hours to
ensure code compliance.
It should be noted that each of the conditions in the amended use permit were intended to
reduce, rather than eliminate, instances of nuisances in public and private areas. Staff is
aware that there may be visitors to the area that contribute to the problem who are not
patrons of Antonio’s Nut House. However, it is the responsibility of the business o~vner
to maintain control of the patrons who are customers of Antonio’s Nut House. The
conditions help to ensure that this control is maintained, standards are enforced, and as a
result, fewer nuisances are observed.
Recent Noise Analysis at Antonio’s Nut House
Staff has received a memorandum (Attachment D) from Lieutenant Ron Lawrence of the
Palo Alto Police department dated September 3, 2003, regarding a noise analysis
undertaken by officers in late August and early September.
The noise analysis included a baseline reading on August 27 at 7:35 P.M. and was
considered the "Local Ambient Reading". Subsequent readings were taken at three other
times in the early morning hours. According to the memorandum, noise levels at these
City of Palo Alto Page 5
times were either at or slightly above the Local Ambient Reading 1eve!.
The police department concluded that Antonio’s Nut House appeared to be within the 8-
dB limit above the local ambient noise level, pursuant to PAMC 9.10.040. The analysis
indicated that the !ocal ambient noise leve! was exceeded during both tests. On one
occasion, the source of the noise that caused a reading above the 8 dB maximum was due
to a passing car not associated with Axntonio’s Nut House. The other reading that
exceeded the limit was within the public parking lot, but the specific source of the noise
could not be determined.
Lieutenant Lawrence indicated that all but one reading was within the residential limits
for noise pursuant to PAMC 9.10.030. The analysis indicated that pedestrians were
observed walking in the general area, not specific to any business, traveling to and from
parked vehicles in the City of Palo Alto parking lot C-7, behind Antonio’s Nut House.
ALTERNATI~’ES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The P&TC may wish to recommend that Conditions #4 and #6 be modified to require that
security guards, whether registered by the State of California and work~’ng for a licensed
~e~, z~ c~mpa,~y or employees of Antonio’s ~ ~_vuL House working as door persons, be
.utilized in the parking plan and as security at the door.
The intent of the conditions was to have uniformed g~ards who are re~stered with the
State of California and who work for a licensed company providing security services
described in the use permit conditions of approval.
The alternative would be to have employees of the restaurant and bar act as door persons.
The duties of the door person(s) would be the same as those described in the use permit
and the crowd control/parking plans that would be submitted to the Planning Division and
Police Department for review.
POLICY I~IPLICATIONS
This project does not represent any change to existing city policies and is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-28 that maintains the existing scale, character, and function
of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center
intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood
business areas.
ENVIRON I-IVIENTAL RE’vIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15301.
City of Palo Alto Psge 6
ATTAC~IENTS/EXt:gBIT S:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action
Attachment B:’Amended Conditional Use Permit, July 2003
Attachment C:Appellant’s Appeal Letter, July 18, 2003
Attachment D:Correspondence Submitted Subsequent to Director’s hearing
1. Police Department Memorandum- Noise Analysis
2. Letters from Community Members
Attachment E: Director’s Administrative Record (Commission only)
COLrRTESY COPIES:
Tony Montooth, Antonio’s Nut House, 321 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Paul J. McDonald, Esq., 2500 E1 Camino Real, Suite 210, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Greg Kerber, P.O. Box 1877 Palo Alto, CA 94302
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Jeff Herman, 2512 Birch Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Lisa Habbeshaw, 2504 Birch Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mido~-Kato Maeda, 2512 Birch~c+’-~÷L,,.~ L, Palo Alto, r-,_..~,~ 94306
Peter Holland, 342 Grant Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dea Smith, 4250 E1 Camino Real, #D229, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Kelly Gorman, 321 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Andre DePass, 321 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Prepared by: Steven Turner, Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning /v
Department/Division Head approval: .......~J~S~
,~a~Grote, ~hief Pi~ning O/fficial
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2003-
RECORD OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 321 CALIFORNIA AVENT!E: MODIFIFED CONDITIONAL USE PER/~IT TO
ALLOW ALCOHOLIC BE-v’E RAGE SERVICE FOR A B ONA FIDE EATING AND
DRIITKING EST-~-BLISI-~ME-.~T 03-AP-08 (TOh"Y MO~’-TOOTH, APPLICanT_).
On , 2003 the City Counci! upheld the July 9, 2003,
Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval to allow
alcoholic beverage service in conjunction with a bona fide ~eau_ng
and drinking establishment, making the fol!owing findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Counci! of the City of
_ Councm_ ) finds, determines, and declares asPa!o Alto ("City ’l" ’
follows:
A. The Director of Planning and Community Environment
pursuant to Pa!o Alto Muni cipa! Code section 18.90.080(b) held a
public hearing on June 5 and June !9, 2003 to review an existing
conditional use permit (73 -UP-26) to allow alcoholic beverage
service at 321 California Avenue, Antonio’s Nut House (the
"Project"). The Director deter mined that the use was being
conducted in a manner detrimenta! to the publichealth, safety and
welfare and that the conditiona! use permit should be modified by
adding new conditions.
B. On July 18, 2003, the business owner of Antonio’s Nut
House, Tony Mort tooth, submitted an appea! re_quest, contesting
specific conditions of approva! of the modified conditional use
perm_u.
C. On October 8, 2003, the Planning and Transportation
Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend to the City
Counci! deny the appea! and uphold the Director’s Decision.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review.This project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmenta! Quality
Act per Section 15301.
SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Review Findings.
A. The use all owed by use permit number 73 -UP-26 was
being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health safety
and welfare in that:
Police Calls for Service (CFS) reports indicate that there are
ongoing complaints about nuisance activity at or near Antonio’su~
House. The number of service calls were recorded during the
fol!owing years: 2000- 12 CFS; 2001 - 17 CFS; 2002 - 12 CFS; 2003
(through 5/26/03)- 2 CFS. in addition, testimony received during
the public hearings on June 5 and June 19, 2003 included the
fol!owing observations in and around the property of Antonio’s Nut
House: loud yelling and talking, public drunkenness, excessive
racing or rewing of automobile engines, urination and defecation,
loud music, and loitering.
B. The modified conditions set forth in Section 5 below
wi!! ensure that the use is conducted in a manner that will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that:
The conditions ensure that business owner maintains contro! over
the patrons to the establishment and as a result, fewer nuisances
are observed. The conditions are designed to reduce instances of
nuisances in public and private areas.
SECTION 4. Conditiona! Use Permit Modified. Conditiona!
Use Permit No. 73-UP-26 is modified to include the conditions of
approva! set forth in Section 5.
SECTION 5. Modified Conditions of AmDrova!.
Department of P!am~ing and Community Environment
Planning Division
The Director of Planning and Community snvmr~nmenu shal! hold
a public hearing annually to review the conditi ons of the
amended use permit, police activity report, fire inspection,
hui!ding inspections, complaints and public testimony to
dete:m,ne the business owner’s compliance with the use permit
conditions of approva!, if the business owner has not
co~m!ied with all the conditions or there have been three or
more officially documented infractions of the noise ordinance
within the !2-month period, Use Permit 73UP-!3 may be revoked
or modified. Officially documented infractions means that the
Palo Alto Police Department has conducted noise readings and
found the establishment to be in violation of the Pa!o Alto
Noise Ordinance. The date and time of this hearing shal! be
noticed in accordance with the provisions of section 18.90.030
Palo Alto Municipa! Code [P~ C], including publication in a
loca! newspaper of general circulation and by notice to
residents and property owners within 300 feet of the property.
2.Hours of Operation shal! extend no later than the following:
Sunday through Thursday 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M.
(c!osing time)
Friday and Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M.
(c!osing time)
There shall be no operations of any kind between the hours of
i:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Monday through Friday and 3:00 A.M.
and 9:00 A.M. Saturday and Sunday, except for cleaning the
premises, or for compliance with the provisions of the litter
remova! plan established inCondition #I0. Trash and recycling
disposa! may take place after 8:00 A.M daily.
Patrons shall not be allowed to enter the building between
11:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. Sunday through Friday and 1:30 A.M.
Saturday and Sunday. The serving of all alcoholic beverages
shal! terminate on, half hour prior to c!osing, and shal! not
be allowed to commence unti! the reopening of business later
that day, but inlno event priorto 9:00 A.M~ All patrons shall
be vacated from the building onehour after the posted closing
time.
o The business operator shall submit a plan, which addresses
crowd control, specifically the management of patrons outside
of the establishment and patrons w airing to enter the
facility. The plan shal! be reviewed and approved by both the
Police Department and Manager of Current Planning. The plan
shal! identify methods for controlling and dispersing patrons
in the private parking lot and those waiting to ente r the
esuabl_shment The plan shal! include quantitative objectives
such as the maximum al!owable number of patrons in the parking
!ot and a time limit for achieving the objective once a crowd
forms. The plan shal! be submitted no later than 15 days after
the issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately
upon approva! unless otherwise specified.
The business operator shal! submit a plan for the utilization
of a security guard in directing patrons to designated public
parking !ots for the purpose of reducing noise levels in the
California Avenue district and the residentia! areas to the
southeast of the site. The plan shall be reviewed and approved
by both the Police Department and the Manager of Current
Planning. The plan shall identify the boundmies and specific
areas the guard wil! patrol, specific public parking !ors to
which patrons wil! be directed, and the manner in which the
guards are to approach and direct motorists and patrons
!oitering in parking lots. The Manager of Current Planning ~a
require the operator to make changes in the security plan,
upon determination that the approved plan in not effective in
reducing complaints. The Manager of Current Planning may also
re_quire changes to the boundaries of the security area, and in
the number, !ocation and actions of the security guards, upon
a determination that such changes are necessary to reduce
co~nlaints. All security guards used to implement this plan
o
shal! be licensed by the State of California and uniformed in
a manner that satisfi~ the Police Department and also clearly
identifies them as guards for the facility and not Pa!o Alto
Police Officers. The plan shal! be submitted no later than !5
days after the issuance of this use permit and implemented
immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified.
The business -~ -~opera,o_ shall submit a temporary_ sign program
for the California ~:venue district that effectively directs
patrons of the facility to the specific public parking !ors
identified in the approved security guard plan require, d by
Condition #4. Specifically, the temporary sign program shal!
d_recu patrons to public parking !ots other than Lot C-7. The
placement and wording of the signs and days for which they
will be utilized shall be rewiewed and approved by the
Transportation Division. The plan shall be submitted no later
unan 15 days after the issuance of this use permit and
implemented immediately upon approva! unless otherwise
specified.
The owners and operators of the facility shall insure that a
minimum of one uniformedsecurity guard, licensed by the State
of California, be stationed outside the building during the
hours of evening operations to insure compliance with al!
applicable conditions of approva!, codes and ordinances. The
Police Department wil! respond on a com plaint basis only.
Violations of any nature, including noise may lead to a
revocation of the permit by .the Director of Planning and
Community Environment.
The business operator shal! submit a plan to educate patrons
that the use of property is only permi tted under certain
conditions, particularly with respect for the surrounding
business and residentia! neighborhood. The education program
shal! direct patrons to park in designated public parking
!ors, to reduce noise in the California Avenue district, to
eliminate litter and vandalism, and to be respectfu! of
property and residents in the California Avenue district. The
plan shal! 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 Manager of Current Planning. The
plan shall he submitted no later than 15 days after the
issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately upon
approva! unless otherwise specified.
The serving of alcoholic beverages shall only be al!owed in
conjunction with the operation of a bon~fide restaurant. The
restaurant shal! be in operation and easily accessible to and
i0.
ii.
12.
13.
from the entertainment area during the times in which alcohol
is sold and consumed on site.
The owners and operators of the club shal! provide a full
service menu to customers during regular business hours and a
late night menu to customers after !!:00 p.m. which shal! be
available until c!osing.
The business shal! remov e al! litter associated with its
operation in the area patrolled by the security guard, as
defined in Condition #4. Litter remova! shal! commence no
earlier than 8:00 A.M. and shal! be completed by !0:00 A.M.
the morning after every business day.
The business operator shall allow all patrons waiting in line
to have ful! access and use of the bathroom facilities within
the building, weather or not that patron has paid the required
cover charge (if any). This service shall be advertised in
conjunction with the education program specified in Condition
#7.
The sale of beer and wine 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 of the
terms and conditions of this use permit.
This use shall comply with all applicable City codes,
including but not limited to, Title 9 (public Peace, Morals
and Safety), Title !5 (Fire Prevention) and Title 18 (Zoning).
in addi~’ this use ~m77 ~m~l~ ~,~a~ ~ ..... ~= =~ "
State of California Adminmsm_~ive Code, including the
requirements for licensing from the Department of Alcoho!
Beverage Contro!.
PASSED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
~STENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment E
PALO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
September 3, 2003
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STEVEN TURNER, CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RON LAW-RENCE, POLICE LIEUTENANT
ANTON~OS ~’T HOUSE - 321 CALIFOI~NIA A~vnE
Listed in this memorandum are the sound meter reading results from tests taken by the Palo Alto
Police Department. The sound meter reading unit used was brand name, °’Sound Master," model
# 910. The first reading was taken on August 27, 2003, at 1935 hours, prior to the business being
busy and filled ,Mth patrons. This reading was used as a baseline "locat ambient noise" level
reading, as outlined in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, 9.10.040 (Commercial and
Industrial Property Noise Limits).
Reading date Reading time
8/27/03 1935 hours
Reading level Officer
46.7 dB Henley
(L 0 CAL A ~l~ IENT RE. 4.0 ING)
8/27/03 0020 hours 45.3 dB Herrera
8/29/03 0030 hours 46.7 dB Hollenbeck
parking lot: 58.3
9/1/03 0030 hours Average: 46 dB Wilkie
(10 minute period)with voices: 53 dB
with car driving: 50-58 dB
The results of these readings indicate that the .Antonio’s Nut House business located at 321
California Avenue appears to be within the ei~-~t (8) Db above the local ambient noise, pursuant
to PAMC 9.10.040. The only readings which momentarily exceeded the local ambient noise level
were the readings taken on 8/29/03 and 9/!/03. The reading taken on 8/29/03, was determined to
be from the parking lot area within the City parking lot, and not known where the individual noise
specifically emitted from. The reading taken on 9/1/03 was determined to be the result of a
passing automobile traveling down Birch Street. This was determined NOT to have been
associated with the business at 321 California Avenue.
Additionally, these readings are a!! wit_h,.L’n even the residemia! liwAts for noise pursu"~rlt to Pa!o
A!to Municipal c-vo,~e ,,lrmts). This section specifies that
noise shal! not exceed six (6) dB above local ambient noise leve!. The only ~,vo readings which
exceeded 6 dB above the local ambient noise leve! were the readings taken on 9/1/03. These
readings were determined to have been caused by voices talldng in the area (not at the business)
and an automobile passing by on Birch Street.
While conducting this inquiry, we located a source of noise from a ~oup gathered across the
street from Antonio’s Nut House, in front of a business ca!led"Printers Inc." coffee shop, located
at 320 California Avenue. This small goup were playing musical instruments, which included a
loud dram. The group was contacted and it was determined that there was no use permit for this
type of venue at that location. They were asked to discontinue the music, and they complied.
It v-as also determined that people were found to be walking about in the general area, not specific
to any particular business, including Antonio’s Nut House. These appeared to be patrons going to
and firom various business and to parked vehicles in the City parking lot located behind 321
California Avenue.
