Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-17 City Council (21)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ! 0 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT NOVEMBER 17, 1997 CMR:471:97 675-695 EL CAMINO REAL AND 31 WELLS AVENUE: REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGEFROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CS) TO PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZO~ TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THREE EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 194-ROOM FIVE-STORY HOTEL COMPLEX, SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS (HOLIDAY INN) FILE NOS. 97-ARB-92; 97-ZC; 97-EIA-8 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council: Approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 2), finding thatthe proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and Adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) rezoning the site from the CS (Service Commercial) to the PC (Planned Community) district and approving the proposed construction of a new 194-room, five-story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements based on the attached fmdings (Attachment A) and conditions (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 4). The Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding public benefit is different than staff’s recommendation as discussed under the Summary of Significant Issues section of this report. CMR:471:97 Page 1 of 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to c~ns’truct a new, 127,019-square-foot, 194-room, five-story hotel complex, 197-space subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. The total building area is proposed to be 224,665 square feet, including the garage. The project is located immediately south of the existing Holiday Inn at 625 E1 Camino Real, just south of Palm Drive. Attached is the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B) and applicant’s written description (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 5) and plans, which provide further details regarding the project. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES At the Planning Commission meeting on October 29, 1997, the Commission supported the project .design, recognized the need for additional hotel space near Downtown, and concluded that the project scale and FAR were appropriate for the site. The significant issues raised were the appropriateness of the proposed hotel use in this part .of the City, specifically its intensity, the potential trip generation and traffic impacts, and the proposed public benefit package. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached (Attachment C). Appropriateness of Use at Specific Location Commissioners inquired as to how staff determined the appropriateness of a large hotel at this location. Staff responded that the suitability for such a use is evaluated before the project is reviewed for architecture, site design and public benefit. In this case, staff supported a five-stoIy hotel at this location because it would be compatible with the existing Holiday Inn and the proposed 50-foot-high Palo Alto Medical Foundation project on either side of the proposed project. The site is also near the Caltrain station and within walking distance of Downtown shops and services. A hotel of this size also generates fewer vehicle trips than a variety of uses permitted by the zoning. Traffic Impacts At the October 29, 1997 Planning Commission meet’mg, concerns were raised during public testimony about the traffic generation of the proposed project. One of the reasons for staff support for the project is that hotels are relatively low traffic generators and, for this site, will yield less traffic than a number of-permitted uses developed consistent with the current CS zoning. CMR:471:97 Page 2 of 6 Use Holiday Inn Expansion (194 rooms) Destination/High quality restaurant (no breakfast) Chain restaurant (with breakfast)* Financial institution with walk-in use* Site Trip Generation ~AM Peak Hour 1,688 128 PM Peak Hour 145 2,140 20 171 3,220 310 220 2,975 105 330 *Vehicle trips for the chain restaurant and fmancial insttufi0n uses have been reduced to reflect pass-by trips already using E1 Camino Real. Staff would not support a btfilding the size of the proposed Holiday Inn expansion if it were to be used for higher trip generation activities, such as professional offices. Staff also assumed that an alternative use consistent with the long-established zoning (e.g., a chain restaurant) would be approved with traffic mitigations. As noted in the September. 24, 1997, Planning Commission staff report, the Holiday Inn project contains a number of traffic mitigations. Further, the revised public benefit package would facilitate pedestrian connections between the project and Downtown. Public Benefit Package As part of the applicant’s presentation to the Commission, public benefits consisting of a $20,000 contribution by the project for improvement of the existing pedestrian tunnel on the south side of University Avenue and incr(ased funding for the planned Homer Avenue pedestrian crossing from $50,000 to $110,000 were added. This fimding is to be available for other transportation improvements connecting Urban Lane to Downtown if the crossing is not built. During the Planning Commission heariang, the applicant volunteered further to increase the project’s contribution from $110,000 to $150,000 for the Homer Avenue tunnel or other pedestrian improvements in the area The Commission recommended r.emoving the transient occupancy tax (TOT) from the list of public benefits set forth in the ordinance, based on discomfort with establishing a direct link between City revenue and public benefit and a zone change approval. Staff noted that the City Council had approved.TOT as a public benefit for the 1988 expansion of the Hohday Inn. Staff continues to support the provision of TOT as an appropriate public benefit CMR:471:97 Page 3 of 6 for a hotel planned community zone and has retained public benefit in the attached Planned Community zone ordinance. BOARD/COMMISSION ACTION The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project on August 21, 1997. The ARB was supportive of the project. ARB members asked the applicant to explain the relationship of the project’s design with the adjacent PAMF and Holiday Inn buildings. The applicant’s architect explained that the project was .designed asa separate boutique hotel and was not intended to match the design of the existing hotel - most of which cannot be seen because of the dense canopy of trees surrounding the existing hotel. The architect noted that the architecture, materials and colors were generally compatible with the adjacent PAMF project. ARB members inquired as to the possibility of adding more street trees to the E1 Camino Real frontage. The applicant indicated that the placement of existing street trees and the proposed driveways limited the number of street trees to that shown in the plans. The ARB members suggested additional planting of shrubs to further screen this frontage. ARB members noted that the entry was auto-oriented and could be more pedestrian friendly. The applicant explained that the property line shared with the existing Holiday Inn made it difficult to redesign the entry and still provide adequate automobile access from E1 Camino Real when the existing lease with Stanford University runs out and a shared access may not be possible. The ARB suggested additional planting and pedestrian fumitttre in the entry area and on the building facades facing the entry to help soften this edge. The ARB recommended that public art be located in more than one location on the site. The applicant indicated that this would be considered during selection of the public art proposal. The proposal will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Commission prior to subsequent review by the ARB. ARB members supported the site plan, architectural design and landscaping ~eatures of the project. Members particularly liked the design of the courtyards and the orientation of the hotel rooms facing into the courtyards. ARB members supported the authentic Mediterranean-design, the high. quality of the building-materials and colors and their compatibility with the adjacent PAMF project. Members thought that the design solution was successful considering the constraints posed by the property line shared with the existing Holiday Inn. Members agreed with the stand-alone design with respect to the existing Holiday Inn building. The ARB supported the integration.of public benefits into the project design, and recommended that the City Council approve the project as proposed. On July 30, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project. The Planning Commission was supportive of the project. Commissioners expressed an interest in the type of trees proposed at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue. Commissioners also expressed an interest in the public benefit package and the proposed contribution to the pedestrian tunnel. They expressed a concern that the project didn’t relate well enough to Wells Avenue and the PAMF project. Commissioners requested a more detailed explanation of how the architectural design related to the existing Holiday Inn and to the adjacent PAMF CMR:471:97 Page 4 of 6 project and how the mass of the project related to the open feel of E1 Camino Real. Commissioners also expressed an interest in strengthening the pedestrian connection along E1 Camino Real from the hotel site to the Town and Country complex. On October 29, 1997, the Planning Commission again reviewed the project. Discussion focused on the appropriateness of the proposed hotel use in this part of the City, the potential trip generation and traffic impacts, and the proposed public benefit package as described above. The Planning Commission voted 4-0-0-3 (Commissioners Cassel, Ojakian and Bialson not participating) to recommend approval of the project with the modifications to the public benefit package as proposed by the applicant based on the attached fmdings and conditions. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS A proposed PC Ordinance, including recommended findings (Attachment A) and conditions of project approval (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 4) are attached. As noted in the Summary of Significant Issues section of this report, staff, based in part on a 1988 Council action, believes that transient occupancy tax is a public benefit for a hotel use in a planned community zone. The staff-recommended ordinance contains the reference to this benefit. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Ordinance Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 24, 1997 (with attachments) Attachment C: Planvhng Commission minutes (excerpt) of the meeting of October 29, 1997 Attachment D: Letters from City of Menlo Park (September 23, 1997) and Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (October 29, 1997) Plans (City Council Members only) co:Architectural Review Board Planning Commission Clement Chen, 831 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94133 John Chin, Sandy & Babcock, 1349 Larkin Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 April Phillips, 118 Fourth Street, Sausalito, CA 94965 Charles Carter, Planning Office, 855 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305 Leonie Batldn, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Herb Brenner, 250 Byron, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR:471:97 Page 5 of 6 PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:471:97 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18 . 08 . 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 675-695 EL CAMINO REAL/31 WELLS AVENUE FROM CS - SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO PC-PLANNED COMMUNITY The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. .(a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held September 24, 1997~ and the Architectural Review Board, upon consideration at its meeting of August 21, 1997, have recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. (b) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2 Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 675-695 E1 Camino Real/31 Wells Avenue (the "subject property") from "CS Service Commercial" to "PC Planned Community." The subject property, consisting of approximately.l.27 acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A,’’ attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The site is so situated, and the uses and improvements proposed for the subject property are of such characteristics that the .application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development, in that neither the existing CS zoning, nor any other commercial zoning district, would accommodate the size of the proposed project. The limitations on floor area, floor area ratio, and- height which are applicable in the conventional commercial zoning districts would not allow the development of this hotel project consisting of a floor area of 127,019 square feet and including buildings fifty feet in height. 971112 lac 0080575 1 (b) Development of the siteunder the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of general- districts or combining districts, as follows: (i) The project will provide a five (5) foot wide right-of-way dedication along the 354-foot long Wells Avenue frontage, which will allow construction of a sidewalk where none currently exists. The new sidewalk to be constructed in the new public right-of-way matches that to be constructed across the street along the Palo Alto Medical Foundation project frontage and will serve the public. (ii) The project will result in development of a new hotel including 194 guest rooms, which will generate_ significant revenue to the City’s General Fund in the form of Transient Occupancy Taxes collected on the rental of the rooms. (iii) The project includes a program to provide meeting space for up to i00 persons without charge to nonprofit groups, once per month through the year 2001. (iv) The project will contribute ~:~i~.~ii!i!~I to the pedestrian ~crossing proposed to be constructed between Downtown and the Urban Lane Extension area~i~iiii!~iiiiiiii:~i!iiiiii!~~iii (v) Public art, as approved by the Public Art commission and the Architectural Review Board, will be integrated into the project. (c) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and with the uses which Presently exist in the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs: (i) Urban Design Element Policy #3: "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City streets." This project provides a row of street trees along E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue and landscaping along both frontages. The proposed landscaping and public art proposals will enhance the appearance of the existing site from E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue. 971112 lac: 0080575 (ii) Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development." The site is designated Service Commercial and is well suited for this use. The site is surrounded by similar and compatible commercial, office and hotel uses in the vicinity. (iii) Urban Design Element, Objective, p.42: ’Promote visual environments Which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and considerate of each other." The proposed hotel features high quality materials and attractive landscaping and the building is architecturally compatible with the adjacent Holiday Inn and PAMF facility. Proposed street trees and perimeter landscaping are designed at a human scale that is visually attractive to pedestrians. S.