It should be noted that this inquiry was NOT a result of a noise complaint, and therefore did not
generate a noise complaint investigation report (only documented within this memorandum). This
inquiry, was conducted as ageed during collaborative discussion with Antonio’s Nut House, the
City of Palo Alto Planning Department, and the Police Department. If any additional inquiries are
necessary on the part of the Police Department as related to Antonio’s Nut House, please contact
Lieutenant Ron Lawrence directly.
RON LAWRENCE
Police Lieutenant
Cc:file
E~etten, Zariah
$~nt:
To:
Subject:
Emslie, Steve
Monday, September 29, 2003 1.1:40 AM
Betten, Zariah
Grote, Lisa
FW: Please Keep Antonio’s Nuthouse
For the commission packet.
steve
.... Original Message---
From: Benest, Frank
Sent: Sun.day, September 28, 2003 5:03 PM
To: Emslie, Steve
Subject: FW: Please Keep Antonio’s Nuthouse
---Original Message---
From: Dragomir Angelov [mailto:drago@stanford.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:27 PM
To: city_council@city.palo-alto.ca.us
;ubject: Please Keep Antonio’s Nut_house
Please keep Antonio’s Nuthouse bar on California Ave. It’s a bar with a
unique atmosphere, and an ideal student hangout. It’s been in the area
for years, with no strong opposition from residents so far.
I find it disappointing if people move into an area with a traditional
bar and then demand that it be shut down. They probably moved into the
areawhen the bar was there in the first place, implidtly ao~reeing to
the ~gher amount of noise(and probably paying less for it).
This way any public hangout wiI1 eventually be expelled from the city. A
main street in our city, should be a lively place, not a deserted quiet
suburbia.
Best regards,
Drago Anguelov
hoist, " .m~row my ~ a~d my quaii~/of ]~e,
As I have indi~ in previous be~ and tb~ submiR¢~i documeat.~ion, ~ ~b~
~ I haw m~ ~ ~e ~s d ~o’~ Nut ~ ~:
~day Aunt ~ a~ 1.20 ~ T~y A~st ~2~ ~ ~:~ ~y S@~
7:3~m, S .ept. ~ at 7:5 -C~m, Sap. t. 5 a~ 7:53am, S~t. 12 at 6’.~am and ~ 22 a~ 7:lOam
I aminm’-,,~t~ to know the o ,~utc,~ma to ~uarant~ that the aondltlon~ ~ in the
~:um~t h~u~i by t!~ D~rrzmt ~d Pla~g ~ C.~mmunity .~.nvimnn~nt withe
~ollow~i, A m~thod ¢ff e~or~ment is raquir~ bw.ause it is n~t pos~’ble, as atate~l in
~mma~da@yahoo.com
I l’mw= been an o~.’~ mad ~sident ~t the Bi~h Cour~ Condominiums for 2 Va y~rs. My
home Aces Antonio’s Nut House. We am sgp. ~ed by Pzlo Alto P~ldng Lot #7.
Tony f~on~’~
.~m~o’s Nut House.
I a~x~e fully with ~he Palo Aho W~ekly editorial of 8/20/03, "Nedghbors have rights
pvaceM aigh~", which sm~d:
Neighbors complain the problem is incessant
and dis~rupnive, and have demanded that the
city move to calm things down. They have a
strong case.
(Antonio’s Nut House) should hire whatever
security it takes to fix the parking lot
noise problems.
I agree that the applic-o~at ~eeds t~ provide hnamediate soiutions to these issues and not
rake up pmious dry zesoun:es or push the problem offonto the neighbor~ (some of whom
have be~n liv~mad ~h these issues and r=por~ng them to the ivy fo~ 20 yearn).
Given the fact that probl~ms discussed at the jun= hea_,’ings aze still oe~-~ring on a fre ~o.~eat
basis (as noted be!ow), I encourage "abe dry to move forward with the exra~tions Julie
Caporgno (Advance Planning Manager.) put forth in Tony Montooth (the applicant’s)
amended use pen~t in J-sly 2003. It is/me to resolve these issues so that the neighbors can
live (and slezp) i~ peace.
I regre* I won’t be able to p~esent my concerns in pexson -- I xO!1 be out of the country
durir~g the 10/8/03 hearhag due to a previous, long-snmding ~gagemen~.
j. Hu--rnan r~: Ant~vAo"~ NutHousc p. 1 ,.,:4
The p~oblems I !-e~.aorted at the heaz~ on 6/5/03 and 6/19/03 regarding the applicant’s
use permit ~re still occu~"ing on a ~equent basis and are still sJgzfificant problems.
.n.0 ’Excessive noise is caus ’d
by people who aze taildng loudly, yelling,
making catcalls, hughing, pIaying caz
radios, honking horns, and ix-wring
engines (both cars and motorcycles).
routineIy empties their beer bottles
before 8am (despite the applicant’s
claims to the eor..waiT). This creates
excessive noise at a time when neighbors
Ofm.n occurs until
2:30am. This is a
partieula~ problem
Thu~sday,.Friday, Saturday
nights, althougta problems
occu~ every, night of the
0~ occu~’"until
2:30am. This is a
parficula~ problem
Thu~aday, F.dday, Saturday
n~h~, ~Ithough problems
9cc~r cveaT Mght of the
w’ee~ For example, on
Sept. 26 at 12:30am, the=e
were 18 people loiteri=g in
Antonio’s own paxking loe
and c~eating significant
noise.
Oca. s once
week,, including in last 2
months done:
¯ o Aug. 11 at 7:3~am
o Aug. 13 at 7:5~am
Not acceptabl~
are ekher sleeping o: Jn the process of
en}oying a quiet bredffast.
o Aug. 28 at 6:35am
o Aug. 29 at 7:30am
o Sept. 4 a~ 7:S0am
o Sept, 5 at 7:53am
o Sept. 12 at 6:53am
o Sept. 22 at 7:10am
through Antonio’s trash to take the glass
boules (again, g~merating e~cessive
noise).
twice a day for !0-15
minutes, typically around
9am md 7pro.
j. Hemaan m’ AotoIIJ~,’s Nut Hou~ p. 2 of 4
Applicant’s response m neighbors’ concerns
! encourage you tx, read the applicant’s Ietter ro the city dated 7/19/03. I believe it is a clear
indication of his ~pproach m resolving the neighbor’ concerns.
For example, in r~ponse to ndghbors’ concerns that zMatonio’s empties beer bottles bet’ore
8am, the ~ppHcan-: w~or~: "T~ FALSE 5TA~b~,.~NTS ABOUT T.;-r~ GA_R_BAGE
BOTTLES BEING DUMPED TOO EARLY iS A LIE". (Capitalization is the; applicmfs.)
In ~c cha_~ above:, I have lis~d 8 occurrences in the la~t two months alone when I have
personally wimcs~,;ed someone waLldng out the bg:k door o£Antonio’s and emptying the
bee~" bottles before 8am (and, in one case, before 7am).
.The applicant’s r,’.sponses are consistent ~-ith his prior actions. For example, at ~e 6/5/03,
hezdiag, the app.licant-said he newer applied ~or (and,. as a remit, never ~ecdveff) a.-p~mit to
build his outdoor: patio. Despkc two subsequent warning lctte.~ from the city and repeated
concerns ,raised 5y neighbors over the noise generated by Anto~o’s patrons use of the
outdoor patio, k still rook ~e applicant 2 months to remove the illegal patio,
In ~eJuoe he~--tdngs, the applicant said he cannot control wha~ happens in parking lot 7. As
~ result, I cert~aly support all oft.he conditions, including numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, ~, 6 in
the use pem~it a~ specified by Ms. Caporglao:
!.The Director of P!arming and Community shall hold a
public hearing annually .
2. Liz~ting hours of operation
The business operator shall submit a plan, which
addresses crowd control, specifically the management
of patrons outside the estab!ishlnent and patrons
waiting to enter the facility.
Tha~ business operator shall submit a plan for
utilization of a security guard in directing patrons
to designated public parking lots for the purpose of
re~cing noise in the California Avenue district and
the residential areas to the south of the site.
J, Herman re: Antortio’s Nut p. 3 of 4
The business operato~ shall submit a temporary" sign
prog:=am for the California Avenue d±strict that
effectively directs patrons of the facility to
specific parking lots identified in the approved
secu;~ity guard plan re~ired ~ Con~i~ #4.
The owners and operators of the facility shall
insure that a minimum of one uniformed security
guard, licensed by the state of California, be
stationed outside the bui!ding during the hours of
evening operations to insure compliance with all
appliceble conditions of approval, codes and
ordinances.
Using police calls ~s a measure of the problem
I beli~’e the number of calls ~o police and the number ofinddcnt rcpor~ ate not effective
measur:s of ndghbor conceaT, s for the following reasons:
1) The cvent~ are transitory, Even if the police respond.in on!y ~ f~" minutes, it is easy
~he offending pa~d~ to stop making noise immediately as soon as ~e polic= arrive.
Hoxveve% by this point neighbm’s.~ave already beam ax~kened and dim~rbed, ~-~6 the
~ h~s been done.
2) As a taxpayer, I resist c~lling r.hepolice re~ding ~hese issues (~!~ough I have done so
=x~eme:cases), I strongly prefer ~hat the applican~ adhere ~o the exis’iPd~ municipal code
r:garding noise ~s wctl a~ his use permit ra~her th~n takigg up precious police resources to
remlve daese issues. Quodng again from the Palo Aho Weekly editorial of 8/20/03:
(Police Chief L~T~q Johnson) ,.. notes the
officers are also needed elsewhere in town.
Closing
Please D£0mD, t],~ {orward~ copy of dis lerrc~: to Amv Yrench (be/ore the_Ocm.ber 8’~ us~
DenT~ir-me~ri~n~ ~d any ocher cirf o£~dals who may help resolv: these issues. Please ¢onracr
me fo~ addirion~ information, Thank you for your arregfion m these issues.
Jeff He,’man
i cff_he.aman@y ~oo.¢om
Attachment G
l
2
3
4
5
7
9
lO
iI
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
2O
21
22
2~
24
25
26
27
2~
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
~5
PLA~’V2~’LNG AND TtL4NSPOR TA TION C O2VI~rlSS!ON
Wednesday, October 8, 2003
REGULAR MEETING
EXCERPT VERBA TI~’~I ~F[INUTES
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
1. 321 California Avenue’-": Appeal by Tony Montooth of the Director of Planning and
Communib, Enviromnent’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit requested by Tony Montooth
to allow alcoholic beverage service as a conditional use, in the Conmmnity Conmaercial
Combining Zone District. Envirormaental Assessment: Exempt from the CaIifomia
EnvironmentaI Quality Act per Section 15301. File No: 73-UP-13, amended on July 2003.
_~_1 California Avenue on this latest Sunday evening and did notCommissioner Bum I went by
enter the premises.
Commissioner Bellomo: I drove by last week.
Commissioner Hohaaan: I visited the site.
Conmaissioner Packer: I ~valked around the building today
Vice-Chair Cassel: I walked around the site on an evenin,
Chair Griffin: I must be the only person who did an in d,’
premises at 1_:.~0 on Saturday night, I did walk in and spent
back out.
day.
and came
Would the Staff care to make a presentation, please?
Mr. Steve Turner. Planner: Thank you Chair Griffin. Staff is recommending that the Planning
and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold
the Direct of Plarming and Community Environment’s original approval.
Chair Griffin and Commissioners the subject site contains Antonio’s Nut House, which is an
establislmaent that operates with the restaurant next door known as Taqueria Azteca. Antonio’s
is ovv-ned and operated by Tony Montooth who has been penNtted to serve alcoholic beverages
under an existing use permit that ~vas originally issued in 1973. A copy of the ori~nal use
permit is contained in the StaffReport. The pemait itself has essentially unchanged since the
ori~_~nal approval. The sale and service of alcoholic beverages is a conditional use in all districts
that allow eating and drinking establishments as a permitted use. The requirement for a
conditiona! use permit are that the use will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements ha the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
..9..3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
welfare or convenience and that the use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the zoning code. The Police Department
and the Department of Plarming and Community Environment have received complaints from
members of the community regarding noise and other disturbances in the vicinity of the business
district along California Avenue. The Director of Plam~_ing and Con:~rnunity Environment
directed Staff to hold a hearing to gather evidence pertaining to the use permit and to address
~vhether or not the use is harmful or detrimental to property, health and safety. Director’s
Hearings were held on June 5 and June 19 of this year to receive public testimony regarding the
perceived nuisances in the neighborhood. Verbatim minutes from those meetings are contained
in the Staff Report. Based upon the evidence received at the public hearings aa~d in v~witten
co~mnunications sent to the Plmming Division the Director amended the use permit for the site.
The amended use permit is also in your StaffReport.
)cir. Montooth is appealing the us~ permit on the conditions that were added with this most recem
amendment. Specifically the appeal seems to concentrate on the hours of operation and the use
of licensed security guards as the focus of the appeal. Over the past month Planning Staff with
the cooperation of the Police Department have been meeting with )cir. Montooth to discuss his
amended conditions of approval and to determine how during this appeal process Mr. Montooth
could comply with the spirit of the amended use permit. Staff is encouraged by )cir. Momooth’s
efforts in this regard. Mr. Montooth has submitted a letter that described modified conditions,
which except for a few areas essentially meet the conditions in the original use permit. Those
proposed conditions have been placed at ?,our places you may refer to them.
The key differences between the aT, ended use permit from July of this year and the proposed
conditions as presented to you this evening would be that there would be a requirement to delete
the requirement for a yearly public hearing to assess the use pen:nit and operation at ~amtonio’s
Nut House. The proposed conditions would modify the hours of operation that would allow the
business to stay open until 2:00 AM, which would be the closing time. Nmnber three would be
to utilize a door person on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights from 10:00 PM until closing for
crowd control and to prevent loitering in and around the area. Finally the proposed modified
conditions would remove a specific condition to the provision of a regular restaurant menu until
11:00 PM and a late night menu until the close of business.
Also at places this even_ing are letters of communication submit-ted to the Commission after
publication of the Staff Report.
Finally, as a matter of disclosure there have been code enforcement actions at ,~atonio’s that do
not directly relate to this use permit which is why they are not included in the administrative
record. One issue relates to the patio area where tabies and chairs that were oriNnally there did
not receive the required architectural review and approval, lvir. Montooth has removed the tables
and chairs from that patio area and has since submitted a formal ARB application to allow
outdoor seating on the property.. The second action relates to infractions of the smoldng
ordinance, which requires a 20-foot distance between smokers and entries to the building. Staff
is working with Mr. Montooth to install the proper sig-nage that would inform smokers of this
regulation and that is ongoing. Finally, Captain Brad Zook from the Police Department is
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
present to answer questions that you may have regarding police activity" at the site. That
concludes the Staff Report. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.. The appellant has 15 minutes available for a presentation. Are you
prepared to start? Please introduce yourself.
Paul J. McDonald, Esq., Gennino, MacKay, Runte & McDonald, P.C., Palo Alto: I have been
retained by Mr. Montooth to represent him at this hearing. I have been involved with meetings
with Staff and Mr. Montooth over the last month and a half. Some of those meetings have been
referred to by Mr. Turner. M_r. Montooth is here he would like to say a few words and then I
would like to make a presentation if that is okay with you folks.
Chair Griffin: Welcome Mr. Montooth.
Mr. Tony Montooth. A~Dellant: You Mtow who I am and I ant not used to this so Mr. McDonald
is going to talk for me. Kelley Gorman my nigJ~t manager knows more about the nighttime
business than I do so too will speak.
_k~-. McDonald: Thin@: you. First I would like to make a few comments with regard to the Staff
Report. On page two it says that the typical closing hours are similar to The Edge and that is not
the case. They are not similar to The Edge at all in that The Edge is allowed to stay open to 3:00
:AM on many nights during the week and on the weekend. In fact condition tt~ree to The Edge is
amended conditional use dated July 2003 says that there shall be no operations of any ~nd
between the hottrs of 3:00 ,a~k/f and 9:00 AM except for the cleaning of the premises, etc., etc. It
does say that the serving of alcoholic beverages will terminate at 1:30 AiM but The Edge has
different hours than Antonio’s. I wanted to bring that to your attention.
Also on page three of the report it states that the reasons for our appeal is that it serious impacts
the appellant’s financial ability to continue to operate. That is true it does. We have done a
September survey of our receipts and the proposal is that Antonio’s be closed Sunday nigl~t
through Thursday niN~ts from ~rddnight to two o’clock. We do a survey of the receipts during
that time and the average receipts, once again this just an average for one month out of the year,
the financial impact is $1,834.00 per week. You multiply that by 52 weeks and that is $95,368
per year. It is a si~ificant amount of money to Antonio’s and would essentialiy prohibit him
from operating his business if that income was taken away.
There is another reason why we objected or appealed the conditions and that is that we feel that
the operations of the business do not warrant the conditions proposed by the Staff. Lastly, the
report says that we do not contest conditions five, seven and ten. That is true in the general spirit
and nature of those conditions. We did make minor changes and we do have Antonio’s proposed
conditions there. With regard to those conditions we are concerned about five, seven and ten
because it once again refers to security Ntards, licensed security guards, and makes reference to
other conditions that we don’t a~ee with in our appeal.
With regard to the Municipal Code and some of the words that have been used in the report and
in the record a lot of people are using the word "nuisance" and they are using it I feel quite
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
loosety. The Municipal Code says in Section 1.08.010 defines a public nuisance as any
conditions caused or pemaitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Code it is a
public nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City. Now my client has not been cited by
the police or the Cib* Attorney or the District Attorney for any violations of the Code. The3,"
have not been charged with any comi~laint and therefore I want to caution the Conmaission xvhen
they hear this xvord "nuisance" that my client has not been found guilty of any violation of any
code. With regard to the imposition of conditions the Municipal Code in Section 18.90.080(B)
provides that it requires substantial evidence that the use is detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare. M_r. Turner referred to this code section earlier in his presentation. I submit
to you, let me back up. Also it says in that code section that the Conmaission must consider
increased traffic, increased hours of operation, insufficient parking, increased capacity, increased
noise levels. I will submit to you that there is no substantial evidence that Antonio’s use is
detrimental to the public health or safety’. There has been no increase in traffic, there has been no
increase in hours of operation, there has been no increase in capacity, no increase in noise levels.
Now with regard to capacity, Mr. Turner mentioned that there was this patio area and since I
think all of you have either driven by or visited Antonio’s I wilt try and describe it for you. The
patio area that people are referring to was along the Birch Street side of the building where
Antonio’s parking lot is. What Antonio’s did is they had some chairs and tables out there that
patrons would use to relax and sit there. Of course alcohol wasn’t allowed to be consumed out
there. Mostly people would con~egate there and to be honest smokers most of them. Now we
have removed that in the spirit of being a good neighbor and also to compiy with the proper rules
and regulations. Mr. Montooth is now I understand submitting plans for a proper patio and that
it meets with the reqnirements of the City but that has been removed. And you will see
throughout the record that is an important point because from the record you will see that the
neighbor’s complaints are of people congegating in that patio area. Since we have removed the
patio there is no !onger that congegation, no longer that problem.
With regard to increased noise levels the City Police Department has recently done a noise
survey and found that we are in compliance, that we are not violating art?‘" code restrictions on
noise. In fact there is a police report in the packet that you have before you stating just that.
As we see the problem areas and in reviewing the record and some of the complaints of the
neighbors there are three different areas. Number one was the patio and as I explained we have
taken care of that. Number taro was trash removal either during the late evening or early
morning. Antonio’s has taken action to alleviate that problem as well. Right now- we have
instituted a proem’am where our trash is only removed in the morning after eight o’clock in the
morning. Prior to that it might have been removed in the evening. Ms. Gorman who works at
the bar and is the Night Manager can also speak to that and tell you a little bit more specifically
what they do and how they remove their ~ash, when the?, do it and how it is stored. The other
thing that we are doing is we are trying to get a locked box on our dumpster. In the old days the
vendors would take back the bottles that is not the case an?a-nore. So we have to dispose of our
bottles in the dumpster. We see that that can create a lot of noise so we are taking steps to make
sure that we are doing it after eight o’clock in the morning.
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
12
13
.14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
The other problem we have is I’ll use the word, "transients" for lack of another word but people
coming there and going through the trash and looking for bottles and recyclables that they can
take and ma~oe sell and make some money. A_ntoNo’s really has no control over these people
but what we are going to do and what we are doing right now is we are contacting BEI so that we
can get a lock on our dumpster. This will prevent transients from coming in rummaging throu~
the garbage at all hours, even hours that we are not open, and hopefully that will take care of that
problem.
The other problem I mentioned is Lot C-7. This is somethhag that is mentioned by each of the
neiNabors as a problem. I thh~ you can all picture where Lot C-7 is, it is directly behind
Antonio’s. There are other lots of course. I think the next closest would be Lot C-6 which is
directly across fi’om the Courthouse and then we have Lot C-8 which is .further down towards the
El Camino. That is a big problem. I just want to indicate that at these meetings that were held
on June 5 and the 19ti~ each of the neighbors acknowledged that Lot C-7 is a problem. ~@.
Holland mentioned it. He also mentioned the smoking patio area. ~Vsr. Holland is the president
of the Birch Condos that I would hope you are familiar with. Midori Kato-Maeda also
mentioned the problem with C-7. Mr. Jeff Herman also mentioned it and he says specifically
some of the problems he says is one is having Antonio’s close that outdoor patio area so that the
residents can sleep. And then ensuring that people don’t loiter in the evening in parking lot
seven. Ms. Habbeshaw also mentioned the problems with Lot 7. Greg Herbert also mentioned
problems with Lot 7. Mr. Abraham also mentioned problems with Lot 7. Now what can
Antonio’s do with regard to Lot 7? We have tried to institute a progam to educate our patrons
not to park ha Lot 7 but that is about the most I suggest that we can do. Some of the conditions in
the Staff Report suggest that we should be patrolling Lot 7 or that we should be directing people
out of Lot 7. That is very difficult not only on a practical standpoint but on a legal standpoint.
.amother interesting thing about Lot 7 and this relates to The Edge and ! think a lot of the
problems in Lot 7 have to do with The Edge. At our last meeting with Mr. Turner the police
were there, Officer Lieutenant Lawrence, we had a person from Planning there as well. We were
talking about what ~amtonio’s can do with regard to Lot 7 and they pointed out that The Edge is
directing people to park in certain areas, the lot behind their building. The Edge also has sig-nage
that says don’t park in Lot C-6 because it disturbs the neighbors. Well if you have sign that says
don’t park ha C-6 where do you think you are going to park? Lot C-7 right next to it. So a lot of
the noise, a lot of the problems that you have with Lot C-7 are not patrons of.amtonio’s but
patrons of The Edge and it is compounded by the fact that patrons of The Edge can frequent that
venue until 3:00 ,a~M in the morning. By this time Antonio’s customers are long gone, usually
leaving been 1:30 and 2:00, and Kelley Gorman can tell you about this, they are usually out the
door by 1:45. At the same time we have people coming out of The Edge at late hours and being
directed by The Edge to park in Lot C-7, which is directly behind my client.
Chair Griffin: Mr. McDonald, your time is up. Did you have an?," quick wrap up because you
will have an opportunity at the end to talk to us again?
_~\4r. McDonald: Rea! quickly I would just like to say that the City Police Department not on!y
did the noise survey but back in June 2003, and it is part of the record, they did a history of
reports of calls to 321 California Avenue. They averaged one per month versus The Edge who
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
averaged five a month. Thank you ve~" much. I would like ifpossible to have Ms. Gorman say
a few words.
Chair Griffin: Actually your 15 minutes are up. We could have Commissioners ask questions if
any one of my colieagues would care to ask the Night Manager a question we could handle it that
way perhaps. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I have one question regarding tl~s bottle noise. Is there some reason that
you are not doing recycling of your bottles?
Ms. Kelley Gorman. Nizht Manager, Antonio’s: Beer comes in non-refundable bottles. We
don’t have recycling. That is a good qt~.estion. Would there be a way to get recycling because
we could work on that?
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Bo~mie.
Commissioner Packer: Yes, could you tell us something about the operations in the evening?
There is a restaurant and there is a bar. _Are there other activities, which occur at ;-M~tonio’s Nut
House? Is there a poolroom?
Ms. Gorlaan: There are five pool tables. There is a jukebox that plays music. We have one
mechanical dartboard. We have two cribbage tables and dice for Yatzee or liar’s dice. Other
than that it is just a place where people come to talk and hang out and play games and have fun.
It is not a club, no 1ire music.
Chair Griffin: Could you tell us about the restaurant that is operated in conjunction with the bar?
Ms. Gorman: It serves Mexican food. They are open for lunch and dinner. I think that it has
already been discussed that we are not open for the full amount of time that we are serving
alcohol but we have talked about putting together a menu for after the restamrant is closed like an
after-hours menu ofhors d’oeuvre, a menu but not the fu!l menu.
Commissioner Holman: How late do your currently serve the full menu?
Ms. Gonr~an: It is different each night. I hope I get the hours right I wish I had them right in
front of me. I know the nights that I work, Wednesday they are open until ten o’clock. Thursday
and Friday it is eleven and Saturday it is six. We are slower Saturday’s. People tend to think bar
businesses are really busy Saturday’s they are technically not. Our busiest night is Thursday.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: When did that restaurant move to that location? My memo~ goes back a
lot of years and I hadn’t been at the Nut House for a long tinge but my memo~ is that decades
ago there was a different format and different sort of eating options.
Page 6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
3t
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
46
!
2 Ms. Gornaan: It has changed throughout the years. "vVhen I first moved in it was Checkers,
3 burgers and French Dips and salads a California cuisine basically. Then it went to soul food,
4 barbeque and geens and combread. Now it is Mexican food and I would like to say that the
5 Mexican food place that is there now was there ten years ago and they came back. They actually
just opened up another restaurant in East Palo Alto.
Conmaissioner Burr: Where the hours of food operation different in past decades?
Ms. Gorman: No. They have always been about the same. I have worked in the restaurant
business my whoie life basically, since I started working at 18 years old, I have been waiting
tables and now I am a bartender. I have to say that it is normal for restaurants to close around ten
o’clock and then Thursday, Friday and Saturday to stay open later. This is a bar/restaurant it is a
Iittle bit different.
Chair Griffin: I have a question about the patio. The smoker’s deck is no longer there.
Ms. Gorman: No.
Chair Griffin: When I did my site visit Saturday ~ight I saw that you have tables out by the
sidewalk on Califorrfia Street and I take it that that is now the smoker’s deck, is that right?
Ms. Gorman: Technically after ten o’clock, yes. We have now shut down our back door and our
front door for exit only no entrance and have everybody access the front of the building. We
limit them from being on the side of the building where they can ever con~egate where our
doorperson can’t see them. So the smoking section is now out front and xve have been directing
people not to be within 20 feet of the door which means walking down to where the businesses
are closed or keep moving and not stand. It is really hard to tell smokers where they can and
cannot smoke. I am one of those people, I smoke, and I can’t even do it in public because I am
embarrassed by it. It is really hard to tell people that.
Commissioner Holman: Do you have somebody that stands at the front .door then? I remember
reading something somewhere there were people drinking in the par-king lot. Do you have
someone that makes sure that no one walks out of your establishment with alcohol?
Ms. Gorman: Yes and we also keep a very ~ood eye on that ourselves.
Commissioner Bellomo: Just ld_nd of an obvious question, maybe or maybe not. tn your
experience you mentioned that alcohol doesn’t leave the premises but in your experience is it
moderated somewhat, you fred your patrons drh~& at a ie’,~el that is appropriate and they know
when to stop for the most part?
Ms. Gorman: I wouId say yes. I would also like to say that I have caught people that I do not
reco~m-~ize walking up with cans and they are no longer allowed to come into our establishment.
¯ It is that simple. It has always been that way, I have worked there for six years, and it has always
been that way.
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a question related more to Karen’s. That had to do "~4th the number
of doors you have. You have three entrances to this place and it indicated in some of the
material we were reading that you card people when they come into the place. How do you
manage carding people at three doors and how do you monitor three different doors for exits to
make sure that people aren’t leaving with alcohol?
Ms. Gorman: We have emergency exits. There is an alarm on the back door. When that door
opens, it says emergency exit only, we know that someone has gone out. There are two
bartenders on when it is busy so one of us can always go and find that person. We also have a
lot of patrons that are really good to us. Our doorperson also helps if we ever have a problem,
which we really don’t. People respect the fact that that’s an emergency exit only. Our front door
that we now shut which is normally the access during the day has an exit bar only so you can’t
get in but you can get out. That is within three feet of bar so we are always keeping our eye on
that. When ~ve hear it open we are watching to see who is leaving and who is coming in. That is
just a normal tlfing that we do when you are watchin~ to see what is ~oin~ on you have to be
responsible in this type of business. People can get hurt, you want to know who is in there, you
want to k_now if people have been drinking already. So it is something that we do, we always
watch that door. We have a doorman at the front door and he monitors that front door xvhile he
also keeps his eye on the side door, the front and whenever he gets a break he will let us l~ow he
is going to walk to the side of the building or he will ask if we can go check the side door. We
have a side door right in our beer room right on the Birch side about mid building or so. Ere will
poke our head out and look and see if anybody is con~egating or anything is going on. So that
is basically how we watch. It is a big multi task.
Commissioner Packer: I was curious about the capacity. On a Thursday nig2qt, the busy night,
about how many people are in the bar area?
Ms. Gorman: I would say between 100 and 120 and our capacity is 135.
Commissioner Packer: There is a regular clientele?
Ms. Gom~an: Yes, I had a whole bunch of people after our first couple of meetings want to do
something. I didn’t want them all bombarding you with email or showing up because it is too
many people. So they asked what they could do and I suggested a petition. I had them write
their occupation so you know what kind of people we are dealing with. This is a two-week
petition it has 800 si~amres, maybe a little more and it says what they do. We are talking
carpenters, blue-collar workers, NASA scientists, Rabbi, lawyers, it goes on and on and on. Just
so you have an idea who hangs out they have their email addresses, phone numbers and names if
you would like to contact any of them and ask them. I know it is -kind of overldll. Is that the
question?
Colma~issioner Packer: Thank you.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Corrmzissioner Holman: I think I just have one more question and a clarification too. You said
that you shut the front door. Perhaps you meant the side door?
Ms. Gorman: The side door. We use that during the day. People enter and go through. People
generally going into the restaurant use the one on California and the people who generally come
into the bar and the restaurant come in through the Birch side.