~CTION 4. .Those certain plans entitled "Palo Alto Holiday Inn Expansion, 675 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA" prepared by Sandy & Babcock International, dated April 21, 1997, and approved by the Architectural Review Board on August 21, 1997, copy on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the following conditions: (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited to a hotel and ancillary uses incidental thereto, including approximately 127,019 square feet of hotel rooms, meeting rooms, restaurant, office and ancillary space, and approximately 97,646 square feet of underground automobile parking for a total of approximately 224,665 square feet. (b) Conditional Uses. No conditional uses shall be allowed. (c)Site Development Requlations. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approval adopted by the Council in conjunction with approval of this ordinance. The following are site development regulations" which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (i) Final plans, including materials and colors, complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas, and 971112 lac 0080575 3 signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board ("ARB") prior to issuance of building permits. -All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, electric panel switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be shown on the final plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respect the building design and setback requirements. (ii) Any other exterior changes to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Municipal Code. (iii) The approved Development Plan permits some tree removal and requires the preservation ~and protection of certain trees within the development. No future development or improvement proposed for the subject property following initial construction authorized by Architectural Review Approval shall result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The parkingrfor the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan. (e)Special Conditions. (i) Right of Way Dedication. The project includes dedication to the City of a five foot wide right of way along the project’s entire Wells Avenue frontage. The site plan for the project shall show this area to be dedicated and the dedication shall be completed prior to issuance of the first building permit.~ (ii) Public Art. This project was approved in part on the basis that it will incorporate original art facing E1 Camino Real, visible to the public, as a public benefit of the project. ~The applicant’s public art proposal must be submitted to and approved by the Public Art Commission, applying the standards set forth in PAMC 2.26.040, and by the Architectural Review Board prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, and shall be fully installed prior to the date of initial occupancy of the project. (iii) Pedestrian~dnnel:~~~i~!~. This project was approved in part on the basis that it will provide ~~i~!i~!~!~!i~Thousand Dollars ’~=0 ~0.....................................~ ,~ ,~:~i~:~:~)i:i toward ~:£:~£:~:~ .....of a pedestrian ~ ........ .....~ ~i~g’"~"~":::::i~ ...............................................................proposed to link Downtown with the Wells Avenue/Urban Lane area. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an agreement in a form satisfactory to the 97111~2 la~ 0080575 4 City Attorney shall be executed and recorded to provide for payment of this sum at such time as, the tunnel project ~s approved. ~ (iv) Meeting Space. This project was approved in part on the basis that it will provide to non-profit organizations, on a monthly basis, meeting space accommodating up to I00 people through the year 2021. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney shall be executed and recorded, guaranteeing the provision of the space and specifying the manner in which the space will be made available. (f) Development Schedule. Construction of the project shall commence on or before July I, 1998, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before December 31, 1999. (g) Mitigation Measures.. All mitigation measures described in the Negative Declaration for the project shall be implemented as conditions of project approval, and the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program shall be implemented. // // // // // // // // // // // // 971112 lac 0080575 SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project, as mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment ¯ 971112 lac 0080575 ATTACHMENT #I ========================================= .... PF PC-3902 Project: 675-95 El Camino Real & 31 Wells Avenue Zone Change from Commercial Service (CS) to Planned Community (PC) to allow .construction of a new 194 room five story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements Stanford University Date: File #: July 30, !997 97-ARE~-92; Scale: 1 inch = 200 FT 97-ZC-6; 97-EIA-8 North Attachment B PLANNING COMMISSION 3 STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Chandler Lee, Planner DEPARTMENT: planning September 24, 1997AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT:675-695 E1 Camino Real and 31 Wells,,,, Avenue: Review of an application for a Zone Change from the Service Commercial (CS) to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of three existing warehouse and commercial buildings and construction of a new 194 room five story hotel complex, .subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. File Nos. 97-ARB-92; 97-ZC-6; 97-EIA-8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment #2), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project for construction of a new 194 room five story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements based on the attached findings and conditions. BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The applicant, Clement Chen & Associates, is proposing to construct a new 127,019 square foot, 194 room, five story hotel complex, 197 space subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. The total building area is proposed to be 224,665 square feet, including the garage. The project is located immediately south of the existing Holiday Inn at 625 E1 Camino Real, just south of Palm Drive (see Attachment #1). S:lPlanlPladiv]PCSRlecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 1 Project Description The site consists of three parcels totaling 55,513 square feet or 1.27 acres in the area located between the existing Holiday Inn and the future Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) complex. The proposed building footprint is 28,447 square feet at grade resulting in a site coverage of 51 percent. The proposed buildingis setback 25 feet from E1 Camino Real to the west, 4 feet from the adjacent Holiday Inn to the north, 5 feet from Wells Avenue to the south and 5 feet from the existing warehouse building to the east. Parking is on two subterranean levels and provides 197 stalls, including 145 standard spaces, 46 compact spaces, and 6 handicap spaces. The parking level extends about 20 feet below grade. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from one entry driveway and one exit driveway on E1 Camino Real as well as from an existing driveway on the adjacent Holiday Inn property that connects to the parking garage. Pedestrian access is provided from the main entrance on the north side adjacent to the existing Holiday Inn and from a separate entrance to the restaurant on E1 Camino Real. Transit access will be provided from existing bus stops on University Avenue, Palm Drive and E1 Camino Real. Bicycle access is provided by an existing bike path located along Palm Drive that will eventually connect to a new bike path along Urban Lane. The hotel rooms are located in five separate building modules which are separated by landscaped courtyards and connected by a pedestrian corridor. A two story structure facing E1 Camino Real accommodates a restaurant and lounge, small meeting rooms, a lobby, administrative offices, and public areas. Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the project. Photographs, a model and plans will be presented at the meeting. Site Information Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size in shown below in Table 1. TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant:Clement Chen & Associates 9-24-97 S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 ~Page 2 Owner:Court & Pearl Associates/Pacific Hotel Development Venture Assessor’s Parcel Number:120-32-002, 004, 010 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: Service Commercial CS (Service.Commercial) Surrounding Land Use: Parcel Size: West: E1 Camino Real & Stanford University North : Existing Holiday Inn South: Wells Avenue and PAMF East: Existing warehouse building 55,513 s.f. or 1.27 acres Project History The front of the site (the two lots facing E1 Camino Real) is currently occupied by two commercial buildings containirig an auto repair shop and used clothing store. The rear of the site (the lot facing the existing warehouse to the east) is currently occupied by a warehouse building. The three parcels are immediately adjacent to the existing 343 room Holiday Inn which was built in 1973 and expanded in 1989. To the south is the site of the recently approved Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) complex, also the subject of a zone change. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies, and programs are relevant to this project: : Urban Design Element Policy #3: "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City streets." This project provides a row of street trees along E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue and landscaping along both frontages. The proposed landscaping and public art proposals will enhance the appearance of the existing site from E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue. Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 3 development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development. " The site is designated Service Commercial and is well suited for this use. The site is surrounded by similar and compatible commercial, office and hotel uses in the vicinity. Urban Design Element, Objective, p.42: "Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and considerate of each other." The proposed hotel features high quality materials and attractive landscaping and the building is architecturally compatible with the adjacent Holiday Inn and PAMF facility. Pr.oposed street trees and perimeter landscaping are designed at a human scale that is visually attractive to pedestrians. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis The staff analysis for this project relates to site planning, architectural design, landscaping, traffic; acoustics, zoning compliance, public benefit and City departmental comments. Site Planning: The site calls for the hotel rooms to be located in five separate, building modules that are separated by landscaped courtyards and connected by an undulating corridor. A restaurant and lounge, small meeting rooms, a lobby, administrative offices, and public areas are located in a two story structure facing E1 Camino Real. The hotel complex is proposed to be surrounded with landscaped setbacks on all sides and served by entryways on the west (El Camino Real) and north (existing Holiday Inn) frontages. The hotel rooms, courtyards, restaurant and other active uses will be located on the five floors above grade while all parking will be located below grade. The building faces E1 Camino Real but provides pedestrian and automobile entryways along both E1 Camino Real and the northern perimeter adjacent to the existing Holiday Inn. Both the E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue street frontages provide pedestrian interest with ample building articulation, fenestration, balconies on the upper floors, planters, ornamental gates, and arbors. The proposed building is setback 25 feet from E1 Camino Real to the west, 4 feet from the adjacent Holiday Inn to the north, 5 feet from Wells Avenue to the south and 5 feet from the existing warehouse building to the east. All four perimeter areas will be landscaped to protect adjacent uses and provide visual interest from the street frontages. Because the site consists of three, separate parcels, a certificate of compliance will be required to remove interior lot lines and merge the parcels into one. 9-24-97 S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 Page 4 Architectural Design: The building architecture is traditional with a references to the architectur~ and landscaping of the inns of southern France and northern Italy. A series of five story structures contains the hotel rooms. A two story structure facing E1 Camino Real accommodates a restaurant and lounge, small meeting rooms, a lobby, administrative offices, and public areas. Building materials and features include: Plaster building facades, wrought iron balconies with planter boxes, French doors with shutters, aluminum window frames, and tiled roofs on the building and elevator towers. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 30, 1997, expressed a concern that the project might relate better .to Wells Avenue and the PAMF project. Commissioners requested a more detailed explanation of how the architectural design related to the existing Holiday Inn and to the adjacent PAMF project and how the mass of the project related to the open feel of E1 Camino Real. Commissioners also expressed an interest in strengthening the pedestrian connection along E1 Camino Real from the hotel site to the Town and Country complex. The applicant provided a more detailed explanation of these issues at the ARB meeting (see Public Participation section of this report). Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes five outdoor courtyards with different landscape themes and perimeter landscape screening on all four sides. The E1 Camino Real and Wells Street frontages feature a row of 18 Black Maple street trees within a new five foot landscape strip. The existing street trees on E1 Camino are preserved and integrated into the landscape theme. Ground cover within the landscape buffer area separates .Wells Avenue from a new five foot sidewalk to be constructed in the public right-of-way matching that to be constructed across the street along the PAMF site. There is no sidewalk currently on this side of Wells Avenue. A new sidewalk also will be constructed along the E1 Camino frontage to replace the existing sidewalk. Since there is no building setback along Wells Avenue, the applicant has removed the previously proposed planter boxes that intruded into the public right-of-way along Wells Avenue. In their place, climbing vines will be planted on trellises on the building facade and planter boxes will be placed at the front edge of the courts along Wells Avenue to provide a pedestrian friendly environment. A description of Landscape Treatment is included in the attached Program Development Statement (Attachment #5). There are three existing trees on the site and 24 existing trees immediately north of the site along the northern boundary with the Holiday Inn. These existing trees include 23 Monterey Pine trees, three Live Oaks and one Eucalyptus tree. Two of the Coast Live Oaks were not shown on the original plans. The two trees are located near the drive up entry. Of the two, the larger and healthy of the two trees falls under the protected tree S:lPlantPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 5 status and is located in the main lobby entry area apron. Under PAMC Section 8.10.050 (c), the above mentioned Oaks are protected and may not be removed unless they are: dead, dangerous or constitute a nuisance under PAMC Section 8.40.050 (2) or, if the tree(s) would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissibleBuilding Area by more than twenty-five percent. The smaller of the two Oak trees is not thriving and is in a declining condition. The Planning Arborist has determined that the tree can be removed because it is dying. The development must integrate the healthy Oak within its design, and guarantee safe retention of the tree. The applicant has agreed to preserve the Oak tree. A condition of approval will be incorporated into the project to protect the healthy Live Oak. All other trees will be preserved. There are currently three Red Ironhark trees along the E1 Camino Real frontage - all of which will be preserved. In addition, 29 new trees will be planted on the site, including 18 Sweetgum street trees along the Wells Avenue frontage. Traffic:. A traffic study for the project was prepared by Korve Engineering in April 1997. The traffic study meets .all requirements for .a Traffic Impact Analysis and will be forwarded to the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency. The report estimates that the project will generate 1,653 total automobile trips with 128 AM peak hour trips and 145 PM peak hour trips. The traffic analysis identified a potentially significant baseline impact at the E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road/Galvez Street intersection due to the addition of year 2000 traffic (baseline scenario 1) during the morning peak hours. This potential impact, however, would be mitigated by the addition of a second southbourd left turn lane, causing the level of service to improve from LOS E to LOS D. This improvement is a condition of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation project. The traffic analysis also identified a potentially significant baseline impact at the E1 Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection due to the addition of year 2000 traffic (baseline scenario 1 and 2) during the morning and evening peak hours. This potential impact, however, would be improved by the addition of an exclusive northbound right turn lane, an exclusive left bound turn lane and thelengthening of the second westbound left turn lane, causing average vehicle delay to decrease substantially and the level of service to improve from LOS F to LOS E in the evening peak hour. Based on this information, the traffic study concluded that the project did not create any significant traffic impacts and that no mitigations were required. Based On the information in the traffic study, staff prepared and circulated a Mitigated Negative declaration for the project which did not include traffic mitigations. Since then, City staff has conducted further analysis which reveals that there are potentially significant traffic impacts and further mitigation is required to reduce these potential traffic impacts. For comparison, staff performed a level of service analysis for the E1 Camino Real/Page 9-24-97 S:]Plan[Pladiv[PCSRlecr675.pc2 Page 6 Mill Road intersection without the second southbound left-turn lane. The results were LOS E for the AM peak hour and LOS F for the PM peak hour. Thus, it can be seen that the second left-turn lane does not reduce the LOS E impact during the AM peak hour (a significant impact bY City but not CMP standards), and it clearly reduces the CMP and City significant impact of LOS F in the PM peak hour to an acceptable LOS D. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) project, along with the second southbound left-turn lane, are expected to be completed before the Holiday Inn expansion. However, both the PAMF and Holiday Inn projects are very. close in time, and both will add traffic to E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero, contributing to the unacceptable level of service in 2000. Thus, the Holiday Inn expansion would be responsible for mitigating its proportionate share of the impact, which is determined by the relative amounts of project traffic forecasted to enter the intersection during the PM peak hour. The two projects will contribute a total of 728 new trips to E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero, with PAMF contributing 87.2% (635 trips, from p. IV.B-80 of the PAMF DEIR) and the Holiday Inn expansion 12.8% (93 trips, from entering volumes provided in a July 18, 1997 fax from Korve Engineering to Clement Chen and Associates). The City’s current estimate of the cost of this project is $500,000, but the actual cost is likely to be lower. Thus, the 12.8 percent Holiday Inn share would be a .maximum of $64,000. The contribution required to be paid by the applicant will depend on the actual completed construction cost but will not exceed $64,000 in 1997 dollars adjusted for inflation using the Bay Area cost of living index. For the E1 Camino Real/Page Mill intersection, the City will construct its programmed Citywide Study improvement once sufficient funds have been accumulated (the addition of various right and left-turn lanes, possibly requiring City acquisition of new right-of- way). Numerous development projects are contributing funding, including all projects in the Stanford Research Park through a traffic impact fee. Some major projects outside the Research Park, including PAMF and the Sand. Hill Road Projects, will contribute according to the amount of project, traffic contributed to the intersection as a proportion of all future traffic projected for that intersection. For the Holiday Inn, the share would be 2.5% (43 project trips out of a total of 1716 trips added between the existing condition and the 2000 "with project" scenario). The City’s current estimate of the cost of this project is $2.3 million but the actual cost is likely to be lower. Thus, the 2.5 percent Holiday Inn share would be a maximum of $57,500. The contribution required to be paid by the applicant will depend on the actual completed construction cost but will not exceed $57,500 in 1997 dollars adjusted for inflation using the Bay Area cost of living index. With~ these two mitigations, the potentially significant impacts of the Holiday Inn expansion at S:lPlaNPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 7 these two intersections would be considered mitigated. The City’s required standard conditions of approval address sight distance and other normal traffic requirements. The previous Environmental Impact Assessment for the project has been updated to reflect these impacts and mitigations and recirculated. Acoustical Treatments: Noise genera.ted by traffic on E1 Camino Real may have a potential impact on indoor and outdoor areas used by hotel guests. An acoustical study prepared in conjunction with the project indicates that future noise levels can be mitigated to within acceptable levels in accordance with the City’s noise standards (55 dBA indoor and 70 dBA outdoor). The Noise Study conducted by ESA Associates (May 7, 1997) indicates that the building facade facing E1 Camino Real should be acoustically designed to reduce indoor noise by at least 18 dBA (page 2). The study also determined that the closest outdoor use area would be the pool at 130 feet from the centerline of E1 Camino Real. This area would be exposed to noise levels of about 67 dBA - which is within the 70 dBA standard. The building facade mitigation will be included as a condition of project approval. Zoning...Ordinance Compliance The following table compares the project to the existing CS (Service Commercial) District and the proposed PC Planned Community District regulations. Project Comparison With Current and Proposed Ordinance Requirements Floor Area (sq.ft.) Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height Site Coverage Automobile Parking -Total Bicycle Parking Total spaces PROJECT CS (Existing)PC (Proposed) 127,019 s.f.22,205 s.f.n/a 2.29:1 0.4:1 n/a 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 54%n/a n/a 197 spaces 194 spaces 194 spaces 8 Class I 6 Class II 6.Class III 20 total spaces 8 Class I 6 Class II 6 Class III 20 total spaces 8 Class I 6 Class II 6 Class III 20 total spaces S:]PlanlPtadiv[PCSR[ecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 8 Setbacks - E1 Camino Real - Holiday Inn -Wells Avenue -Rear 25 feet 4 feet- 5 feet 5 feet n/a n/a n/a n/a rda n/a n/a Loading Area 2 spaces 2 spaces (@540 sf)2 spaces(@540 sf) Employee Showers 4 4 n/a The proposal does not meet the development regulations of the CS zoning district for floor area and FAR and, therefore, the applicant is requesting rezoning to the PC Planned Community District. The project meets all requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. Floor Area and FAR: The 127,019 square feetofproject floor area (2.29 FAR) exceeds both the floor area (22,205 square feet) and FAR (0.4:1) allowed within the existing CS district by 470 percent. The PC Planned Community zoning district does not establish limits for either floor area or FAR. Therefore, the project would meet these provisions of the PC District, if the site were to be rezoned. Height: The plans show that the building height is 50 feet at the roof coping and is, therefore, within the 50 feet allowed in the existing CS district. The ’50 foot building height is also allowed under the PC zoning district. The building plans also show an additional 15 feet above the roof coping for mechanical equipment that is proposed to be enclosed in elevator towers. The height of the mechanical equipment enclosure is consistent with zoning regulations. The mechanical equipment will be screened from view inside a plaster facade matching that of the main building and capped with decorative roof tiles. The design of the towers enclosing the equipment is an improvement over most rooftop enclosures and is compatible with the rest of the building. Because the project is not located within 150 feet of a residential area, the building height’ is not subject to daylight plane regulations. Setbacks: There are no setback requirements for either the existing CS district or proposed PC district. Parking: The project proposes 197 parking spaces to be located on the two subterranean levels. The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter t 8.83) requires 1 space for each guest room (194 spaces). In addition, the Ordinance requires 1 space per four people for meeting rooms (47 spaces), 1 space per 60 square feet of restaurant space (60 spaces) and 1 space per 200 square feet of kitchen space (9 spaces) for a total of 116 non-guestroom 9-24-97 S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 Page 9 spaces. The Ordinance allows 75% of the spaces required for guestrooms (194 x .75 = 145 to be subtracted from this subtotal (116 minus 145) so that no parking spaces are required above the 194 required for guest rooms. The entire project parking requirements can be accommodated within the subterranean parking garage. Therefore, the project meets all requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. The existing Off-Street Parking ordinance requirements for parking are adequate because of the type of hotel proposed. Research conducted for the Hyatt Cabana project revealed that hotels catering to large business meetings generate demand for parking greater than the 1 space per guestroom required in the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. Because the Holiday Inn project only includes a small amount of meeting space (2,768 square feet for a capacity of about 185 people) and restaurant space (3,584 square feet for a capacity of about 150 people), the 1 space per guestroom requirement is adequate for this type of hotel. In contrast, the Hyatt Cabana is proposing 11,027 square feet of meeting!banquet space and a 6,093 square feet of restaurant/lounge space. The project proposes two loading zones on Wells Avenue.One loading area is located on the north side of Wells about 120 feet east of E1 Camino Real. The first 120 feet is needed for public parking for the veterinary clinic. This location was reviewed by the Transportation Division and found to be acceptable provided that the space would not be for the exclusive use of the Holiday Inn. A second loading zone is proposed at the rear of the site. As long as this loading zone also can be shared by other users, the Transportation Division finds the location to be acceptable. Bicycle. Parking: The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires the number of bicycle spaces to equal ten percent of auto parking (194 x. 10 = 20) for a total of 20 spaces. The Ordinance requires that these spaces be divided among Class I spaces (40 percent or 8 spaces), Class II spaces (30 percent or 6 spaces) and Class III (30 percent or 6 spaces). The applicant has provided the required number of spaces in the appropriate configuration within the parking structure. Per TransportationDivision request, the applicant has agreed to provide greater details of the location and size of these spaces within the parking structure. Public Benefit: A PC zone change is required for this project because none of the City’s conventional zoning districts accommodate the proposed square footage, FAR, and building height unless numerous variances are granted. Approval of the requested PC zone change requires that public benefit findings be made. The public benefits should go beyond the minimum zoning ordinance requirements and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. S:lPlanlPladiv[PCSR[ecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 10 Public policy in PC Zone change approvals has generally included the assumption that benefits should be commensurate or proportional with the request to exceed normal regulatory requirements. In this case, the applicant is requesting approximately 104,814 square feet over what CS zoning would allow. The applicant has proposed the following public benefits: 1. A five foot right-of-way dedication along the 354 foot Wells Avenue frontage for the construction of a sidewalk where none currently exits. The new five foot sidewalk to be. constructed in the public right-of-way matches that to be constructed across the street along the PAMF frontage. 2. Provision of Transient Occupancy Taxes. The provision of Transient Occupancy Tax was approved as a public benefit by the City Council for the expansion of the existing Holiday Inn in 1989. The applicant estimates that the new hotel will generate about $935,000 per year in additional taxes. 3. Provision of meeting space for up to 100 people once per month for nonprofit organizations through the year 2021. 4. Contribution of $50,000 to the pedestrian tunnel proposed to link Downtown with the adjacent PAMF site. 5. Installation of a public art piece facing E1 Camino Real. All public art proposals will need to be reviewed and approved by the Public Arts Commission. Additional contributions by the project are discussed in the attached Program Development Statement (Attachment #5) but are not considered by staff to be actual public benefits according to the Planned Community regulations. Staff believes that the cumulative effect of these public b~nefits is generally commensurate with the request to exceed normal regulatory requirements. In this case, the applicant is requesting approximately 104,814 square feet over what zoning would allow. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Notice of this Planning Commission review of project requirements was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. 9-24-97 S:lPlahlPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 Page 11 On July 30, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project. The planning Commission was supportive of the project. The Commissioners expressed an interest in the type of trees proposed at the comer of E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue. Commissioners also expressed an interest in the public benefit package and the proposed contribution to the pedestrian tunnel. They expressed a concern that the project might relate better to Wells Avenue and the PAMF project. Commissioners requested a more detailed explanation of how the architectural design related to the existing Holiday Inn and to the adjacent PAMF project and how the mass of the project related to the open feel of El C amino Real. Commissioners also expressed an interest in strengthening the pedestrian connection along E1 Camino Real from the hotel site to the Town and Country complex. The Architectural Review Board reviewed the project on August 21, 1997. The ARB was supportive of the project. ARB members asked the applicant to explain the relationship of the project’s design with the adjacent PAMF and Holiday Inn buildings. The applicant’s architect explained that the project was designed as a separate boutique hotel and was not intended to match the design of the existing hotel - most of which cannot be seen because of the dense canopy of trees surrounding the existing hotel. The architect noted that the architecture, materials and colors were generally compatible with the adjacent PAMF project. ARB members inquired as to the possibility of adding more street trees to the E1 Camino Real frontage. The applicant indicated that the placement of existing street trees and the proposed driveways limited the number of street trees to that shown in the plans. The ARB members suggested additional planting of shrubs to further screen this frontage. ARB members noted that the entry was auto oriented and might be more pedestrian friendly. The applicant explained that the property line shared with the existing Holiday Inn made it difficult to redesign the entry and still provide for adequate automobile access from E1 Camino Real when the existing lease with Stanford university runs out and a shared access may not be possible. The ARB suggested additional planting and pedestrian furniture in.the entry area and on the building facades facing the entry to help soften this edge. The ARB recommended that public art be located in more than one location on the site. The applicant indicated that this would be considered during selection of the public art proposal. The proposal will be required to be reviewed and approved by the public Art Commission prior to subsequent review by the ARB ARB members supported the site plan, architectural design and landscaping-features of the project. Members particularly liked the design of the courtyards and the orientation of the hotel rooms facing into the courtyards. ARB members supported the authentic Mediterranean design. The ARB Supported the high quality of the building materials and colors and thought they were compatible with the adjacent PAMF project Members thought S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 12 that the design solution was successful considering the constraints posed by the property line shared with the existing Holiday Inn. Members agreed with the stand alone design with respect to the existing Holiday Inn building. The ARB supported the integration of public benefits into the project design. The ARB recommended that the City Council approve the project as proposed. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS A proposed PC Ordinance, including, recommended findings (Attachment #3) conditions of project approval (Attachment #4) fire attached. and ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission may: 1) recommend modifications to the project and recommend that the City Council approve the project as modified or 2) recommend that the City Council deny the project. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no significant negative fiscal impact on the City due to this project; A fiscal benefit of the project is the provision of Transient Occupancy Taxes. The applicant estimates that the new hotel will generate about $935,000 per year in additional Transient Occupancy Taxes. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmer~al Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from July 2 through July 30, 1997. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was subsequently prepared and made available for public review from September 3 through September 24, 1997 and is attached to this staff report (see Attachment #1). NEXT STEPS Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on October 20, 1997. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment #1: Location Map. Attachment #2: EIA S :lPlanlPladivlPCSR[ecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 13 Attachment ,#3: PC Zoning Ordinance Attachment #4: Conditions of Project Approval Attachment #5: Program Development Statement Attachment #6: Planning Commission Minutes of July 30, 1997 Attachment #7: ARB Minutes of August 21, 1997 Attachment #8: Letter from Cardoza Travel dated August 6, 1997 Plans (Planning Commission members only) COURTESY COPIES: Clement Chen, 831 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94133 John Chin, Sandy & Babcock, 1349 Larkin Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 April Phillips, 118 Fourth Street, Sausalito, CA 94965 Charles Carter, Planning Office, 855 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305 Leoni Batkin, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Prepared by:Chandler Lee Reviewed by:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Division/Department Head Approval: Kenneth Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRlecr675.pc2 9-24-97 Page 14 ATTACHMENT #1 PF PC-3902 Project: 675-95 El Camino Real & 31 Wells Avenue Zone Change from Commercial 5ervi~e (CS) to Planned Community (PC) to allow construction of a new 194 room five story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements Stanford University, Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: July 30, 1997 Scale: 1 inch = 200 FT North ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM o Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: 675 El Camino Real- Holiday Inn City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Chandler Lee, Contract Planner 41 5-329-2441 Project Location: Applicat.ion-Number(s): Project Sponsor’s Name and Address" 675 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 97-ARB-92; 97-EIA-8; 97-ZC-6 Clement Chen & Associates 831 Montgomery Street San Francisco CA 94133 o 10. General Plan Designation:Service Commercial Zoning:CS (Service Commercial) Description of the Project: Application for a Zone Change from the Service Commercial (CS) to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of three existing warehouse and commercial buildings and construction of a new 194 room five story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site consists of three parcels in a rectangular configuration totaling 55,513 square feet (1.27 acres) with a 148 foot width (along El Camino Real) and a 397 S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 1 foot depth (along Wells Avenue). The site is presently occupied by two general commercial buildings and a warehouse, parking and related improvements. The existing site slopes about 1% from the center of the site towards El Camino Real and drains into the gutters on the street. The site is surrounded by the existing Holiday Inn on the north, an ,existing pet hospital and planned Palo Alto Medical Foundation complex on the south, an existing warehouse on the east, and El Camino Real on the west. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required.None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality X Transportation and Circulation X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards X Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings Significance S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluatior~: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect On the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)-has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,. including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. X j t Pla’-~ner , ! " Director of Planni~fg & Community. Environment Date Dante / S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HO LIDAY. EIA [9/3/97]Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the ref6renced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. tl~e project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A ’;No Ir£pact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-leve~, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operationa~ impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact’ is a#propriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required, "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an.effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect tO a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis ma# be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process; an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached’, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1 2 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the’ proposal: a) Conflict’ with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROI~LEMS. a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d). Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? 1 3 3 Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 4 4 4 4- 4 4 X X X X INr~p,act 1 × I X X g)4 X h).4 X i)4 X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) c) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticid.es.from landscape maintenance? 3171 4,5 3,17 X X X d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 3 X body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 3,17 X movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)3 XChange. in the quantity of ground waters, either through ’ direct additions or withdrawals, or through inl~erception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) 3 6,17 3 Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 6,8,9 j) Alteration of wetlands in any way? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: X X X a). Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting .’or projected air quality violation? b) c) X X Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 6,8,9 Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 6,8,9 any change in climate? d) Create objectianable odors?6,8,9 X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? I 10 S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97] X Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 10 10, 11, 12 3,10 10 10 3 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 8,16 8 8 8,16 8 X X X X X X X a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?8 X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 3 inefficient manner? c)" Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 8 X I resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosi£n or release of hazardous 1 3 X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or 1 1,X emergency evacuation plan?12, 1 3 S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 3, 12, 13 3, 12, 13 3, 12 14 X 11.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in e need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) d) 8,12 8, 11 Less Than Significant Impact X e) 12. substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ¯ facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? S:~PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97] Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? Other governmental services? ~8 8 8 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or X15 15 15 X X II X X X X 15 X 15 X 15 X 15 X Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b) Have a demonstrable negative, aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. a) b) c) d) e) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical resources? Have the potential to-cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 3 3 8 8 8 8 X 15. RECREATION. a) b) Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?. Affect existing recreational opportunities? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) b) c) d) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ~xamples of the major periods of California hist.ory or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental-effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effect~ of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X X X X X X X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3197]Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant ct Impact 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addr’essed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, c) Mitigation measures. 1=or effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980- 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended) " 2 City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49 3 Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development. 4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994 5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348-5, Map Revised September 6, 1989. 6 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval "7 City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994 10 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 11 City of Palo Alto Police Department 12 ¯ City of PaSo Alto Fire Department 1 3 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 14 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994 15 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 16 Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098 17 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985 S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY IEIA [9/3/97]Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless - Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact 19.EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 3a,b, c,f 4a,b,h The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a strong seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC) which are directed at minimizing seismib risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Construction of the pr.oject will increase the amount of landscaping on site and slightly increase the amount of impervious surface area without significant changes to site topography. Site soil modifications are not exp.ected to re.suit in significant environmental impacts. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require l~he applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Mitigation Measures: None required. This site is in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is an area of moderate flooding, outside the 100 year flood zone but within the 500 year flood zone. Sites within this zone would be subject to flooding to a depth of less than one foot in the 100 year flood event. During construction activities, stormwater pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to San Francisco Bay via the local storm drain system. Non poin{ source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependent on waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Construction debris is a source of this pollution. With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant and by project completion, there will not be significant additional runoff from the site due to the decrease inamount of impervious surfaces compared with the exis{ing use. The standard conditions of approval will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties. The construction contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 12 5a The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air quaiity. The new hotel complex will generate more vehicle trips than the existing commercial uses, although this increase is not considered a significant impact because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the City of Palo Alto. The standard conditions of approval will require that dust control measures will be employed at the site to reduce dust emissions to acceptable levels during construction.,~ The proposed hotel complex, therefore, will not have a significant effect on air’quality. Mitigation Measures: None required. A traffic study for the project was prepared by Korve Engineering in April 1997. The traffic study meets all requirements for a Traffic Impact Analysis and wil! be forwarded to the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency. The report estimates that the project will generate 1,653 total automobile trips with 128 AM peak hour trips and 145 PM peak hour trips. The traffic analysis identified a potentially significant baseline impact at the El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road/Galvez Street intersection due to the addition of year 2000 traffic (baseline scenario 1) during the morning peak hours. This potential impact, however, would be mitigated by the addition of a second southbound left turn lane, causing the level of service to improve from LOS E toLOS D. This improvement is a condition of the Palo Alto Medi’cal Foundation project. The traffic analysis also identified a potentially significant baseline impact at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection due to the addition of year 2000 traffic (baseline scenario 1 and 2) during the morning and evening peak hours. This potential impact, however, would be improved by the addition of an exclusive northbound right turn lane, an exclusive left bound turn lane and the lengthening of the second westbound- left turn lane, causing average vehicle delay to decrease substantially and the level of service to improve from LOS F to LOS E in the evening peak hour. Based on this information, the traffic study concluded that the project did not create any significant traffic impacts and that no mitigations were required. City staff has conducted further analysis Which reveals that further mitigation is required to reduce these significant impacts. For comparison, staff performed a level of service analysis for the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection without the second southbound left-turn lane. The results were LOS E for the AM peak hour andLOS F for the PM peak hour. Thus, it can be seen that the second left-turn lan’e does not reduce the LOS E impact during the AM peak hour (a significant impact by City but not CMP standards), and it clearly improves the LOS F in the PM peak hour to an acceptable LOS D. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 1 3 6a (cont) The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) project, along with the second southbound left-turn lane, are expected to be completed before the Holiday Inn expansion.. However, both the PAMF and Holiday Inn projects are very close in time, and both will add traffic to El Camino Real/Embarcadero, contributing to the unacceptable level of service in 2000. Thus, the Holiday Inn would be responsible for mitigating its proportionate share of the impact, which is determined by the relative amounts of project traffic forecasted to enter the intersection during the PM pe~k hour. The two projects will contribute a total of 728 new trips to E~ Camino Real/Embarcadero, with PAMF contributing 87.2% (635 trips, from p. IV.B-80 of the pAMF. DEIR) and the Holiday Inn 12.8% (93 trips, from entering volumes provided in a July 18, 1997 fax from Korve’ Engineering to Clement Chen and Associates). The City’s current estimate of the cost of this project is $500,00, but is likely to be lower. Thus, the 12.8 percent Holiday Inn share would be a maximum of $64,000. The contribution required to be paid by the applicant will depend on the actual completed construction cost but will not exceed $64,000 in 1997 dollars adjusted for inflation using the Bay Area cost of living index. For the El Camino Real/Page Mill intersection, the City will construct its programmed Citywide Study improvement once sufficient funds have been accumulated (the addition of various right and left-turn lanes, possibly requiring City acquisition of new right-of-way). Numerous development projects are contributing funding, including a~l projects in the Stanford Research Park through a traffic impact fee. Some major projects outside the Research Park, including PAMF and the Sand Hill Road Projects, will contribute according to the amount of project traffic contributed to the intersection as a proportion of all future traffic projected for that intersection. For’the Holiday Inn, the share would be 2.5% (43 project trips out of a total of 1716 trips added between the existing condition and the 2000 with project scenario). The City’s current estimate of the cost of this project is $2.3 million but is likely to be lower. Thus, the 2.5 percent Holiday Inn share would be a maximum of $57,500. The contribution required to be paid by the applicant will depend on the actual completed construction cost but will not exceed $57,500 in 1997 dollars adjusted for inflation using the Bay Area cost of living index. With these two mitigations, the significant impacts of the Holiday Inn expansion at this two intersections would be considered mitigated. The City’s required standard conditions of approval address sight distance and other normal traffic requirements. Therefore, no other significant traffic impacts would be generated by the project. Demolition and construction activities could disrupt pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, ’construction impacts should not be significant. Mitigation Measures: The Holiday Inn will be responsible .for its- proportionate share of the cost of: 1 ) the second southbound left-turn lane at the ECR/Embarcadero intersection, which is approximately 12.8% ($64,000) and 2) the addition of various right and left-turn lanes at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection which is approxirrmtely 2.5 percent ($57,500) but will depend on the actual cost of the improvements. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [9/3/97]Page 14 7b 10b 12e 13c There are three existing trees on the site and 24 existing trees immediately north of the site along the northern boundary with the Holiday Inn. These existing trees include 23 Monterey Pine trees, three Live Oaks and one Eucalyptus tree. Two of the Coast Live Oaks were not shown on the plans. The two trees are located near drive up entry. Of the two, the larger and healthy of the two trees falls under the protected tree status and is located in the main lobby entry area apron. Under PMAC Section 8.10.050 (c), the above mentioned Oaks are protected and may’not be removed unless they are: dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under PMAC Section 8.40.050 (2) or, if the tree(s) would result in reduction of the .other.wise- permissible Building Area by more than twenty-five percent. Since none of the above can be found’to be the case, the development must integrate the Oaks within its design, and guarantee safe retention of the trees. A condition of approval will be incorporated into the project to protect the healthy Live Oak trees. All other trees will be preserved. There.are currently three Red Ironbark trees along the El Camino Real frontage - all of which will be preserved. In addition, 29 new trees wilt be planted on the site, including 18 Sweetgum street trees along the Wells Avenue frontage. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval and the following mitigation, any impacts on trees should not be significant. Mitigation Measures: The healthy Live Oak tree located in the main lobby entry area apron and the Live Oak in the existing planter area shall be preserved and protected during construction. Noise generated by traffic on El Camino Real may have a potential impa~t on indoor and outdoor areas used by hotel guest~. An acoustical study prepared in conjunction with the project indicates that future noise levels can be mitigated to within acceptable levels in accordance with the City’s noise standards (55 dBA indoor and 70 dBA outdoor). The Noise Study conducted by ESA Associates (May 7, 1997) indicates that the building facade facing El Camino Real should be acoustically designed to reduce indoor noise by at least 1 8 dBA (page 2). The study also determined that the closest outdoor use area would be the pool at 130 feet from the centerline of El Camino Real. This area would be exposed to noise levels of about 67 dBA - which is within the 70 dBA standard. The building facade mitigation will be included as a condition of project approval and, therefore, the project will not have a significant noise impact. Demolition and construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, noise impacts during construction should not be significant. The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant to comply with the requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Mitigation Measures: The building facade facing El Camino Real should be acoustically designed to reduce indoor noise by at least 18 dBA as specified on page 2 of the noise study by ESA Associates (May 7, 1997). A padmount transformer is required on-site for this project. As a standard condition of approval, a utilities easement will be required for installing the transformer at this location, installing the existing primary stub conduit, and extending the primary conduit to the new transformer location. Future access to the transformer for maintenance may become a problem should any portion of the property that is now used for parking be developed. Should this occur, the Owner of the proposed project would be required to relocate the transformer when needed. As a condition of project approval, the property owner wilt be required to address the situation in writing. Mitigation Measures: None required. Development of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated from lighting of the site and glazing on the building, but will not have an adverse impact on surrounding uses. With the project’s conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. A detailed lighting plan which is sensitive to existing uses will be required as a condition of approval. The condition of approval will require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, the light!ng will be directional, and that the source of light is not directly visible. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\HOLIDA~Y.EIA [9/3/97]Page 15 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED , 1997, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 675 El Camino t~eal~- Holiday Inn Expansion, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO .IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signature Date S:\PLAN\PEADIV\EIA\HOLIDAY.EIA [913/971 Page 1 6 MEMORANDUM¯ July 31, 1997 TO: FROM: Ken Schreiber/Department of Planning and Community Environment Carl Stoffel/Transportati~n Division SUBJECT: Traffic Impacts of Proposed Holiday Inn Expansion (625 E1 Camino Real) As you "know, the Jun.e 1997 traffic impact analysis for this project concludes that no specific project i~npacts have been identified and that no mitigation measures would be required (page 23). This conclusion is reached fqr both Scenario 1 (2000 baseline traffic conditions without Sand Hill Road Projects and University Circle) and Scenario 2 (2000 baseline traffic conditions with the latter, as well, as other approved projects such as the Palo Alto Medical Foundation--refer to pages 14-15). This analysis came to this conclusion by comparing traffic conditions in 2000 with and without the Holiday Inn project (i.e., by comparing levels of service in columns 6 and 9 in Table 8 on page 21, attached), which is a typical traffic analysis methodology. Note that column 9 includes the impacts of all future expected projects, including the Holiday Inn, the projects mentioned above, and others. For the remainder of this discussion, Scenario 2 is assumed, as we think it is the most realistic representation of the possible year 2000 condition. .In order to maintain consistency between the Holiday Inn traffic, analysis and recent analyses performed for two nearby major projects (Palo Alto Medical Foundation and the Sand Hill Road Projects), it is preferable to analyze the data presented in the Holiday Inn traffic study in a different manner. That is, it is preferable to determine impacts of the Holiday Inn project based on the change in traffic conditions from th~ existing condition to the 2000 baseline "with project" scenario, which is algo a valid analysis methodology (i.e., by compm-ing levels of service in columns 3 and 9 in Table 8). This compa,rison shows that two intersections will degrade to unacceptable levels of service in 2000 compared to existing conditions (ECR/Embarcadero in the AM peak hour and EC .IUPage Mill Road in both peak hours). Recall that the City of Palo Alto considers LOS E as a ’ significant impact, whereas the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) considers LOS F as-a significant impact. The 2000 "with project" levels of service for ECR/Embarcadero presented in column 9 of Table 8 (LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour) assumed that a second southbound left-turn lane would have already been installed by PAMF. For comparison, staff performed a level of service analysis for that intersection withoul the second southbound left-turn lane. Holiday Inn Mitigations July 31, 1997 Page 2 The results were LOS E for the AM peak hour and LOS F for the PM peak hour. Thus, it can be seen that the second left-turtt lane does not reduce the LOS E impact during the AM peak hour (a significant impact by City-but not CMP standards), and it clearl3J : reduces the CMP and City significant impact of LOS F in the PM peak hour to an acceptable LOS D. The PAMF project, along with the second southbound left-turn lane,’ are expected.to be completed before the Holiday Inn expansion. However, both the PAMF and Holiday Inn projects are very close in time, and both will add tTaffic to ECR/Embarcadero, con .tfibuting to the unacceptable level of service in 2000. Thus, we believe it is reasonable to require that the Holiday Inn participate in the mitigation of a shared significant impact at this location. The Holiday Inn would be responsible for mitigating its proportionate share of the impact, which is detern~ined by the relative amounts of project traffic forecasted to enter the intersection, during the PM peak hour. The two projects will contTibute a total