Colrmaissioner Hohaaan: Then the question is I am afraid I didn’t notice when I was there what
ldnd of lig_hting you have on the Birch Street side, on that parking lot side.
Ms. Gorman: There is street lighting all the way along California and Birch. We also have our
own lights at the top of the building and lights underneath our overhang by that side door on
Birch.
Chair Griffin: The night that I was there I didn’t recog-nize the bouncer or the doorperson. I am
wondering does that person, is he identified somehow so that people 1,mow who he is and that he
is an employee and what his function is?
Ms. Gonr~an: He wears a skirt saying Antonio’s House Security. It is black.. We had a little bit
of a problem I had an accident on Friday and I cut my finger and had to leave and got five
stitches. So I didn’t work Saturday night. I am normally a bartender that evening and that ni~t
we had an old bartender fill in mad help us out. So I hope everything went well.
Chair Griffin: Does the doorperson have any particular training for performing that task? I
guess what i am alluding to here is some sort of a security back~ound or something of that
nature.
Ms. Gorman: Yes. We have two. One worked at The Edge for many years and I don’t have his
resume on me but he worked at The Edge for many years .and been doing it for four years. The
other one went to a lead class with the ABC to learn how to check ID’s and we got certified with
cards and to ~know the taws and what we are supposed to do as far as 1I) checking and knowing
when someone is drunk and on and on. I had the second doorman go with me.
Chair Griffin: Does the security man ever venture out into the parking lot when people are
allegedly rex,wing engines or wrapping up their motorcycle or whatever? This is a bit of a
leading question but I am tr).4ng to get a feel for how much involvement there is with this
parldng lot situation.
Ms. Gorman: Our property, our nine to 12 parkJ_ng lots, he always monitors that parking lot.
Either the bartender or the doorman will walk out and patrol the area. We have been doing that
more so since the Planning Commission to meet the spirit and to fix the problem. We don’t like
this anyrnore than anybody else. As far as motorcycles go there ~vas one instance with a woman
that lives in the building that the residents have come forward from having problems with noise
and she told me that that was a concern of hers that there was a motorcycle that revved loudly.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
So I found the problem and I asked him not to rev his motorcycle and he complied with me.
~X~at he did for me is he said I will push my motorcycle out to California Avenue, he wants to
park there because he is afraid of theft because it is an old bike, and I will take an alternate route.
Instead of going down Birch past their apartment complex I will go down Califo~a to Park then
to Oregon Expressway. So far so good, she and I got back into contact with each other and she
expressed thanks and has said the problem has gotten better.
Chair Griffin: I don’t believe we have any more questions here from the Commission so I
appreciate your COLrm~ents and ~ve will hear from you more at the end of the session.
Ms. GO,Than: ThaN: you.
Chair Griffin: I would like to now invite the public to come forward. I do have 12 cards, here
come more, so we will go with a three-minute speaking period for each one of the public
members. I will ask you please to try to follow each other closely so that we can move through
this quickly otherwise a lot of time is spent wandering down here to the microphone. Our first
speaker is Lawrence Haussler followed by Lisa Habbeshaw followed by Brian Belitho.
Welcome Lawrence.
~. Lawrence Haussler. 3357 South Corm. Palo Alto: Hello everybody. I have a professiona!
violin shop where I work. It is literally only 30 to 40 yards away from Antonio’s Nut House. I
am very aware of what goes on over there. The people over there are very good neighbors.
They are very well behaved. Incidences of disturbances or loud noises from over there are very
infrequent. The noise level from over there is low. In fact, sometimes, for example tonight I will
have to fix five kid’s insmm~ents for the Palo Alto School District. I will be working over there
until one or two. I have pernaission from my wife to do this. I’ll tell you when I work there at
night I can’t hear an~hing from over there but the crickets. Okay? Loud, loud crickets. They
start about 10:30. As far as I am concerned from my experience which is I can hear aid I have
worked for years 30 or 40 yards a~vay from there the so-called complaints about Antonio’s seem
to be coming from people who voluntarily on their own bougt~t into cow, dos across from The
Edge or near the railroad tracksl To blame Mr. Montooth for disturbances or noise that come
from across from The Edge or near the railroad tracks is wrong and it is inaccurate. I am
begNng you to please don’t ruin Antonio’s Nut House with senseless regulations or resale permit
changes. Please don’t punish Antonio’s for disturbances, noise or mayhem coming from you-
know-where, somewhere else on California Avenue near The Edge and near the railroad tracks.
Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lisa Habbeshaw followed by Brian Belitho.
Ms. Lisa Habbeshaw. Birch Street. Palo Alto: ThaN: you. i am going to touch on a couple of
comments I had intended to comment on before coming here and then a few in response to Ms.
Gornaan and Council. I am going to try to talk quickly to fit it all in but I welcome any questions
at the end of my cormnents.
I have lived at the residence for over a year now. After Mr. Montooth has not had any review in
over 30 years modifying his permit essentially. I do aN’ee with Staff recommendations
Page 10
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 wholeheartedly with the exception of their alternative, two conditions, four and six, which do
2 talk about the security guard for the parking lot and so forth. My remaining comments ,,rill
3 highlight why. There seems to be a threshold issue that people sldrt around and that is whether
4 Antonio’s is a bar or is a restaurant. Ms. Gorman mentioned restaurants typically close at ten.
5 The hours posted on the building are in fact the restaurant hours. So for people who moved in
relying on the hours posted they were what they were and they were misrepresented or not
posted adequately.
In any event is it a bar or is it a restaurant? The off,hal use permit on page 55, it is not 55 in
your packet. Condition one says that the sale of alcohol will be ancillary to operations as a
restaurant. That condition is in the 1973 permit, it is being appealed today. So he is appealing a
condition from 1973, which is absurd. In any event, check your rules and regulations about late
night menu. Ms. Gorman mentioned they are working to modi~, that. I don’t see that in the
letter Council submitted today, October 8, it is not listed. In the appeal that was filed it is listed
as an appeal item. Having a late night menu is part of the conditions to the permit.
You may want to check the revenues from the establishment because I believe bar revenues
versus restaurant revenues or alcohol revenues versus meal revenues goes to whether or not they
are really operating as a bar or a restaurant. So check their books.
With regard to the nuisance, yes xve are using that term. Staff a~er listening to credible
testimony uses the term. It is not being used loosely. The nuisances include drunk and
disorderly conduct, loitering, public urination and defecation, horn honking, shouting of
obscenities so on and so forth. Those are issues that we should be protected from by Palo Alto
code. The nuisance created by Antonio’s on two main issues is compromising us: public health,
safety and welfare namely sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation if you get less than seven hours
of sleep a night is sleep deprivation. Your packet shows a 56 mega study stating what all the
concerns are. The revenues between midnig_ht and 2:00 AM being $1,834 show that there is a
high capacity and high alcohol being served at that time, that’s what that shows me. Once the
noise is made and we are awakened and there is sleep deprivation the damage is done it is a
public health, safety and welfare issue, end of story..
Chair Griffin: We have a question for you.
Commissioner Holman: I have just one simple question. I didn’t catch where you iive.
Ms. Habbeshaw: Oh I am sony. 1 live at the Birch Court Condominiums. My enth’e residence
faces the back of Antonio’s and parking lot seven. There is virtually 65 feet separating my
pillow from the parking lot.
In terms of calling the poiice the noise is already been done so police phone calls are not a good
measure of whether there is damage or nuisance or public health, safety and welfare issues. The
damage is done and there are extensive citations to medical research about sleep deprivation.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Lisa.
Page 11
7
9
lO
iI
12
13
14
15
17
19
2O
21
22
23
25
27
29
3O
31
34
35
36
37
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 Ms. Habbeshaw: _Any other questions?
2
3 Chair Griffin: Apparently so.
4
h~l=ht of your condo units.5 ComlniSsioner Burt: I neglected to look at the ~’~
it?
How many stories is
Ms. Habbeshaw: It is three and I am on the second floor. Jeff and Midofi are one above me.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Ms. Habbeshaw: Any more questions?
Chair Griffin: I think we have done it now-. Thanks. Our next speaker is Brian Belitho followed
by Kelley Gorman and David Struck. Brian, please.
Mr. Brian Belitho. 2502 Birch Street. Palo Jdto: Thank you. I have known Tony for 32 years. I
have lived across the street from his establishment at Birch Court for abaost 20 years now and in
that time I have only been awakened twice. Both times it was football games, touch football
going on in the parking lot. I tlsnl,: it is The Edge. I keep hearing people point at them and it is
true. I can’t go through his parldng lot a lot of times now that they have reopened because of
broken glass. But when they were shut do~m, when they were the Icon in bet~veen their
iterations as The Edge, there was not any vomit or urine or broken glass in that neighborhood.
~Vhen they came back so did those hazards to wheelchair navigation.
I didn’t prepare any remarks and I don’t have a whole Iot more to say except that I found them to
be a good neighbor al! that time.
Chair Griffin: Let’s see if we have an); questions for you, and there are none. Thank you Brian.
Kelley Gorman please. No, okay. David Struck. David will be followed by Josh Peskin.
_Mr. David Struck. 980 College Avenue. Palo Alto: Hello. I live in College Terrace. I have been
living in California a little under two years nov; going to the Nut House pretty much ever since I
moved out here. It is a g-reat loca! bar. KelIey said it, it draws all sorts of people into the bar. I
have met so many people there that can sit and talk about anything. Even on Monday night we
went there and pretty much decided who we were going to vote for in the Recall. I can also
speak to what will happen to the Nut House if the hours are changed. Thursday is like an
unwritten rub for my friends and I, Thursday night is the night we go to the Nut House every
week. it is just a tradition, it is something that we do as a goup and built our bonds and things
Iike that. I also want to say that I have never seen a fight. I have never seen excessive noise. I
know Kelley and Andy and on Thursday nights are hardcore, they are crac "king down on people
always. They will yell at people. That side door literally is ri~t next to the bar and if that door
opens they yell, "V~Sat are you doing? You can’t come in. Go around to the front." They lcnow
exactly what is going on. I just want to say I thfl~k it would be a bad idea to change those hours
and I hope you let it continue. Thank you.
Page12
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Thank you, David. Josh Pes~n is our next speaker followed by Pablo Federico
and Greg Kerber. Welcome Josh.
1
2
3
4 M_r. Josh Pesldn. 1548 Maple Street. Re&vood Cit~,: Hi, thank you. I live in Redwood City and
5 .I am a Naduate student at Stanford. I guess I would like to just talk for a second about the sort
6 ofinaage that is being portrayed about the people who come to the Nut House as if everybody
7 breaks bottles and urinates and defecates behind the Nut House. I can tell you that this is hands
8 down, this is probably the only bar that Stanford gaduate students feel comfortable in in Palo
9 Alto. I am not sure that you guys gasp the different types of people that come and the different
10 types of relationships that happen there. So I feel very comfortable there. It is the only bar I feel
comfortable in in Palo Alto. I think it is a good case of don’t judge a book by its cover. There
are peanut shells on the floor but it is probably the wa~Tnest bar in Palo Alto. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Josh, I am wondering have you ever experienced noise or any problems in the
parldng lot? .You say it is a very comfortable bar and I understand where you are coming from I
was there briefly on Saturday night but I am more concerned about what happens on the outside
and the other Co~mnissioners I think would be interested in your conmaents.
Mr. Peskin: I will say this, I have never seen an~15ng go on back there from somebody who
had previously seen in the Nut House. So I have never seen any fights. I have never seen any
-people busting bottles. I have seen people acting tough and I don’t but that ldnd of behavior
have seen that but I have never seen them in the Nut House and I go to the NutHouse quite
frequently.
Chair Griffin: Thanks. Pablo Federico followed by Greg Kerber follow’, ed by John Abrataam.
~\@. Pablo Federico, Te~mvson. Palo .’Alto: Good evening, i just have a quick four points for
you. The first and most important point is that in the City ofPalo Alto’s General Plan you find a
lot of reference to sustaining culture, maintaining the Palo Alto culture. I have read that
document extensively and throughout a lot of the policy decisions this is what guides a lot of the
decisions, whether a business stays, whether its planning is approyed, etc. The biggest mistake
Palo _Alto could ever make is actually take the Nut House away because it is more of an
institution, it is more of a cultural icon to Palo Alto than most tlRngs are. I am sure a lot of you
have frequented before if not in the recent years and previous years. Taking this away or
limiting the hours would substantially degade the cultural source of what you call Palo _Alto, of
what you call the General Plan.
Secondly, I don’t think people have the ri~t to be blocked offfrom noise regardless of where it
comes from. There is a big assumption made here by the people complaining and that leap is
that the noise is generated by peopIe coming from the Nut House. If you do a statistical study, if
you do any sort of survey, if you do any sort of analysis what _Mr. Turner’s report should have
pointed out if you do any sort of analysis you would find that that’s actually not the case. The
people that go there as mentioned before are middle class people, blue collar, white collar, every
~kind of people go there and that’s part of the Palo Alto culture and that is somet.hing that I think
would be a big mistake to cut down on. To actua!ly come here and say wholeheartedly that these
hard working people, this communi~ of people that hang out there that is malting that noise, that
Page 13
1
2
3
4
7
9
lO
iI
12
13
14
16
17
19
2O
21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
36
37
39
4O
41
42
43
4~
46
is defecating, that is brealdng bottles, that are doing all these things that are supposed to be
hm-mful to the Palo Alto weKare I think that is just not true. That is blatantly not tree. I lcnow
because I have been hanging out there. I went to college. I would frequent the place as Josh said
it is a place wliere students feel comfortable. Now I am worNng and I love going there after
work. I love unwinding there. I still see college people. I still see veO, educated people. I see
all types ofpeople there. It would be a huge mistake to even consider cutting the hours.
The last point I want to make is the unfairness of the whole issue. I hang out in Palo Alto a lot.
When I say a lot I go to restaurants, I go to bars, etc. I can’t even fathom why you would
actually point to some place Iike Palo Alto. If you actually look at the other places, look at the
issues, look at smo king, look at smoking outside of City Hall. When I used to work here people
would smoke ri~at outside of City Hall. To be actually saving that the porch and focusing on
these issues is ludicrous because you can’t change people’s habits. If that happens here with the
workers here it happens with every establisl~nent whether you are a restaurant or whether you
are a bar. I just think it is really unfair for people to be pointing the finger at an institution and at
some place like the Nut House. In nay entire time there I have not seen one fig_ht inside, I have
not heard ridiculous noise on the outside and people, the tenants, us, the commtmity have made a
big effort to accorrm~odate for the neighbors based on what we hear, based on what the bartender
says, based on the information we receive. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Pablo, do you live in town?
M_r. Federico: Not any more. I spent three nights of the week here on Te~myson Street.
Chair Griffin: And your address out of town?
iv’n-. Federico: i live in San Francisco.
Chair Griffin: Thanks ve~ much. No questions? Greg Kerber if you could come on down and
John if you could be close at hand and Debra Love please come down towards the front as well.
,Mr. Gre~ Kerber. Birch Street. Palo Alto: Unfortunately three minutes is not enough time to
deal with not only the issues I wanted to raise but to respond to issues that have been raised
alread.y by _Mr. Montooth’s attorney and other people who have spoken on behalf of Antonio’s. I
live in the Birch Court Condominium complex and I unlike Mr. Belitho live in a condominium
that is in a most exposed area to the parking lot number seven and Antonio’s at 321 California.
Our building is on the comer of Birch and Sherman Street. We are approximately 25 yards from
parking lot nm-nber seven. I am less than 100 yards from 321 California. Mr. Belitho lives in the
back of our building. My unit, Ms. Habbeshaw’s unit, Mr. Herman’s unit face right on to Birch
Street and Sherman right at the comer adjacent to the parking lot. So we are the owners who are
in the most exposed area in terms of noise and disturbances and the nuisances that occur in
parking lot seven in the area around 321 Califomia. I have lived there nearly 20 years. I have
made numerous calls and complaints over the years to the Police Department. Unfortunately one
of the problems with regard to noise here is that it is the "kind of noise that will happen and then it
will disappear almost immediately. If somebody is g~mning a motorcycle or beeping a horn or
yelIing in the par ~king lot by the time the police will respond people are gone. They are no longer
Page 14
1 there. Not only that people after awhile get tired of calling in complaints. How often would you
2 like to get up at one or two o’clock in the morning to call in a complaint about a disturbance that
3 is occurring across the street? I don’t think it is reasonable to expect that people are going to be
4 getting up and doing that.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
I suppol~ the Staff Report completely with one exception. I do object to the alternative
recommendations and I would appreciate an opportunity to go into that with you but I don’t tlsnk
there is enough time. I think the real issue here is simply whether or not the City of Palo Alto is
going to take its responsibility to abate nuisances and to deal with issues of public health, safety
and welfare. That is your responsibility~ under the Municipal Code and that is the responsibility
of Mr. Montooth and Antonio’s under their use permit. That is the real issue here. Are there
nuisances occurring in that parking lot and at 321 in even their parking lot and adjacent to 32t?
If there are and I believe that we made a compelling case at the hearings in June that there were
then the issue is what is the City of Palo Alto going to do about that because you have an
ob!igation under the Municipal Code to abate nuisances. That is a responsibility that the City
has. So I think those are the central issues. I would welcome any questions.
Chair Griffin: I tt~flc you will have some. Karen.
Cormnissioner Holman: Could you tell me how long you have lived in Birch Court Apartments?
Mr. Kerber: Since 1984.
Commissioner Holman: And how long have you experienced problems?
Mr. Kerber: There have been problems going on for years. The record that I have from the
Police Depa--tment and I have not asked, I recently made a public records request for years
beyond what I have but my calls, I notice that one of the earliest calls I made was in 2000. I
have made complaints, calls, prior to that. So I would say at least nay experience is that probably
for somewhere between five years and even a decade, five years to a decade there have been
problems going on with The Edge and Aantonio’s in that nei#aborhood.
Commissioner Holman: The other question I would have for you is do you know of any way to
discern whether the problem causers are from The Edge or Antonio’s? How would you discern?
M_r. Kerber: Well, I think it is ve~,- difficult to do that. I would say this though that one thing is
that Antonio’s closes at two o’clock and The Edge stays open until three o’clock. My sense is
that most of the people that park, the overwhelming majority of people that park in Lot 7 are
people ~vho are going to Antonio’s. They are not people going to The Edge. If you listen to Ttie
Edge’s voicemaii recording, if you caii their number, they suggest that people park behind The
Edge in the two or three story parMng area behind The Edge. If this is true, and I don’t think it is
true, that most of the people who are causing the disturbances in parking lot seven happen to be
people from The Edge because I think most of them are par-king in that parldng area behind The
Edge. In terms of determining it I g~aess one way- is this may sound strange but I think there is
something to this, there this a distinct "kinds of noise and you get used to this after awhile, you
develop a hyper sensitivity if you wilt to the kinds of noise that take place in the area. One of the
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
things that I don’t think happens at _amtonio’s and I think it does happen with regard to The Edge
is that people who come in and leave going to The Edge is a different crowd of people than
people who go to Antonio’s. You are going to get people coming down Birch Street with boom
boxes blaring between 11:00 and 2:00 at night so loud that you can almost hear the windows
vibrating in our condos. That is not the ldnd of crowd that ends up going to parldng lot seven.
That is the crowd that is going to The Edge. It is an entirely different scene if you ~vould
compare what goes on at The Edge and what goes on at Antonio’s and they just attract a different
ldnd of crowd. It is hard to describe but I think there are differences.
Chair Griffin: I have question. You wanted to make a comment about the secm-ity guard and I
am interested in what your take on that was.
Mr. Kerber: You mean in terms of the alternative?
Chair Griffin: Exactly.
IVLr. Kerber: If in fact this is going to be an _amtonio’s employee instead of someone who is an
actual Iicensed security guard by the State of California, and I am not sure I can’t speak to The
Edge’s requirement although it seems similar to what Staffis requesting for Antonio’s, my sense
would be and I think IVlr. Montooth even made this suggestion or a problem he noticed at the
hearing in June is that the Police Department had told hina don’t send your people out to deal
with problems that are occmTing in parking lot seven. There are liability issues, safety issues so
if you are going to send an employee from Antonio’s out there who is not say a licensed security
guard, not in unifonr~, which I think the Staff is suggesting that they would be, that they would
wear some kind of uniform distinct from the Palo Alto Police Deparm~ent uniform. My guess is
that that person would have a little bit different sort of operating ptmdew if you will with regard
to what ldnd of conditions and situations they might be able to handle. That is my take on the
difference between the t~vo. I think the Staff made that recommendation because they made a
similar kind of request of The Edge when The Edge’s use permit has been reviewed in the past
and they had serious problems.
IfI could make one corm~aent in response to something that I heard M_r. Montooth’s attorney say.
If we are going to be technical about whether or not there have been any violations that they have
been guilty, of and have been prosecuted on or dealt with by law enforcement he needs to be clear
about iris because they ~know that in 2000 or 2001 Javier Acalla who was an Assistant district
Attorney with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted Mr. Momooth and
Antonio’s on two separate occasions for smoking violations at 321 California Avenue. They did
get one guilty prosecution out of that and a fine was paid according to Mr. Acalla and I have
talked to Mr. Acalla. So we need to be clear about that but that is just one instance.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Greg. John Abraham followed by Debra Love followed by Peter
Holland. Welcome Jolm.
Mr. Joltn K. Abraham. 736 Ellsworth Place. Palo Alto: Thank you very. much. I am not an
immediate neighbor but I do support the residents in this matter. I would like to discuss the
discrepancy on noise. In other words, why do the police find no noise violations here and yet the
Page16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
neighbors are quite specific and clear there is a noise problem. Most of the backup for my
remarks is on page 72 of the administrative record by Richard Rodldn, the same fn-m that wrote
the tectmical part of the Comprehensive Plan and the EIRs for the Edgewood WMCA and the
Hyatt’s projects.
~X~at does the Municipa! Code say you are supposed to do if you are a poIiceman investigating
noise? For a commercial property you go to the property line nearest the complainant, nearest
the condos, that is about a third of the way down parallel to California Avenue, you set up the
meter, you go for six minutes, 360 seconds has to be on slow and you get the second smallest of
those 360 measurements. That is the an~bient, not the average, the median, it is the second
lowest. The next thing you have to do is take the noise measurement. If it is a quick noise like
glasses breaking, harmner noises, car doors slamming you have to set the meter on fast. You
take the difference between the noise measurement and the ambient measurement if it is geater
or equai to eight decibels you have a noise violation. But you have to perfon~n all these
operations.
For public property it is completely different. We are ta!ldng about a property, a parking lot, you
go 25 feet from the source. You have to identif3; the source. Measure the ambient as before and
the noise as before but when you take the difference the difference has to be larger or equal to 15
decibels, then it is a violation. The problems the police face are as follows, one, the Noise
Ordinance is setup to deal with repetitive noise. Here we have police arrive, nobody is around,
you carmot fred the culprit, and it is very, hard to get the ambient. The police say noises are not
covered. The other problem is that the measurement, every single measurement that the police
have in the administrative record was taken at the wrong place. Every single one. The
memorandum illustrates they did manage to find a loud drum beating, they asked them to stop,
which is free. That is the usual thing, We them a warning, there was no violation. These are
transient intermittent noise vioiations, reD, different, a whole series of them. Lots of people
come through there. There is no way you can solve this by having an application of the Noise
Ordinance. That is why we need hours restrictions.
I would like to support the Staffrecorm~nendations and hope you will remember the residents do
need a night’s sleep on workdays.
Chair Griffin: John, what is your address please?
_Mr. Abraham: I am 736 Ellsworth PIace.
Chair Grif~fn: Thank you. Any questions? I guess not. Debra Love will be our next speaker.
Debra if you would state your address for us please followed by Peter Holland followed bv
Rorma Devincenzi.
Ms. Debra Love. 310 Caiifornia Avenue. Pa!o _Alto: Hi I am the store manager of Village
Stationers across the street at 310 California Avenue. I would just like to say we are not open at
night so I cannot speak for what happens at night but I can say that as a business it is becoming
extremely difficult these days to operate and operate for all of us to make a living and so on and
so forth. I particularly have problems with transients and to be honest with you the pigeons that
Page 17
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
_~1
32
34
35
36
37
38
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
are a complete nuisance, constantly. So I beg you all to be very sure not to penalize a business
without being sure of exactly where the problems are coming from. You just cannot say who
specifically is parking in parking lots ma ~king noise. It could be from The Edge or could it
possibly be from someone having a small gathering in one of the condos and they leave because
any g~est would most likely park in the public parking lot. ~Vho is to say and how can we be
sure who is exactly causing the noise? Tony is a wonderful man. He is very nice and just from a
business standpoint I would like to stick together with the business people in the area and of
course the residents in the area but just to make sure that we are sure of where it is coming from
before we cause any action against Mr. Montooth here. That is about all I have to say. Thank
you.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We had a letter today fi-om another business indicating there have been some
complaints about the trash pichtp, noise from trash containers and sidewalk cleaning at their
place. Have you had that experience? Have you had an); complaints filed about noise from your
property at times other than your normal business hours?
Ms. Love: Not from ours but all of our recycle bins and dumpsters are unlocked. There are
times in the morning when we come in and it could just be transients that have rifled throug~ our
area in the back and we have to pick it up the next morning. So it is just difficult to say but I
personally have not had any.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Peter Holland fo!lowed by Ronna Devincenzi followed by Cl~stine
Andiazabal.
Mr. Peter Holland. 342 Grant Avenue. Pa!o Alto: Good evening. ! am here tonigNt both as a
resident in the California Avenue area, which is being impacted by the noise from .~atonio’s, and
I am also the President of the Birch Court Homeowners Association. In that capacity I have had
to deal with these complaints from my ov~n homeowners and tried to figure out what to do about
it.
I believe the record is ve~7 complete if you take the time to read it on the existence of these noise
nuisances. I don’t use word nuisance lightly. These are quick one-off instances presumably at
least partiy from patrons of Antonio’s who park in the Cib" Lot C-7 which are causing
disturbances very late at night, often well past midniN~t including yelling, playing car radios,
hoisting horns, re~,wing cars and revving motorcycles. These are late. Ms. Midori Kato-Maeda
in her record provides the times of some of these instances. August 7 at 1:20 in the morning,
August i2 at 40 minutes past midnight, September 9 at i:00 ’~v_~, September i2 and September
20 at aro~md 1:00 ~4~M. So in addition to the record I want to draw your attention to three
specific issues. First the nuisances are ongoing and continuing. I refer you to M_r. Herman’s and
Miss Kato-Maeda’s letter that is in your package for to,night. Both Mr. Herman and Miss Kato-
Maeda live at Birch Court and their ietters document the ongoing and continuing nuisances,
which have continued up through this August. That is way past the first Director’s Hearing.
Second another resident of our condominium has reported and instance of possible harassment
from patrons of Antonio’s. Those are persons who have gone by our condominium and have
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
yelled obscenities. That is clearly not acceptable. Finally and most importantly ~a~ntonio’s has a
well-deserved reputation as abar. It is a ve~ popular place for drinking. I say that is ~eat.
There is just one problem. According to the California Alcohol Beverage Control Board
Antonio’s has a Type 47 Eating Place Liquor License. That means the establishment must serve
alcohol only in connection with a bona fide restaurant. However, a casual review, which many
of you have done, of the business I think makes it pretty clear that the primary purpose and sales
in that business are for beer and spirits. In addition the restaurant is not even open past eleven on
any l~i~t and is not even open on Sunday’s when the bar is open. In my opinion these facts are
inconsistent with a Type 47 License. Simply put in my opinion Antonio’s may be operating as a
bar in violation of its T~vpe 47 License. For the foregoing reasons I support the Staffin their
recommendation to deny the appeal.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Peter. We have a question for you.
Commissioner Burt: In the instances that you have cited of noise nuisances in the parking lot C-
7 as well as this potential harassment, how was it determined that the instigators were patrons of
_~atonio’ s?
M_r. Holland: Those instances were reported by the residents who live right there by observing,
looking out, when they were awakened. They recorded the time and obviously they cannot
confn-m that they were patrons of Antonio’s but of course it is rigt~t next to Antonio’s and it is
about the time Antonio’s closes. So I think you can draw a pretty loNcal conclusion.
Commissioner Butt: Thank you.
Commissioner Bellomo: Do you know the days those were on?
M_r. Holland: I do. It is in vour., package. The days were Thursda,~,,, Au~ust~ 7 at 1:20., Tuesda-v.,,
August !2 at 40 past midnight. Thursday, September 9 at 1:00 AM, Friday, September 12 and
Saturday the 20th both ofth~s£ at 1:00 AM.
Chair Griffin: Do you have any comments relating to the use of the smokers patio and to
differentiate that situation from what was t "aking place on the Cib~-owned parking lot?
M_r. Holland: In my opinion the existence of the so-called smoker’s patio, which existed and was
removed earlier this year, did encourage people to consume alcohol outside of the establishment.
In fact I observe it frequently. The removal of that patio has helped I think. So I would thank
Antol~io’s for that change.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Romaa Devincenzi followed by Christine Andiazabal and finally Joy
Ogawa. Welcome Ronna.
Ms. Ronna Devincenzi. 2650 E1 Camino Real. Palo _Alto: Thank you very much. I served as
President of the California Avenue Area Development Association. I have been in that position
since 1989 for the Board of Directors. I have never had one complaint about Antonio’s and
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
oO
-3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
D
44
45
believe me I get complaints about a lot of things, ever,vthing from weeds to ordinances ha terms
of cleanliness and everything. I have never had one.
We have trick or treating for ~ds under ten on Halloween and .amtonio’s is participating. If you
go through the Califomia Avenue door you will see a restaurant. I would not want to have
children coming to a bar even if they did want to participate. If you go through the side door it is
another issue and it takes you to a differem place. If you go on the California Avenue side you
see nothing but tables, chairs and people eating. It is a restaurant. I have always felt comfortable
going there. The first time I heard of an~hing at all involving .%ntonio’s was the Palo ~41to
Ff%ekly reporter called me and this was right when The Edge 5¥as having their problems and she
said about The Edge and Antonio’s. I called her and left a message for her and said I ~know
about The Edge, yes that is an issue, I didn’t share with her at the time that we were going to be
meeting the merchants and the Board of Directors. We had a subsequent meeting about The
Edge. I told her Antonio’s has never been an issue, where did that come from? She didn’t
it. Tllen today I see in the Palo Ako ~fZeekly City Aims to Limit Hours at Nut House, ~vhich of
course is talki_ng about this meeting. So I went to see Jay Tho~,valtson so hopefully they will
stop comparing The Edge with ,amtonio’s because The Edge was an issue. If you look at the
configuration of The Edge, the parking lot situation, I go that way myseKwhether I am going to
Avenue Flora’s or Bargain Box or any number of places. You can go right thi-ough, you go right
past their door that doesn’t mean you are one of their customers. I would think that the same
thing is happen_hag with The Edge. I tlfink that every time, I don’t know if any of you remember
the problems we had with The Edge many years ago, but they were horrendous problems and
they were resolved. So this has to be like nothing by comparison.