of 728 new trips to ECR/Embarcadero, with PAMF contributing 87.2% (635 trips,-fi’om p. IV.B-80 of the PAMF DEIR) and the Holiday Inn 12.8% (93 trips, from entering volumes provided in a July 18, 1997 fax from Korve Engineering to Chen and Associates). The City’s current estimate of the cost of this project is $500,000, but is likely to be lower. Thus, the 12.8% Holiday Inn share would be a maxi, mum of $64,000. For ECPUPage Mill, the City will construct its programmed Citywide Study improvement once sufficient funds have been accumulated (the addition of various right and left-turn lanes, possibly requiring City acquisition of new right-of-way). Numerous development projects are contributing funding, including all projects in the Stanford Research Park through a traffic impact fee. Some major projects outside the Research Park, including PAMF and the Sand Hill Road Projects, will contribute according to the amount of project traffic coriMbuted to the intersection as a proportion of all future traffic projected for that intersection. For the Holiday Inn, the share would be 2.5% (43 project trips out-of a total of 1716 trips added between the existing condition and the 2000 "with project" scenario, based on entering volumes provided in the previously-referenced fax)..The City’s cun’ent estimate of the cost of this project is $2.3 million, but is likely to be lower. Thus, the 2.5% Holiday Ima share would be a maximum of $57,500. With these twomitigations, the significant impacts of the Holiday Inn expansion at this two intersections would be considered mitigated. No.other significant impacts were found. CS cc: Ashok Aggarwal A.YECR625.CS May 7, 1997 RECEIVED 1 g 1997 Oepar~,nent o~ Hl~.nnzn~ a~c, Community Environmea~ Envlronmentol Sdence Assoclote~ 301 Br:mnan Suil¢ 21)0 San FrancisCo. Calff0rni~ 94107-1~49 (415~ 896-5900 FAX 806-0332 I.,’,~" A,tgch’s San Jose Mr. Rodney Y. Chen Vice President - Development Clement Chen & Associates 83 ] Mqntgomery Street San Francisce.. California 94133 Regarding:Results of Noise Analysis for Proposed Hotel Expansion Project in Palo Alto, California Dear Mr. Chert: ~ In this letter, I present the results’of the noise ana~lysis we conducted for your proposed hotel expansion project in Palo Alto. As explained below, the conclusions of our analysis are as follows: 1) the project would be consistent with the applicable City of Palo Alto indoor noise standard provided that the building facade facing El Camino Real provides at least 18-dBA redudtion in outdoor noise, and 2) the project would be consistent with th~ corresponding outdoor noise standard due to the location of proposed outdoor use areas and the shielding of.those areas by the proposed structure itself. Noise Descri.ptors By way of introduction, I am providing a brief discussion of the noise descriptors that are used for this analysis. First of all, the basic unit of noise is the decibel (dB). The weighted", decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear at commonly-encountered noise levels and is the basis for noise descriptors, such as the "L10," which are used to assess noise / land use compatibility issues. L10 refers to the noise level (in terms of dBA) that is exceeded 10% of the time over a given time period. palo Alto Noise ! Land Use Compatibility Standard The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (City of Palo Alto, 1992) contains noise / land use compatibility standards with recommended daytime LI0 noise levels for different land uses. For commercialloffice uses, such as the proposed hotel expansion, acceptable noise levels extend to 55 LI0 for indoor areas and 70 LI0 for outdoor areas. To ensure continued noise / lan~l use compatibility, evaluation.of consistency of a project with these standards involves a projection of the future noise environment that would be experienced at a proposed development site. ESA Mr. Rodney Chen May 7, 1997 Page Two iknaly$i~ of On-Site Noise Environment for Proposed U,~e The future noise e-nvironmer~t at the project site can be characterized based upon noise ’. measurements and projections made for the adjacent property in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Environmental Impact Report (PAMF EIR, Final Addendum, January 1996) which was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for the City of Palo Alto. This previous analysis includes noise contours which present Year 2020 conditions at the PAMF site. The contours indicate that Ll 0 levels decrease over .the PAMF site with increasing distance from El Camino Real toward the east. The same would be true for the project site. An evaluation of the proposed hot~.l expansion with the Ciiy’s indoor and outdoor noise standards can be made by extending the PAMFEIR contours over the proposed architectura! site plan for the project. Indoor Noise Standard - The side of the proposed hotel expa.nsion facing El Camino Real would experience the highest daytime noise levels on the site. Based on the extension of contours prepared for the PAMF EIR over the project site, exterior daytime noise levels at the facade facing El Camino Real would’.be approximately 73 LI0. Since there are no proposed outdoor use areas on th~ side of the proposed structure that would face El Camino Real, the applicable standard at the’ facade facing E1 Camino Real is the’indoor standard of 55 L10. To meet the indoor standard given the projected .future noise level, the facade facing El Camino Real must provide at least an 18-dBA.reduction in outdoor noise. Such a reduction can be achieved in various ways. For instance, a noise level reduction of 20 dBA can be expected from outdoor to indoor settings assuming normal construction materials for the facade and assuming that the windows of the rooms facing El Camino Real would normally be closed (i.e., with sufficient ventilation to accommodate a closed windows condition). As an alt’emative, the needed reduction could be achieved through acoustical treatment of the facade itself which would allow for partially open windows. With an 18-dBA reduction in outdoor noise, indoor noise levels would be within the City’s 55 L10 standard for indoor areas, The city’s indoor standard would be met along the other sides of the proposed structure sihce the rooms would be farther removed from El Camino Real and would be shielded from traffic noise by the structure itself. ¯ ~Outdoor Noise Standard - The closest outdoor use area shown on the architectural site plan would be a pool approximately 130 feet from the centerline of El Camino Real. Base6 again on an extension of the PAMF EIR noise contours, outdoor (Year 2020) noise levels at this location would be approximately 70 L10 without accounting for any shielding effect by the proposed hotel expansion itself. However, this outdoor area would be surrounded on three sides by the proposed hotel expansion structure. ESA Mr. Rodney Chen May 7, 1997 Page Three The shielding by the proposed,structure would be expected to decrease traffic noise levels by at least 50% (i.e., by at least 3 dBA) since, for this outdoor use area,’it would essentially block all of the traffic noise from El Carnino Real north of Wells Avenue. Therefore, accounting for the shielding effect, the outdoor noise level would be no more than 67 LI0, which would be within the City’s outdoor standard of 70 L10. The other proposed outdoor use are.as too would be within the City’s outdoor standard since they would be shielded to a similar extent as the pool area but would be farther removed from El Camino Real. Conclusion In conclusion, the project would be consistent with the City’s indoor noise standard provided that the facade facing El Camino Real would reduce outdoor noise by at least 18 dBA. The project would be consistent with, the City’s outdoor noise standard due to the distance between proposed outdoor use are’as and El Camino Real and due to the acoustic shielding of those areas by the proposed structure itself. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with noise consulting services. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (415) 896-5900. Sincerely, Jeff Wehling Senior Associate ESA ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18 . 08 . 040 . OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 675-695 EL CAMINO REAL/31 WELLS AVENUE FROM CS - SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO PC-PLANNED COMMUNITY The Council of the City of Palo ~lto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. (a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hea~ing held September 24, 1997, and the Architectural Review Board, upon consideration at its meeting of August 21, 1997, have- recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. (b) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth] SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map, " is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain’property known as 675-695 El~ Camino Real/31 Wells Avenue (the "subject property") from "CS Service Commercial" to "PC Planned Community. " The subject property, consisting of approximately 1.27 acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A, " attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The~ City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The site is so situated, and the uses and improvements proposed for the subject property are of such characteristics that the application of general~ districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development, in that neither the existing CS zoning, nor any other commercial zoning district, would accomodate the size of the proposed project. The limitations on floor area, floor area ratio, and height which are applicable in the conventional commercial zoning districts would not ailow the development of this hotel project consisting of a floor area of 127,019 square feet and including buildings fifty feet in height. 970917 lac 0080575 (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of general districts or combining districts, as follows: (i) The project will provide a five (5) foot wide right-of-way dedication along the 354-foot long Wells Avenue frontage, which will allow construction of a sidewalk where none currently exists. .The new sidewalk to be constructed in the n4w public right-of-way matches that to be constructed across the street along the Palo Alto Medical Foundation project frontage and will serve the public. (ii) The project will result indevelopment of a new hotel including. 194 guest rooms, which will generate significant revenue to the City’s General Fund in the form of Transient0ccupancy Taxes collected on the rental of the rooms. (iii) The project includes a program to provide meeting~space for~up to 100 persons without charge to nonprofit groups, once per month through~ the year 2001. (iv) The project will contribute $50,000 to the pedestrian undercrossing proposed to be contructed between Downtown and the Urban Lane Extension area. (v)~ Public art, as approved by the Public Art Commission and the Architectural Review Board, will be integrated into the project. (c) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and with the uses ’which presently exist in the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs: -~ (i) Urban Design Element Policy .#3: "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City streets." Thisproject provides a row of street trees along E1 Camino Real and Wells Avenue and landscaping along both frontages. The proposed landscaping and public art proposals will enhance the appearance of the existing site fromoE1 Camino Real and Wells~Avenue. (ii) Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development." The site is designated Service Commercial and is well suited, for this use. The site is surrounded 970917 la: 0080575 2 by similar and compatible commercial, office and hotel uses in the vicinity. (iii) Urban Design Element~ Objective, p.42: ~romote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and considerate of each other." The proposed hotel features high quality materials and attractive landscaping and the building is architecturally compatible with the adjacent Holiday Inn and PAMF facility. Proposed street trees and perimeter landscaping are designed at a human scale that is visually attractive to pedestrians. ~LT!_Q~__~. Those certain plans entitled "Palo Alto Holiday Inn Expansion, 675 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA" prepared by Sandy & Babcock International, dated April 21, 1997, and approved by the Architectural Review Board on August 21, 1997, copy on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the. subject p~operty, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to.the following conditions: (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited to a hotel and ancillary uses incidental thereto, including approximately 127,019 square feet of hotel rooms, meeting rooms, restaurant, office and ancillary space, and approximately 97,646 square feet of underground automobile parking for a total of approximately 224,665 square feet. (b) allowed. Conditional Uses.No conditional uses shall be (c) Site Development Regulations. All ~provements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approval adopted by the Council in conjunction with approval of this ordinance. The following are site development regulations which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (i) Final plans, including materials and colors, complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas, and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review. Board ("ARB") prior to issuance of building permits. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, electric panel switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be shown on the final plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between 970917 lac 00~0575 the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respect the building design and setback requirements. (ii) Any other exterior changes to the buiidings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations Shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Municipal Code. (iii) The ~pprov~YDevelopment Plan permits some tree removal and requires the preservation and protection of certain trees within the development. No future development or improvement proposed for the subject property following initial construction authorized by Architectural Review Approval shall result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking for the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan. (e)Special Conditions. (i) Right of Way Dedication. The- project includes dedication to the City of a five foot wide right of way along the project’s entire Wells Avenue frontage.. The site plan for the project shall show this area to. be dedicated and the dedication shall be completed prior to issuance of the first building permit. (ii) P~. This project was approved in part on the basis that it will incorporate original art facing E1 Camino Real, visible to the public, as a public’~benefit of the project. The applicant’s public art proposal must be submitted to and approved by the Public Art Commission, applying the standards set forth in PAMC 2.26.040, and by the Architectural Reivew Board prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, and shall be fully installed prior to the date of initial occupancy of the project. (iii) PedestrianTu~el. This project was approved in part on the basis that it will provide Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) toward construction of a pedestrian tunnel proposed to link Downtown with the Wells Avenue/Urban Lane area. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney shall be executed and recorded to provide for payment of this sum at such time as the tunnel project is approved. (iv) Meeting Space. This project was approved in part on the basis that it will provide to non-profit organizations, 970917 lac 00~0575 on a monthly basis, meeting space accommodating up tO i00 people through the year 2021. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney shall be executed and recorded, guaranteeing~the provision of the space and specifying the manner in which the space will be made available. (f) Development Schedule. Construction of the project shall commence on or before July I, 1998, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before December 31, 1999. (g) Mitigation Measures. All mitigation measures described in the Negative Declaration for the project shall be implemented as conditions of project approval, and the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program shall be implemented. SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project, as mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect. ~. This ordinance~ shall be effective on Zhe thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 970917 la~ 0080575 5 PF iI PC-3902 Froie~t: 675-95 El Carnino F.,eal & 31 Wells Avenue Zone Change from Commercial Service (CS) to Planned Community (PC) to allow construction of a new 194 room five story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements Stanford Uni~,ersity Date: July 30, 1997 ATTACHMENT #4 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL 675-696 EL CAMINO REAL & 31 WELLS AVENUE Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any modifications by the ARB, Planning Commission and City Council. The revised site plan shall include a 5 foot right-of-way dedication along the entire Wells Avenue frontage for the construction of a sidewalk. The applicant shall install the sidewalk per City specifications and shall construct a new street profile on the northem half of Wells Avenue to conform with the PAMF project. The site plan shall include the mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Study conducted by ESA Associates (May 7, 1997) which indicates that the building facade facing E1 Camino Real should be acoustically designed to reduce indoor noise by at least 18 dBA (page 2). The loading zone should be relocated to Wells Avenue at least 120 feet east of E1 Camino Real provided that it will be shared with other users. The front drop off zone should be expanded from 54 to sixty feet, if possible. The entry and exit driveways should be narrowed from 20 feet to 15 feet to minimize exposure to pedestrians. The location and number of bicycle ’ racks needs to be clarified on the plans~ and be consistent with that shown on the project summary sheet. The applicant will be responsible for its proportionate share of the cost of: 1) the second southbound left-turn lane at the ECR/Embarcadero intersection, which is approximately 12.8% ($64,000) and 2) the addition of various right and left-tum lanes at the E1 Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersectionwhich is approximately 2.5 percent ($57,500)but will depend on the actual cost of the improvements. The project shall include two 64 gallon containers each for newspapers, mixed paper and white paper; three sixty four gallon containers for plastic and glass; three sixty four gallon containers for aluminum and tin cans; and one four cubic yard container for cardboard. The Utilities Division will require sewer and water mains larger than those sized for the adjacent PAMF project to accommodate the proposed hotel. The color and texture of proposed concrete sidewalks shall conform to Public Works standards for special sidewalk treatment. The public art proposal Shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Arts Commission prior to subsequent review by the ARB. A statement of the circumstances of the tree removal and intent of replacement on the applicants property, inclusive of all expenses and ongoing maintenance, shall be sent to the owner of the tree and written approval established. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare tree protection plans for the two oak trees located near the drive up entry and near the front of the project. The Black maple street trees shall be 24 inch box. The applicant shall be required to submit to the Planning Division a mitigation monitoring report indicating compliance with all the mitigations contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Utilities Electric The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. Public Works Operations 3.PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree invemory or landscape plan shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: ao All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Depa .rtment’s standard specification detail #505). b.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The_ ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. d.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. o A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection plans. The plans shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their protection during construction. The certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify .that the PAMC Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to demolition, grading, or building permit issuance. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility serv.ices and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Utilities Electric This project requires a padmount transformer. The applicant shall provide an easement for installing the padmounted equipment .and associated substructure. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Planning Department and the Architectural Review Board. The f’mal site plan shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for establishing the location and dimensions of the required easement. Fire Department The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that include the following: (a) automatic sprinkler system is required (NFPA-13R modified). Plans and permits required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system b) wet standpipe system is required, c) Floor control values, d) elevator gumey access is required to be large enough to accommodate a gurney 24" by 82" and emergency personnel, e) illuminated exit signs and emergency lighting and low level signage, f) one-hour rated corridors, g) unit smoke detectors and occupant maximum signs for public areas, h) Portable fire extinguisher, and h) net suppression system for cooking appliances. Planning/Zoning 9.The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. 10.Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and Off-site plan table areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Utility Marketing Services Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan, and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public street trees. b.Complete plant list indicating tree andplant species, quantity, size, and locations. c.Irrigation schedule and plan. d.Fence locations. eo Lighting plan with photometric data. The existing lighting plan shall be revised to reduce illumination so as not to exceed 1.5 footcandles. All lighting must be shielded in a manner to prevent visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. The lighting plan, photometrics and specification sheets should be revised to meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning . staff for review and approval. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 11. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application. 12.The project shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area which complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070 (PAMC). The final site plan shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area with a roof. The trash/recycling facilities shall be approved by the City of Palo Alto Recycling Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Works Engineering 13.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. 14.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Builtling Inspection Division. 15.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest. 16.A constructionlogistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 17.The applicant shall submit a conceptual stormwater pollution control prevention plan (SWPP) to Public Works for review and approval. Transportation 18.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements. 19.Bicycle parking shall be provided in the amount, type, and location specified in PAMC 18.83 and submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division prior to submittal of a Building Permit. Guest bicycle parking shall be Class III. Utilities Electric 20.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. Utilifies/Water-Gas-Wastewater 21.The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 22.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 23.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply: 24.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. Planning/Zoning 25.This project is subject to a housing in-lieu fee based on $3.48 per square feet of new floor area (127,019 proposed minus 48,000 existing = 79,019 square feet). The fee as of April 1996 was $3.48 per square foot for a total fee of $274,986.12. One.half the fee ($137,493) is payable at the time of building permit issuance and the remainder at building occupancy. The actual fee due will be based on the building square footage shown on the building permit plans. The fee is adjusted annually in the spring and the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is the fee required. This fee is not reimbursable. The fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division, Advanced Planning Section. Public Works Engineering 26.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. 27.A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 28.An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate Of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel. 29.A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water- table and basement construction issues. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is requ’ired to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Backflow Preventor Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections-7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner’s. property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 36.An approved Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly. 37.A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project.. 38. A new sewer lateral installation is required. 39.The applicant shall install a new sewer manhole and install a new sewer lateral per Utilities requirements. During Construction Building Inspection 40.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. Utilities Electric 41.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 42. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. 43.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. ~ Planning/Zoning All street trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist before f’mal sign off is approyed. Police 45.All construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thin Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. Public Works Engineering 46 No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 47.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best managemerl practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo near all drainage inlets. 48.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Utilities/Water -Gas-Wastewater 49. 50. 51. 52. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS for all utility work in the E1 Camino Real right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County Department of Transportation for all utility work in the County Road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department. The applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit from Santa Clara County Valley Water District for the gas service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto .or their contractor. Prior to Finalization Planning/Zoning 53.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy. Public Works Engineering 54.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. 55.The unused driveway located E1 Camino Real shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 56.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. After Construction Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 57.The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. 58.Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one- third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the C!ty of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). (S: \PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR\ECR675.CND) ATTACHMENT #5 Development Program Statement for the - Palo Alto Holiday Inn Expansion. Palo Alto, California " Clement Chen& Associates 831 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94133 (415) 392-8260 Development Program Statement The Develoffme~nt Purpose The hotel market in Palo Alto has grown and changed dramatically as a result of the tremendous growth of Silicon Valley.since the Holiday Inn was originally built in 1973. There is a shortage of available hotel rooms in Palo Alto, especially on the peak demand nights of Monday through Thursday. As a result, many travelers who would prefer to stay in Palo Alto are forced to seek accommodations at the San Francisco Airport or in the East Bay. In addition, today’s traveler has more sophisticated needs, requiring hotels to provide better services and amenities. While the Palo Alto Holiday Inn has done an excellent job 6fsatisfying its guests over the last 24 years, the hotel cannot always accommodate the need for hotel rooms and the higher expectations of today’s’traveler. T-he Palo Alto Holiday Inn Expansion (the "Expansion") is being proposed in response to the tremendous demand for hotel rooms in Palo Alto. The Expansion is also designed to specifically address the needs of today’s traveler and to allow us to deliver the best possible guest experience. The Development Plan The design of the Expansion is inspired by the architecture and landscaping of the inns and hotels of southern France and northern Italy. Tiled roofs on towers, French doors with colorful shutters, wrought iron balconies with cascading plants, and intimate landscaped courtyards with individual themes are some of the details which make this hotel unique. The 194 guestrooms and suites are located in five separate guestroom modules. These five-story modules are offset from each other and separated by the landscaped courtyards but are also connected by a zigzagging corridor. In response to current travelers’ expectations, the guestrooms are significantly larger than in the existing hotel, providing larger and more luxurious bathrooms and additional amenities. a two-story ~"~’~’,’"o +’~"" ~ E! Camino t~,,~l .... mmo .... s ............. ~, ..... contains a two-stow restaurant and lounge, three small meeting rooms, a concierge desk and lobby, and administrative offices. Additional amenities at the hotel include a reflecting and swimming pool and exercise facilities. -~-~ An integral componeni of