Antonio’s has been there for years. I have been there more in the last month trying to help them
than I had ever, in fact I don’t know that I had eyer really been there before. But I had never had
a complaint. I have gone in there a lot. Ever): time I go in there I see people that are very nice.
We had the Jewish Corrmmnity Cultural Fair a few weeks ago and as I was walldng in The Edge
I heard someone say hello and it was a young man who had worked the fair and he was sitting
there having a 7-Up. It is just a fun place. I have heard but I guess it was confirmed tonigSat that
you have Stanford students to physicists that are their customers. As far as business community
members they are fme. I invited Ton?, to come to our last PETA Board of Director’s meeting,
which of course is open to anyone, and I put it on the record, on our agenda, that they are not to
be compared with The Edge. I asked all of our Director’s have we ever had a problem with them
and they said no. We are ta ~lking Terry Shucker from People & Shucker, he is a property owner.
Elizabeth Bishop, she was from the phamaacy she owns businesses in the area and fives just a
few blocks away. Warren Wong, owner of Hotel California and owner of that business as well
as Shakes the bakery. We are talldng people that are very involved in the communiD: and right
there. Warren sometimes spends nights at his own hotel. Now he had had a complaint from The
Edge and he mentioned that at the last meeting. We had two meetings with The Edge and we are
resolving that. But Antonio’s is not to be confused with The Edge. Because the parking lot is so
open franldy, Tony sho~ved us the plans that he has for that parNng lot situation and as soon as
the City approves those because our Board was completely behind it, Gerald Brett who is on the
Public Art Commission already met with Tony to see if we can a piece of public art there. They
are good nei~abors and I am with Debbie. I have been to Brian Belitho, where he lives, and
Page 20
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
when he said that he couldn’t hear it I thought well that is pretty good because he has his carport
as a straight shot, I know exactly where he is and if he can’t hear it. It is a business district.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Rom~a. We have questions for you but first of all could you state
your residential address?
Ms. Devincenzi: I am in Mountain View but I am at 2600 E1 Camino Real in Palo Alto.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Karen.
Con~nissioner Holman: Could you describe briefly for the record the par,king lot plan that you
referenced?
Ms. Devincenzi: That is the plan that he has for landscaping and putting a wall. I think the wall
would be really good. It would be for the parking lot area, which is now open. It would be
putting a sound wa!l there and an art piece and landscaping and a place for seating and ~vhatever
and have people outside. It would definitely control it to Antonio’s customers. You wouldn’t
have anybody at all walking through because it would be blocked off.
Conmaissioner Holman: This is the parkJ_ng lot on the side that is Antonio’s parNng lot.
Ms. Devincenzi: Right. He brought it, he was showing me his pIans and they were beautiful so I
had him bring it to our last meeting. They were lovely.
Chair Griffin: I take it they haven’t been approved at this stage?
Ms. Devincenzi: No, i wish they were.
Chair Griffin: Are there any other questions from Commissioners? No. Thank you very much.
Christine mad Joy.
Ms. Christine Andiazabai, 408 Grant Avenue. Palo Alto: Hi. I work for Cisco Systems. I have
been living on Grant Avenue for eight years. All these years I have been living two blocks away
from Antonio’s. I have never seen any noises whatsoever. I would say in eight years I didn’t see
any sig-nificant change on auto noise so I don’t understand why there is this big issue about them.
Actually I moved into the neighborhood because it was a nice neighborhood. It is walking
distance from business so you can have a drink at Antonio’s on Friday night and walk back home
which is nice. I have been there for brunch on Sunday morning. I think that is why people move
into the neighborhood because it is wa ~lking distance from business. I think it is quite unfair to
move into the neighborhood and try to close the business after that. If you want to move into a
nei~borhood with no business whatsoever there are plenty of places in Palo Alto Iike that. So it
doesn’t really make sense especially when I read in the Palo Alto City Website that it is a tough
tinge financially and at a time when we are supposed to be business-friendly I thought it was ~kind
of bizarre to try to close business. That is all I have to say.
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: _Any questions. I guess not. Thank you for your input Ms. ~amdiazabal. Joy
Ogawa.
Ms. Joy O~awa. 2305 Yale Street. Palo Alto: I live in ColIege Terrace. For years I don’t go to
California Avenue at night generally so I really had no idea about the Nut House or any of these
issues and I never appreciated any possibiIities of noise but it just so happens that two weeks ago
on a Thursday night I was biking back. I just happened to be visiting someone on the other side
of AIma Street so I was bi -tdng home it about 10:30 at niL’-_J~t and it was very quiet. I went under
the California Avenue runnel and I came out on the other side at it was like there was a street
party going on. I thought wow, what’s going on? It was like there was a street party almost. So
I tried to figure out the source of the noise. I looked down the street and it was Antonio’s Nut
House people, there were probably like two dozen people outside of Antonio’s Nut House. It
was like a party.. It wasn’t screaming. It wasn’t shouting. It was people having conversations
and music. It was like there was a party going on in the street. I thought to myself, I get it now,
I understand what the problem is. So I biked down California Avenue and went home.
I think there is a problem. Just the fact that there are people gathering there creates the problem.
It sounds to me Iike the complaints are mostly about the parking lot and I don’t know what
happens in the par’king lot. To say that is due to The Edge I tl~lc is disingenuous. Maybe The
Edge patrons contribute to that to some extent but to say that the _Antonio’s Nut House doesn’t at
al!, because how could they possibly, I’m sorry, obviously when you have patrons some of them,
maybe a very small percentage of them, are going to create noise problems. I get that at Jack-in-
the-Box alt the time. Not everybody honks but some do and not everybody blasts their stereos
but some do. It is those that do that really can disturb people at late at ~ight and in the morning.
It seems that that parking lot that seems to be the problem is rigd’~t next to ,amtonio’s Nut House
so to say that it is The Edge patrons that are responsible for al! the noise, as I say, I think that is
disingenuous. I am repeating myself so ! wil!just end there. Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Joy,, let me ask you ifI may, the parldng lot that you are referring to where the
outside part3‘, was taking place, was that the par ~king lot inm-tediately adjacent to the side door or
was it the public parking lot?
Ms. O~awa: I didn’t go biking down Birch to see what it xvas like in the parking lot. I just
wanted to get home. All I can say is that it just hit home for me that there was a noise impact
because I came out of that California Avenue bike turmel from quiet into noise. It was two
blocks away that was generating that noise.
Chair Griffin: What time of the night was that?
Ms. O~awa: It was like 10:30. I was not biking at I’"~’.~u in the morning. That is just my pers0nal
experience.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Do we have any questions from Commissioners at this stage? Joe,
you had a question.
Commissioner Bellomo: This is for Staff. Is it appropriate at this time to ask Staff a quesnon:
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Actually we will listen to this gentlemen make his cormnent and I would aiso like
to We the rep from the PD an opportunity to talk to us as well. In the meam,vhile we have
Michael Gaillard and David Mann. So Michael if we could hear from you please.
iX/h-. Michael Gai!lard, 113 Termvson Avenue. Palo Alto: I have a lot to say and not enough time
to say it and I didn’t really prepare for this but because of my passionate attachment to the Nut
House and considerable time spent at the Nut House in the past six years as a student at Stanford
and now a recent gaduate I couldn’t live with myselfifI didn’t come up here to defend it.
As Pablo mentioned the Nut House is definitely a cultural icon of Palo Alto. I haven’t lived in
Palo _Alto long enough to know other iconic institutions that may have once been but I do know
now that Palo Alto is rapidly becoming a place that-lacks diversity, a place that lack acceptance,
a place that is ~m’eatly stratified, East Palo Alto, regular Palo Alto, the rich, the poor. The Nut
House is a place where all people meet and feel comfortabIe. Now I know this has been said and
I t,n~>w this doesn’t have much bearing on the problems at hand. There is something to be
considered, Palo Alto is dubbed a city. Cities tend to be somewhat noisy places. I know plenty
of people in New York City who live above very noisy bars, considerably noisier in fact than the
Nut House, and they live there and they enjoy living there. It is a part of the culture of New
York City, the culture of this life that exists on the streets and within these institutions is what
makes them appreciate the space. I think the iconic nature of the Nut House as a place, Peter
made a point that it is obvious to the passerby that this is not just a restaurant but it is a bar. Ira
passerby can notice this is a bar and a place that wii! be active late at nig__ht when you are malting
a decision on a place to live and you go to sleep early or are a light sleeper upon seeing that I
would tl~h~k that in your decision you would take that into consideration. Now these complaints
have begun much later than the Nut House has been around. The Nut House has been around for
a much longer time than these compiaints have been active. Also when Peter mentioned the
various noises reached a level that was offensive they are spread out over a long period of time.
There are many people that enter the Nut House, 100 to 120 people on the busiest nigl~ts. I
guarantee you that if you found another bar in other places that had that many people coming and
going from a bar the noise level would be much ~eater. I thiN: it is important that some changes
are made as far as the definition of the establishment but it is important. The Nut House changed
my life and I ~know many of my colleagues and peers.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Michael for your comments. David Mann, and would you state your
address please.
M_r. David Mann. 121 Escondido Villaae. Stanford: 1 tive on Stanford Campus. I have a few
things to say. Actually t~vo weeks ago on Thursday the disturbance I believe Joy was referring to
was actually unfortunately an anomalous occurrence. The number of people gathered at the Nut
House that night was due at least in part to gathering in support of the appeal, ironically. It was
Idnd of a messy ode to the ~ad community at Stanford. They were gathered out front because
Antonio’s was complying with the fire codes so they were iimiting the number of people in the
establishment. I assure you normally at 10:30 at night this is not the case. I have been a
gaduate student here, this is my third year, and I have been in Palo Alto before that. It is a good
place but that is not it there is more to it than that. I have spent weeknights there and I have.
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
spent weekends there probably a little bit more than I should sometimes. I have to say that I
a~ee with a lot of these people, obviously it is a relaxing place. That is not really what’s at hand
here. This is not what the point is. Noise-wise walking out to my car at any-where fi’om
midnight to 1:45 AM because they set the clocks ahead, there hasn’t been I mean I haven’t really
am into any troubles, any noise. Obviously I don’t live there so I am not listening 24 hours a day
but it seems to me that the patronage especially, Thursday night is a busy night but many nights
of the week it is really not heavy traffic. There aren’t that many peopie and the people that come
especially on the wee’knights it is a fairly sedate crowd. I haven’t seen any problems or that sort
of thing. I feel like I understand the complaints of people. I lived across from a school for one
year and it was loud at six in the morning and it is a pain in the butt, it wakes you up but that was
hundreds of children running around and screaming which I think is a little bit different. So I
guess I was just trying to express nay support for keeping the hours as they are. These other
issues I think Tony has really put his best foot forward in tr,ving to address all the other issues
that the Council had brought up. That is really the only one I personally have a problem with
since I work until midnight and like to come for a d~nk and shoot a little pool. That’s it.
Chair Griffin: Fine, thank you David. I am wondering ifPaui McDonald representing the
appellant would like to make some wrap up comments here. You have tl~ee minutes, Paul.
~ir. McDonald: First with regard to the security issue and security guards and being licensed
one of the comments was it will make a difference if we have a licensed person with regard to
liabili~;. My position is that it does not make an?; difference whether this person is licensed or
not or a doorperson as we are proposing. The liability lies with the person who hires that person
whether they are licensed by the State of California or not. For the City to impose a condition
reqni~ing Aa~tonio’ s to hire an employee to patrol a public par’king lot screams liabilivy" issues not
only for Antonio’s but for the CitT. I think Mr. Turner in the Staff Report has ac ~knowledged that
and has acknowledged that at prior meetings. So that is one point I wanted to make.
With regard to two of the questions, I think it was by you two individuals about how do we
discern who is making the noise in Lot C-7. It is a very important question and really gets to the
heart of matter and it is a problem. I would like to make one comment, one of the gentlemen, I
am not sure who it ~vas but one of the gentlemen who supported the Staff recommendations
mentioned a letter, I think it was _,Mr. Herman, by Ms. Maeda dated October 1, 2003 which is part
of the package here. She writes to the Council and says I have indicated in previous hearings
and submitted documentation the problems that I have related to the business of Antonio’ s Nu~
House. They are (1) noise among the patrons that come to and go from the establishment to
parldng lot seven. This noise including shouting, screaming, racing car motors and fitting, the
iast happened on July 23 and we called the police because we believed we were in danger. Well,
I will point the Conm~ission to an article in the Daily ~V-e~,~s dated July 24, 2003 ta ~lking about an
incident where there were severe head injuries in figfhts fl~at broke out eariy yesterday, that would
be the 23rd referenced by the neighbor here, at The Edge nightciub. An estimated 300 to 400
patrons spilled out of the nightclub at 260 South California just after 2:00 PM, and the article
goes on. You might be familiar with it. One of the speakers suggested that we were being
disingenuous in blaming The Edge but it is not true as this neighbor is confused as well. She
blames A_ntonio’s and writes this letter to the Council citing Antonio’s being responsible for this
Page 24
1
2
3
3
d
7
8
9
I0
iI
12
13
14
13
Id
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
23
2~
27
28
29
3O
31
32
3~
33
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
4~
43
46
incident when it was clearly an Edge problem 300 or 400 people pouring out of that. I have
copies of that article if you would like to see them.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Paul. Pat, do you have a question?
Commissioner Burr: Yes, actually two. I don’t know who would be best to answer whether it is
Mm Montooth or someone else. Regarding the restaurant mad the proposed method to comply
with Staffrecomanendations that it be an eating establishment fully ha conjunction with the
operation of the bar is this a separate proprietor that o’~x~ns the eating establishment?
M~r. McDonald: That is correct. The proprietor leases that space from Antonio’s.
Colmnissioner Burr: So how would Antonio’s achieve compliance with this restaurant
regulation?
Mr. McDonald: It is nay understanding, and Staffhasn’t appointed to me anything different but I
would be willing to look at it, but it is my understanding that the restaurant and the bar are
compi?dng with the ABC Act, the Alcohol Beverage Control Act, with regard to the hours of
operation. That is our understanding. Now if there are some City.." regulations that are different
than the ABC requirements we would certainly be willing and able to comply with them. We
would do any-~hhag we can. One of the Code Sections cited in the repor~ by Staffis the
Municipal Code Section 18.90.120 with regard to conditions eight and nine which have to do
with the restaurant. I looked at those code sections and many of the conditions that they are
mandating in their proposal are set forth in that section. So it is our understanding w,e are
complying with the ABC Act and if we are not complying with the Cit7 Code certainly we will
addressthat and we will come into compliance.
Commissioner Bur’t: Well, the seg-ment that I am referring to is the orig-inal 1973 use permit.
Mr. McDonald: That’s correct.
Commissioner Burt: In thatit says that the serving of alcoholic beverages shall be accessory to
the eating-place. This ~kind of goes into nay second question. My memory of when Antonio’s
was fJ_rst established was that it was much more of an eating establishment initially. Now we
have a separate proprietor who is operating much more limited hours than the bar and I don’
follow how that makes the bar accessory to the eating establishment. It seems vice-versa.
Mr. McDonald: Once again, if this Commission or Staff requires us to have an eating
establishment open for a limited menu I think we have had discussions with Mr. Turner about
that. We are not opposed to it and we wilI comply with that but it is our understanding our
operation is complying with the law.
Commissioner Burr: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Just a follow up on that. Even though you have a situation where you have
another lessee occupying the same space as the bar you certainly appear to have some sort of
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17-
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
control over this person’s operations. You can dictate to the Azteca and you can count on their
cooperation.
Mr. McDonald: Absolutely. As the sub-landlord if you will.
Chair Griffin: It is a sublease?
Mr. McDonald: Yes. Antonio’s leases the property" from an owner who is in San Francisco and
then ~ve sublet that restaurant area to another entity. So we do have that kind of contro! and they
have indicated they would cooperate in any conditions that are required.
Chair Griffin: Fine, thank you. I think we would then have time to have some comments from
the Police Department. Would you like to come fon~,ard and introduce yourself?
Captain Brad Zook. Palo Alto Police Department. Patrol Division: Good everfing. My name is
Brad Zook. I an~ a Captain with the Police Department assig-ned to Patrol Division.
Chair Griffin: Officer, I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about what would be involved
with a private doorperson involving himself with directing traffic or involved in noise control in
a public par.kLng lot. Is that somett~g that you have familiarity with that you could enlighten us
a little bit?
Captain Zook: I certainly don’t have the authority to We you a legal opinion. I, from the law
enforcement perspective would not recommend that a private security person would be Nving
traffic control direction or any law enforcement activity on city,’ property. Most of the current
bars and restaurants and places that have securib~ guards work on the pren5se and are instructed
by us through our Nig2at Safe pro~am and dealing with different aspects of the nightlife to be a
good witness, to be visible and to call the police if there is a problem that needs to have an
inte~ention.
Corm-nissioner Packer: Does the Police Department have any special plan for that particuIar
area, the parldng lot C-7, in terms of having extra police surveillance on the weekend or is this
part of the normal routine? Do you do that?
Captain Zook: We have no special plans in the future and we have had no special plans for Lot
C-7. For any evening the activities are based on a sliding scale of priorities. Iftb_ere are
activities in the Downtown area or on CaI Ave we respond accordingly. For pre-plarmed event, a
specific event or parade then we have a specific plan.
Commissioner Packer: So there has been nothing in the histow of occurrences in that area that
has required the police to put in any extra patrol in that area.
Captain Zook: No, not at all. We have had situations where we have staffed extra officers for
specific incidents but no we do not have the staff to assign an officer to Lot C-7 indefinitely.
Chair Griffin: Joe.
Page 26
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
_,2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Convnissioner Bellomo: Maybe this was the question that Bonnie just asked you but in general
your observation or the police’s observation of this area is acceptable to that of nomaal bars
located in Palo Alto or is nothing unusual?
Captain Zook: Yes. We certainly don’t want to minimize the concerns that the people expressed
about the noise especially about the fleeting nature of the noise but from a law enforcement
perspective Antonio’s is not a problem establishment.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you.
Commissioner Burt: Just to follow up to that last question, Captain Zook, when the probtems
have occurred in this area and as it relates to The Edge and Antonio’s have you been able to
discern to what de~ee Antonio’s patrons are a somce of problem versus The Edge?
Captain Zook: I don’t know if I am really in a position to answer that. I can tell you that from
personal obse~wation and from specific operations that I have been in charge of they have
specifically been involved with The Edge. I have not had any occasion to deal with any specific
situation that dealt with Antonio’s. It is difficult to separate where somebody came from when
you are dealing with them on Cal Ave or in a parking lot but I have not had any issues with
~M~tonio’s customers.
Conm’tissioner Burt: Would it be within the prerogative of the Police Department to on
occasions where officers have tO adch-ess issues with particular people maNng excess noise or
other problems ha that area late at nig~ht to ask them where they have come from? Is that within
your rights and would that be something that would be feasible to do in the future as part of
im%rmation that would heip the Piarming Department look at the use pem~it forward-loo ~king?
Captain Zook: We can track a number of things. We can always ask as far as that goes.
Whether we can demand a response is another question. The type of situation, the type of
contact that we have with the individuals if it is a calls for service where they are actually the
suspect in something say a fight or something of that nature we can try to determine where they
had come from, yes. I can’t say we get 100% compliance and sometimes the nature of the
contact is not appropriate.
Chair Griffin: Would you care to discuss the effectiveness of a doorperson dressed in civiIian
garb as opposed to a Bums or rent-a-cop type situation in temas of crowd control and general
effectiveness in maintaining proper behavior? I am trying to get a feel for whether or not it
makes sense to ask the appellant to provide a tmiformed security person or not. Do you have
some insight on that?
Captain Zook: The experience that I have had is that the security person needs to be clearly
identifiable as the securiV person. If that person is wearing a shirt that says security staff,, the
name of the business, security is written on the front and the back that seems to be appropriate as
far as identifying them as the staff person. In my experience as far as dealing with security staff
at bars and restaurant/bars is that they work with the staff inside the bar or restaurant. If you
Page 27
1 have an employee of that establishn~ent who is clearly identified as the secufib, person, has
2 communication, has a rapport with the staff mad also with the crowd they can be very effective.
3 To say a person comes in a uniform and has more of an impact or can do a better job I can’t say
4 that. I have seen some very effective security personnel that are dressed in a T-shirt that says
5 security for the business.
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Griffin: Thank you Officer, I think we have no more questions for you. Your input was
instructive. Bolmie, you have a question for Staff?.
Commissioner Packer: Yes. I have a question Steve. You referred to the proposed conditions
that the appellant’s attorney submitted and I wasn’t sure, would Staffbe ageeable to substituting
the proposed conditions with the conditions that you set forth origfiaally?
Mr. Turner: Staff will be willing to review the proposed conditions that we received tonight and
determine if they are compatible with Staff’s orig~al conditions as in the use perrhit. So we
would be wiIling to work with the appellant to determine if we can make substitute conditions.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering at this stage we have been ooin~, at this for two hours how about
if we took a seven-minute break. We will be back, thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen ~ve are goin_~ to reconvene our meeting. If Staff and Commissioners will
please fund a seat. Joe would you like to ask a question of Staff?,
Commissioner Bellomo: Steven, can you We me some exanaples of restaurant/bars hours of
operations? I don’t think I saw anything like that in the Staff Report like a database of hours so I
can get a handle on restaurant!bar hours of operation.
Mr. Turner: Sure. Prior to this meeting I just did a quick survey of a couple of the
establisl~aents that tend to be seen as restaurant!bars. The Edge has in their use permit requires
them to cease operations or close at 3:00 AM. That is a little bit longer than some of the other
establishments. Q Caf~ on Alma Street their stated hours of operation are until 2:00 AM.
Commissioner Bellomo: Are these Monday or seven days a week?
Mr. Turner: Seven days a week.
Commissioner Bellomo: So Q’s is 2:00.
lVI_r. Turner: Rudy’s, aiso Downto-~m, closes at 2:00 AM as well. So that was the extent of my
formai survey. Typically it seems that the alcoholic beverage control rules state that the serving
of alcoho! has to cease by 1:30 and many of these establishments tend not to stay open longer
than that since they are not receiving the revenue.
Commissioner Bellomo: So these are typically 1:30 they stop serving alcohol.
Page 28
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4-2
43
4~
45
46
Mr. Turner: I am not sure when they stop serving alcohol but that is the maximuna thr, e limit is
1:30 per the agency.
Commissioner Be!lomo: Okay.
Commissioner Holman: Follow up to that. If the law requires you to stop serving alcohol at
1:30 why is The Edge allowed to be open tmtil three o’clock?
Vice-Chair Cassel: The heating that the Plamfing Commission held on that one some years back
the idea was to let people drift out slo~vly so that they weren’t all dumping out into the street at
one time. So the alcohol was to stop at 1:30 and then people were then Wen time to leave at a
more leisurely pace.
Chair Griffin: _&~d also I am presmning some janitorial work and cleanup takes place at that
stage as we!l? Not, says the appellant. Pat, did you have a question for Staff?. Bonnie.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: If the Commissioners don’t mind I would like to make a motion. That
we ask Staff to review the proposed conditions that were submitted on October 8, today, by the
appellant and that we continue the public hearing until Staffhas come back with their review- and
that jus~ among ourselves we just maybe ~ve some additional guidance that we would Iike the
Staff to consider when they are reviewing these proposed conditions.
Chair Griffin: Do I hear a second?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll second it.
Cmrmqissioner Packer: The reason for that is that we do have these proposed conditions that
Staffis willing to review. We have heard from the public on two sides. A lot of people spoke
with a gear dea! of concern about shortening the hours of operation. There was a lot of concern
about the loss of business to the owner, the loss of a sense of con=nunity that has been
established over the years, the 30 years that the Nut House has been around. So my feeling is
that the conditions that are being proposed are proposing that the hours stay open until 2:00 AM
every night and I think that is reasonable as one of the parameters. But that the other issues that
were raised were the ability of an unlicensed security gq.mrd, just a security guard who is well
identified, could do the monitoring work that is needed and all the other items that were in the
public testimony if the Staff wouid take those into consideration in reviewing the proposed
conditions and then have the public have an opportunity, to review your anaIysis of the proposed
conditions at a future hearing it might Nve everybody a fair chance again for what is best for the
situation.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well I was going to ask Staff first if this wouldn’t be a wise way to proceed.
I think we need a chance to talk anaongst ourselves a little bit about where some ideas are that we
have some consensus and if we have a lot of consensus to it but there has been some additional
information introduced this evening that I think we need to have Staff have a chance to try to
look at before we come up with a final proposal. It is a little hard to look at a three-page
document at this time of night.
I think there are some areas that I personally agee on with the information that is before us. I
think there should be food for instance served, that was the original ageement with the ori~nal
application for the additional conditional use permit way back when. Things do change over
time and life goes on and we sometimes forget where we started but that was where that started
and that is pretty consistent I believe in other applications in other places around town.
The hours I think that is one of the more difficult issues to deal with. The security person I
would like to start with someone from the organization who.is clearly marked. I a~ee in the
conditions that we should be reviewing this next year. We have done this before for several
other establislmaents where we have had questions of noise and it has helped. It has come to the
Planning Conmaission maybe once or twice and then gone back to Staff for review. This was
true at The Edge, we have had Staff review at the Q and I think that is consistent. We can do it
either way but it needs to be reviewed yearly for a while because we don’t exactly which place is
causing the problems but this will help. The patio is going to be an interesting issue. It is not an
issue for us because they are appIying for it but is that going to create more noise and that is
something we probably need to look at in conjunction with this. It would be a sha~le to have
them go all the way through an application process and then come back and say well you can’t
have anythfl~g outside because that is going to create noise. So I would hate to do a double
wharrmay on that one. V~q~ere do you want to put this extra parldng? There is a proposaI you put
in that people are going to be aimed and directed to go to a different parking lot down the way.
Is that at ali feasible or reasonable? Are people using the parking lot behind The Edge? They
must, we must be talldng about maybe 70 cars if we have 120 people in there at night that’s
about 60 or 70 cars. It depends on how you do it. Maybe people are walking over there but how
many cars are involved in this? k is difficult.
I was down there the other night about 9:30 or 10:00 on a weekend night. It was ve~- quiet. I
couldn’t hear the crickets. I can hear the crickets at home I couldn’t hear the crickets there.
What was happening was there was a ~m’oup of young adults, 18 to 24 ha age, waiting for
someone and they were skateboarding down the middle of the street. That was how quiet it was.
They were skateboarding down the middle of the street. It was noisy because of course
skateboards make noise especially when they run down. They were going down the centerline of
the street that is how quiet it was. I think that is enough of my comments.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I would a~ee with the co~mnents made so far. Since this is going to
come back to us I have a couple of other questions and I am going to open a can of worms here.
I would like to know what the hours are that the Cib; does sidewalk cleaning on California
Avenue, not only the Cit3~ but I believe not that man), months ago there were private contractors
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
allowed to do particular hours. The reason I am opening that is because if we are ta ~lldng about
noise we need to be consistent. I think consistency is very, very important so I would like to
M-~ow that.
Also since we are looking at this project I would Iike to ~know if actually there is a code
enforcement violation that would be maintenance of buildings. Actually one of the photogaphs
that are provided in the appellant’s documents "kind of indicate that there is a code violation as
far as paint on the building. The reason I bring that up is one of the same reasons I bring up the
sidewalk cleaning. I am going to be very, very blunt here. I think the sidewalks ha this town are
filthy and when you go across in front of Antonio’s Nut House the sidewalk there is absolutely
filthy. I am not pointing it out as being unique either. That along with a possible code violation
as far as paint on the building I do believe that people are more respectful of the environment
when they are in a clean enviromnent. I think that would lead to a better situation, more respect
for that premise and thus for the surrounding neighbors.
I don’t know how we detenrline what noise is coming from Edge patrons and Antonio’s Nut
House patrons. That has come up a lot tonight and quite frankly I don’t know at this moment
how to resolve that.
_About the other conditions, we had a lot of stuff at our places tonight and it is very, very difficult
to review that all on the spot but prior to the meeting I identified some other things. I a~ee
about the security guard and previous comments that have been made. Condition number five
that says that they will lead patrons to lots other than Lot C-7 - talk about a nightmare to try to
control. It is a public par,king lot remote from the site I don’t know if the Cit%l can actua!ly
legally do that. I don’t need a response now but I can’t imaNne how that can happen. Condition
number six says the violations may lead to revocation and it sotmds like maybe only one
violation or one real violation could lead to revocation of the license and that is a one st~fl, ie
policy which I thine is quite severe. Bear with me for a moment here please. The conditions
also require for an awful lot ofpro~ams to be implemented or to be identified not more than 15
days after issuance of the permit. It is a lot of things for an applicant to accomplish in 15 days. I
would like to see any conditions that are applied to the applicant to be stepped so that a
reasonable amount of them are due in 15 days and the others in 30 days. I thh~k it is too much to
try to accomplish in 15 days. Two more things. I am not looking at which condition it is right
now but it talks about people gathering in the paring lot. It is a public paring lot sohow is it
that a private business can control how many people can gather? If they are causing noise and it
is a disturbance that is one thing but especially when you have people coming potentially from
other locations how can a private business? You get the point there. I don’t ~know if there is a
way to do some ~kind of identification to help resolve who is causing problems that mi~__aht exist or
do exist. If there is something that can be put on the dashboards of automobiles if they are
patrons of X businesses. Somebody could just go in buy a drink and then go over to The Edge. I
don’t "know if there is a practical way to do that but it is something to consider. The last thing
that I will say is that there was a comment made by the appellant about complaints that had been
lodged about disposal of the bottles and then people rummage through trying to look for bottles.
I don’t k_now that we can require this but it might help with any noise concerns if the appellant
would be interested in recycling all their bottles and cans and wor.-king that plan out with the City
and not only be environmentally more responsible but perhaps the City would help them with
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
some ~kind of secured containers for those purposes and ~ve can accomplish two things at once. I
think those are my only comments and thank you for your patience.
Chair Griffin: Joe.
Cornnaissioner Bellomo: We have heard some good comments. I would Iike to just go back to
kind of the rationale of the hours. I think that is one of the main points that the appellant’s
bringing before. I did read briefly through the appellant’s request and the hours seem to be
maintaining more until two o’clock. What I would like to see Staff provide at our next meeting
is hours of operations of typical restam’ant/bars in Palo Alto so we can get a handle on the
fairness of the conditions placed in this conditional use permit.
I guess what I would like to also say is there seems to be an effort of education, awareness,
concern and effort. If there is that and there is sincerity behind that problems are solved. There
are 30 years of-life that :%ntonio’s had and there is one year of residency. They are all
interrelated and we all have to work together. It is a public zone. It is a City par’king lot. It is a
dowa~town it should be vibrant. It should be encouraged by the City to remain vibrant. It should
have a mix of opportunities and events. Living across the street from a City park it is that
awareness and we all have to work and live together and cooperate. So having said that I think
food is a good idea when it comes to drinking establishments. I do encourage that there are light
meals serried. I think it can encourage better behavior. It nurtures the systems and people can be
more aware of their abiliD, to accept alcohol. So I am encoura=oing food being served, light
meals and I think that condition being in place is really a good idea just for health. I think I
applaud improvements going on around an ARB application. I think improvements make a place
safer. That is after years of being in business I think those are needed for kind of new life being
breathed into your place. So I encourage that. I am supportive of all of what I have heard and I
look forward to continuing to explore how we can solve these concerns.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: My specific comments I think have been well covered by other
Commissioners. I would just like to add to the overall sense that I think that there are ways in
which Antonio’s can and apparently has to some degee already helped improve the
circumstances surrounding their establishment and the spillover impacts on neigJabors. I think
that having an annual process to review this and keep it within appropriate parameters is the
correct way to go. I think we are loo ~king at striking a balance. Califomia Avenue is a business
district with some entertainment aspects to it and going with that is a certain amount of evening
activity and noise. As a former College Terrace resident who used to walk down there probably
five nigJats a week I ~know that these conditions to varying degees have existed for decades. In
fact, I am reminded that the reason this City is Palo Alto and not Ma.vfield is because when
Stanford started the university" Ma~eld had 50-plus bars and Mrs. Stanford being a tea-totaler
was not able to get all those bars to shut down and they established the City of Palo Alto instead.
We later annexed Mayfield as I recall. So there is somewhat of a tradition of activity in this area.
~Vhat we want to do is try to strike a reasonable balance and I think we are moving in that
direction.
Page 32
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
D--
34
35
36
37
I will add just one more commem. I was struck by a number of the patrons talking about that
this is an aspect of diversity and I was recently told that several of the teachers at Walter Hayes
Elementary School occasionally frequent Antonio’s. The reason they do so is it is the one bar in
Palo Alto that they can reasonably sure they will never run into a Walter Hayes parent in.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassei: I had a comment on number 11 under the Staff’s proposal. That peopie have
full access and use ofbattn’oom facilities within the building. This doesn’t appear to be a
building that has a long line waiting outside but they do have people who leave and come back.
It is really urgent that that be a condition that people have access to that facili~. I "know that this
can be negotiated later in the final details but I think that we do need to think of that and I lcnow
that is in the proposal for The Edge or the work that is at The Edge.
Chair Griffin: I think that we need to pay particular attention to this particular issue because as
Palo Alto changes we are going to see a geater use of mixed use developments and I think the
more mixed use and higher density units that we see built in town we are going to be exposing
people to more and more of these kinds of dilemmas where you have residents living closer and
closer to active business environments. I would veo much like to see some methods broug2nt
together to make life easier for the neighbors. Spea ~king for myselfI certainly wouldn’t want to
live that close to a loud noise generator. I think as the Staff Report identifies a number of
different methods that will calm that situation down. I also would Iike to say that while it is
important to look at what other bars are being restricted to or maybe I should say what closing
hours are being allowed this particular establisl~nent being perhaps closer to a neighborhood
residential situation is deserving of perhaps more restrictive closing times. I will look forward to
seeing all of these issues brought back before the Corrm~ission and we will continue the public
hearing as well so that ever.cone will have an opportunity to voice their opinions on it. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t know if we need to do this but I did make this in the form of a
motion and a second. We have already done all the comments. So do we have to formalize it
with a vote?
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Bialson absent)
Chair Griffin: Let’s do. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? It carries.
So that brfl~gs to a close this pro-titular item on our agenda.
Page 33
Department qf Planning and
Commz~ni~¢ Environment
Attachment H
Application No. 73-UP-I 3:321 California Avenue
Use Permit 73-UP-13 is approved, with amended conditions., to allow the sale of liquor,
beer and w-ine for the propervy at 321 California _Avenue, Palo Alto, California.. Zone
District CC(2)(R)(P). Project approval is based on the following findings and is subject to
Planning Div%ion conditions listed below.
FIN-DINGS
The proposed use at the proposed location will not be de~-kmentat or
injurious ~o properb~ or improvements in the vicini~% and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience, in that the sale of liquor, beer and wine will be
associated with an existing eating and drinking estabiishment: and
o The proposed use will be ]
accord w-ith the Palo ,adto Co~
of Title 18 of t_he Palo
consistent with the underlyir
and drinking use is a permitt
Furthermore, the use is corr
Regional!Community Commercial
surrounding land uses.
land use
manner in
,oses
his use is
an eating.
:re district.
.... sire Plan,
desi~m’~afion and the
CONDITIONS
The Director of Planning and Communib; Environment shall hold a
public hearing annually to review the conditions of the amended use
permit, poiice activi~ report, fire inspection, building inspections,
complaints and public *~ *: ;the~cs~J_mon¥ to detemline business owner’s
compIiance with the use permit conditions of approval. If the
business owner has not complied with a!! the conditions or there have
been three or more officially documented infractions of the noise
ordinance within the 12-month period, Use Permit 73-UP-13 may be
revoked or modified. Off’lcially documented infractions means that
the Palo ,aAto Police Department has conducted noise readings and
found the establishment to be in violation~of.-the.,Pal~ oalto Noise.D Ui-laKq3~Oll o,~v ei"me
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2Mi~ 1 -650.329.2154 fax.
321 California Avenue
%-UP,I~
Juiy 9, 2003
o
Ordinance. The date and time of this hearing shall be noticed in
accordance with the provisions of section t8.90.030 Palo .Alto
Municipal Code ~,4~MC], including publication in a local newspaper
of general circulation and by notice m residems and property owners
within 300 feet of the propeKy.
Hours of Operation shall extend no later than the following:
Sunday throu~ Thursday,
Friday and Saturday
9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. (closing time)
9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. (closing time)
There shall be no operations of an?, kind between the hours of 1:00
A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Monday through Friday and 3:00 A.M. and 9:00
A.M. Saturday and Sunday, except for cleaning the premises, or for
compliance with the provisions of the li~er removal plan established
in Condition #10. Trash and recycling disposal may take piace after
8:00 A.M daily.
Patrons shall not be a!Iowed to enter the building between 11:30 P.M.
and 9:00 A.M. Sunday through Friday and ! :30 A.M. Saturday and
Sunday. The servin_~ or all alcoholic b,,~ ~ra_~s shall terminate one-
half hour prior to closing, and shall not be allowedto conm~ence unti!
the reopening of business later that day, but in no event prior to 9:00
A.M2 All patrons shall be vacated from the building one-hour after the
posted closing time.
The business operator shall submit a plan, which addresses crowd
control, specifically the management of patrons outside of the
establishment and patrons waiting to enter the facility. The plan shal!
be reviewed and approved by both the Police Department and
Manager of Current Planning. The plan shall identifs,~ methods for
controlling and dispersing patrons in the private parking lot and those
waiting ,o enter the establishment. The plan shall include quantitative
objectives such as the maximum allowable number of patrons in the
par-king 10t 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
immediately upon approva! unless othe>.vise specirSed.
The business operator shall submit a plan for the utilization of a
security g-uard in directing patrons to desig-nated public parking lots
for the purpose of reducing noise levels in the California Avenue
district and the residential areas to the southeas’c of the site. The plan
the Manager of Current Planning. The plan shall identify the
321 California Avenue
73-UP-!3
July 9.. 2003
l,
boundaries and specific areas the guard "~il! patrol, specific public
partd.ng lots to which patrons will be directed, and the manner in
which the g-uards are to approach and direct motorists and patrons
loitering in parking lots. The Manager of Current Planning may
require the operator to make changes in the security, plan, upon
determination that the approved plan in not effective in reducing
complaints. The Manager of Current ~ larmm= may also require
changes to the boundaries of the securiD, area, and in the number,
location and actions of the security ~maards, upon a determination that
such changes are necessary to reduce complaints..All security guards
used to implement this plan shall be licensed by the State of
California and uniformed in a mariner that satisfies the Police
Department and also clearly identifies them. as guards for the facility
and not Paio ~Alto Police Officers. The plan shall be submitted no later
than 15 days after the issuance of this use permit (July 24, 2003) and
implemented immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified.
The business operator shal! submit a temporary sign pro~am for the
California Avenue district that effectively directs patrons of the
facility to the specific punic parking lots identified in the approved
security g-uard plan required by Condition #4. Specifically, the
temporary sig-n pro~am shall direct patrons to public par-king lots
other than Lot C-7. The placement and wording of the signs and days
for which they wit! be utilized shall be reviewed and approved by the
Transportation Division. The plan shal! be submitted no later than 15
days after the issuance of this use permit (July 24, 2003) and
implemented immediately upon approval unless otherwise specified.
The ow~ners and operators of the faciliD shall insure that a minimum
of one uniformed securib~ guard, Iicensed by the State of California,
be stationed outside the building during the hours of evening
operations to insure compliance with all applicable conditions of
approval, codes and ordinances. The Police Department will respond
on a complaint basis only. Violations of any nature, including noise
may lead to a revocation of the permit by the Director of Planning and
Communib~ Environment.
The business operator shall submit a plan to educate patro~ that
use ofpropemj is only permitted under certain conditions, pardcuiariy
with respect for the surrounding business and residential
neighborhood. The education prog-ram shall direct patrons to park in
designated punic parking lots, to reduce noise in the California
Avenue district, to eliminate litter and vandalism, and to be respecrfu!
shall include w-ording for handbills, to be distributed upon entry to the
321 Calix~omia Avenue
73-UP- 13
July 9, 2003
facilib7, and signs within the building. The education pro~am shall be
reviewed and approved by both the Police Department and the
Manager of Current Planning. The plan shall be submitted no later
than 15 days after the issuance of this use permit (July 24, 2003) and
implemented immediately upon approva! unless othervvd~se specified.
The serving of alcoholic beverages shal! only be allowed in
conjunction with the operation of a bona-fide restaurant. The
restaurant shall be in operation and easily accessible to and from the
entertaimnent area during the times in which alcohol is sold and
consumed on site.
The owners and operators of the club shall provide a full service
menu to customers during regular business hours and a late night
menu to customers after 1 !:00 p.m. which shall be available umil
closing.
10.The business shall remove all litter associated with its operation in the
area patrolled by the securiD~ guard, as defined in Condition #4.
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.
11.The business operator shall allow- all patrons waiting in line to have
full access and use of the bathroom faciiities within the building,
weather or not that patron has paid the required cover charge (if any).
This service shall be advertised in conjunction with the education
pro~am specified in Condition #7.
12.The sale of beer and wine under this use permit shall be deemed an
ageement on the part of the applicant, the ow-ner, their heirs,
successors and assig-ns to comply with all of the terms and conditions
of this use permit.
13.This use shall comply with all applicable Cit3y codes, including but
not limited to, Title 9 (public Peace, Morals and Safe~0, Title 15
(Fire Prevention) and Title 18 (Zoning). In addition, this use shall
comply with the requirements of State of California Administrative
Cod ,~ludin~ the requirements for licensin_~ from the Department
~oh~’~.,era~e Control.
Advance PEi:m-fi~_ Mana_~er
July 9, 2003
321 California Avenue
73-U-P-!3
Julv o 2003
NOTE
This Use Permit is ~anted in accordance with and subject to the provisions
of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will
become effective ten days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal is
filed as provided by Chapter ! 8.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy
of this letter shal! accompany all Nmre requests for Cit7 permits relating to
this approval.
In the event that tlfis approval is appealed, an.additional letter wilt be mailed
with information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the Planning
Commission and the Cib~ Council.
N any case in which the conditions to the ~anting of a Use permi.~ have not
been complied with, the Zoning Administrator sha!l give notice to the
permittee of intention to revoke such permi~ at least ten (10) days prior to a
hearing thereon. FollovAng such 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 (1) year after the date of
~anting becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may: without a
hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect
is filed before the expiration of*he first year.
Applicant:Tony Montooth
321 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Property Owner:Edwards ~o.
99 25th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94121
cc. Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Steven Turner, Plarmer
Lt. Jon Hernandez, Palo .Alto Police Department
Oreg x,_e~ber, P.O. Box 1877 Palo AJto, CA ~4~u2
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306
321 Catffomia Avenue
73-UP-13
Juty 9, 2003
Jeff Herman, 2512 Birch Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Lisa Habbeshaw, 2504 Birch Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Midori-Ka~o Maeda,
Peter Holland, 342 Gran~ Avenue, Palo _alto, CA 94306
Dea Smi"d~, 4250 E1 Cam!no Rea!, #D229, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ketly Gorman, 321 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
.amdre DePass, 321 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Attachment I
GERMINO, MACKAY, RUNTE & MCDONALD
July 18; 2003
Personal Delivery
Clerk of the Cib" of PaiD Alto
Management Center
285 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
PC
RECEIVED
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL
FindLn~s and Conditions datea Juh, 9 .~00_~
Our Client: Tony Montc
Application No. 73-UP
To The Cib’ Clerk:
House
Ore office represents Appetla.~
Enclosed please find the v~Ti~
above. Also, enclosed is a check for the appem x:~.
Sincerely.
Paul J. McDonald, Esq.
Attorney for Appellant
gut House.
tam Tony Montooth as referenced
co: Clieni
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Re: Application No. 73-UP-13:321 California Avenue, Palo Alto.. CA
_Appeal to Findings and Conditions dated July 9, 2003
Applicant and Appellant: Tow Montooth.. :’-kntonio’s Nut House
(!) Appe!lan~ Tony- Mon~ooth hereby appeals the Conditions Numbered 1 through! 1, set
forth in the Findings and Conditions dated July 9.. 2003. Appellant’s opera, ion of the business
does not wsa-rant these Conditions. To implement the Conditions Numbered ! through 1 !~.
would seriously impact Appe!lant’s financial abiliiy to con~Lnue to operate his business excepting
therefrom_ the Conditions that:
A) The business operator shall submit a temporau sign pro=o-ram that directs patrons of
the ~’aciIiD~ to specific public partdng lots other than Lot C-7~
B) The business operator shall submit a plan to educate patrons that the use of the
proper~y is onty permitted under ce~-tain conditions, particularly with respect to the surrounding
business and residential neighborhood, including educatLng patrons to park in designated public
p~Mng lots;
C) The business shall remove al! liter associated with its operation no earlier than
A.M. and shall be completed by !0:00 A.M. the morning a~er eveu bvtsiness day.
(2) The _Appellant asserts that he may have additional grounds for this appea! available to
him which he is not now fulIy aware. The Appellant reserves the right these asse~ additional
gomnds a~ such time as i,he same have been ascertained.
Dated July 18:2003
Paul f. . Esq. Attorney for and on behalf
of Appe!!ant Tony Mon~ooih