the hotel’s design is a landscap~ plan which incorporates five separate courtyards, each with its own theme. Adjacent to the restaurant and lounge, the "Court of the Weeping Maples’" is named for the Japanese maples which frame the hotel’s reflecting and swimming pool. The "Court of the Twelve Blue Pots" draws its inspiration from the brilliant cobalt-blue glazed pots found throughout the Mediterranean; in this court the pots are used as bubbling fountains as well, as for plants. The "Court of the Sun" features a sundial and enhanced circular paving echoing the sunmotif. The "Court of the Twin Palms" contains two large, matching date palms. The "Court of Lavender" provides a more intimate retreat focusing on the sense of smell with itsplantings of lavender and fragrant gardenias. The new landscaping along both Wells Avenue and El Camino Real integrates the hotel’s architecture with the City’s landscape design guidelines for public streets. The eighteen liquid amber trees planted along Wells Avenue and El Camino in a new five-foot landscape buffer enhance the residential nature of the hotel. The existing street trees along El Camino are preserved in the landscape plan. Groundcbver in the landscape buffer separates Wells Avenue from a new five-foot sidewalk which will be dedicated to the City. The new sidewalk along Wells Avenue and the sidewalk along El Camino are improved with enhanced paving, complementing the enhanced paving used in the driveway and walk’wags of the Expansion. Climbing vines in planters or pots along the faces of the bi~ilding and the courts along Wells Avenue further emphasize the building’s human scale and pedestrian-friendly design. Two levels of subterranean parking which are accessed from the front of the hotel facing El Camino provide parking for the Expansion. Service and loading areas are provided at the rear of the property along Wells Avenue. A small service area for the restaurant is located along Wells Avenue facing the existing pet hospital. The Need for the Planned Community Zone Change The site is currently zoned CS Service Commercial which allows hotels as a permitted use. However, the maximum FAR allowed under the current zoning is 0.4. Upon completion, the expanded hotel (the existing hotel plus the Expansion) will have an FAR of 0.95. A zone change to PC-Planned Comm.unity is requested because the Expansion will exceed the FAR permitted under the existing CS-Service Commercial zoning. (Note: The FAR of the existing warehouse buildings is 0.77, exceeding the permitted FAR under the current zoning.) To put the density of the hote! in context, the proposed Pa!o ,~dto Medical Foundation ("PAMF") immediately across Wells Avenue from the Expansion contains 355,000 s.fo of building on 400,752 s.f. of land, resulting in an FAR of 0.89. PAMF’s buildings are fifty feet high and range in size from 255,000 s.f. to 29,000 s.f. PAMF compares quite closely to the expanded hotel, which contains 325,681 s.f. of building on 343,054 s.f. of land (FAR of 0.95). The Expansion is smaller than the existing hotel’s guestroom building, and approximately half the size of PAMF’s main Health Services Building. In addition, the fact that the Expansion is broken into six modules separated by sixty-foot deep courtyards further reduces the perceived mass of the buildi~ng. Public Benefits Provided The expansion of the Palo Alto Holiday Inn will provide a number of benefits to the entire Palo Alto communi,ty, including its residents, businesses, and community organizations. Dedication o_f Land, and Sidewalk and Street Improvements on Wells Avenue and El Camino Real - To facilitate the improvement of Wells Avenue from its current condition as a secondary access road with no sidewalk or landscaping, we will dedicate a five-foot wide strip of land along the property’s 354-foot frontage to the City of Palo Alto where we will build a new sidewalk. The new sidewalk is adjacent to a new five-foot landscape buffer which we will build between the new sidewalk and the street. The land value alone (1,770 s.f. of land) at the cost basis of $6i.50 s.f. is $108,855. In addition, we will enhance the sidewalks on both Wells Avenue and El Camino Real with colored and patterned concreti~. We will also plant new Street trees and landscaping both in the landscape buffer and along the building and courts to create an attractive, pedestrian-friendly streetscape. In addition, we believe that the City desires improvements on Wells Avenue to crown the street. While the details of this improvement are unknown at this point, these street improvements are also a public benefit we will provide as part of the project. Additional Transient OccupanW Tax - The Expansion will add 194 hotel rooms which should achieve an average daily rate of $165. Assuming an occupancy rate of 80% (currently, the Palo Alto Holiday Inn is running over 90% occupancy), the Expansion will generate $934,692 per year in additional transient occupancy tax revenue to the City of Palo Alto. bt-Lieu Housing Fee - We ~vill be required to make a one-time in-lieu housing fee payment of approximately $442,026 ($3.48 per square foot) for the project which we believe is also a public benefit. ~ Meeting Space for Non-Pro.fit Organizations - Meeting space for up to 100 people will be provided once per month at no cost to non-profit organizations in Palo A!to at either the existing hotel or the Expansion, for the term of the existing hotel’s ground lease (June 30, 2021). The value of this meeting space is approximately $121000 per year. Contribution to the P/oposed Pedestricm Tmmel .- We will commit to contributing $50,000 at such time.that an underground pedestrian tunnel linking the new Palo Alto Medical Foundation to downtown Palo Alto is built. Dedication qfOn-site Public Art - A public art piece will b6 commissioned and installed on-site fa6ing El Camino Real for the enjoyment of the public. The value of the commissioned piece will be approximately $20,000. Commitment to Host the Black & White Ball at the Palo Alto Holid~_ hm_l’or the Next Five Years - The Holiday Inn has hosted the Black & White Ball since 1989, and we will commit to being the host site for the next five years, subject to the yearly decision of the Black & White Ball Committee." Additional Public Benefits Provided Substantial Completion o_f the Redevelopment ,,o_f the Urban Lane/Wells Avenue Area - The Urban Lane/Wells Avenue area has been an unsightly combination of old industrial warehouses and retail buildings. The Expansion will substantially complete the redevelopment of this area with visually outstanding architecture and landscaping. Providing Hotel Accommodations- The demand for hotel rooms in Palo Alto is so great that unless reservations are made two months in advance, many local businesses are unable to accommodate their travelers in nearby hotels. Similarly, friends and relatives of Palo Alto residents are forced to stay in less convenient locations. Often, the only available rooms are at San Francisco Airport or in the East Bay, forcing travelers to commute into Palo Alto each day; exacerbating the inbound and outbound traffic on Palo Alto’s main streets. The Palo Alto Holiday Inn is and has been an active member find supporter of the Palo Alto community,for over 24 years. We host and sponsor Palo Alto’s Black & White Ball, the Park and Recreation Departme.nt’s "Snowmen & Sleigh Rides" and Chili Cook-off, the Palo Alto Asia-Pacific Film Festival, and Children’s Hospital. Consistency with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan ¯ The Expansion is directly adjacent to the "’: ":e,~.s.ng Holiday Inn. The proposed use as a hotel is consistent with the land use designation ofCS - Service Commercial and the policies contained within both the existing and current draft of the Comprehensive Plan. Lis~ing of All Proposed or Potential Uses The Expansion will include the following areas and uses: 194 guestrooms and suites 2,768 s.f. of meeting space (largest meeting room is 1,200 s.f.) 3,584 s.f. restaurant and lounge Lobby/Concierge Desk Exercise facilities Administration and offices 2 levels of subterranean parking Schedule of Development The schedule for the development of this project is subject to the timeframe for approval from the City Council. Upon approval from the City Counc!l, we anticipate the following development schedule: Preparation of Building Plans Application for Building Permit Construction Completion of Construction/Occupancy 4 months 2 months 18 months 24 months after City Council Approval Assuming City Council approval is received by November 1997, construction would commence in May 1998 and be complete by November 1999. Names and Addresses of Property’Owners Within 300 Feet To be provided at a later date. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Regular Meeting ORAL ’COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 1997. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 1997. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 1997. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 3 4 o o 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: Appeal of the zoning administrator’s approval of a conditional use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Club, including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts, and construction of one additional court and a park area, including restroom facilities, in a PF zone district. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration was approved on May 31, 1996. File Nos. 96-UP-l, 96-EIA-1. 675 EL CAMINO REAL: Review of an application for a zone change to the Planned Community(PC) zone to allow the demolition of three existing warehouse and commercial buildings and construction of a new, 194-room, five-story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-ARB-2, 97-ZC-6, 97-EIA-8. 59 A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 1 07-30-97 675 EL CAMINO REAL: Review of an application for a zone change to the Planned Community(PC) zone to allow the demolition of three ekisting warehouse and commercial buildings and construction of a new, 194-room, five-story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-ARB-2, 97-ZC-6, 97- EIA-8. Chairperson Cassel: Some of us have a conflict of interest on this item. .Commissioner Ojakian: I have a question in that regard, because the proposed project is.in very close proximity to the new Palo Alto Medical Foundation site. My wife works for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and it is unclear to me whether I have a conflict or not. Ms: Cauble: I can tell you what the rule is on that, and you can decide whetfier or not you have a conflict. The rule is that ifa project is before you that is located within 300 feet of property owned by a source of income, then you do have a conflict and cannot participate unless it is clear that the project could l~ave absolutely no financial impact whatsoever on your source of income. I am not in a position to make that assessment as to whether there is no possibility that this project or how it is approved or disapproved or modified could have any impact on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Commissioner Ojakian: Based on that, I am unclear as to whether I have a conflict or not, but because I am uncertain of it, I will remove myself from participating in this item. Ms. Bialson: I must also remove myself from participating due to a conflict created by a client Of mine whose property is located close by this project. .Chairperson Cassel: I will not be participating either, as I have been avoiding all projects that relate to Stanford at this time. That will leave four commissioners, and Commissioner Schink will chair this portion of the meeting. Vice Chair Schink: Are there any staff comments? Ms. Grote: No, at this point, there are not. I want to introduce Chandler Lee, one of our contract planners, who has been handling this project. Vice Chair Schink: I will now open the public hearing. The applicant has 15 minutes. Clement Chen III, 625 El Camino Real, Palo Alto: Members 6fthe Planning Commission, members of the planning staff, I am appearing on behalf of the Holiday Inn, Palo Alto, located at 625 El Camino Real, and also the owner of the property located next door at 675 El Camino Real. Thank you very much for hearing this matter tonight. I do have several consultants who A:]PCMins71PC0730.reg Page 59 07-3O-97 traveled up to 90 miles to get here, so we really appreciate being heard at this late hour. (11:28 p.m.) As you know, we are proposing to expand the Holiday Inn Hotel simply because Palo Alto needs more hotel rooms. Last year, we ran o,ver 89.5% occupancy for the year, and this year, we are on track to run over 90%. Since no one travels at Thanksgiving or Christmas or New Year if they can help it, that means that we are 100% sold out 20 to 25 nights per month, and we are turning away thousands of reservation requests every month. Our proposed expansion will fill in the gap between two major developments, the existing Holiday Inn and the new Palo Alto Medical Clinic. As our model shows, our expansion is compatible and consistent both with the existing hotel and with the new medical clinic with respect to height, with respect to mass, architecture and landscaping design. Our expansion will complete the redevelopment of what used to be a ’ pretty junky Urban Lane area. Given its location relative to the existing hotel, the new clinic, downtown and Stanford University, it is an excellent use for the property from a planning perspective. I would like to take a minute to recap the public benefits of the proposed expansion, since we are applying for a PC zone. First, we have voluntarily incorporated the vision, which is not yet mandated, of the city’s transportation and public works department for Wells Avenue that.was created as a result of the medical clinic development. So we are proposing to do work that would not otherwise be required ofa CS project. That work includes dedicating a strip of land five feet wide’and 354 feet long along Wells Avenue to cr.eate room for a new sidewalk. So this dedication not only cost us money for the land, but as a result, we had to push our guest room buildings together, increasing our design costs, and it will also increase our construction costs. We are going to be installing the sidewalk along Wells Avenue and E1 Camino Real with upgraded paving, installing a five-foot landscape strip within Wells Avenue, and installing approximately 18 new black maple trees on Wells Avenue, and regrading the north side of Wells " Avenue so that the street will be crowned and drained to the sides rather than draining to the center as it does now. We will also reconfigure the comer of Wells Avenue and E1 Camino to meet the transportation department’s requirements. Secondly, we will be providing meeting space for.up to 100 people at no charge for a non-profit group once a month. Third, we will install a large piece of sculpture, something large enough to be seen at 40 miles an hour as people are driving by on E1 Camino in front of the hotel facing E1 Camino. That will be visible both to drivers and passersby. Fourth, we will contribute $50,000 towards a hoped-for tunnel connecting the new medical clinic to downtown. And last but definitely not least, our expansion will generate nearly one million dollars per year in revenue to the city in the form of occupancy tax. I know there has been a lot of discussion at City Hall as to what is and what is not a public benefit. So let me just point out that two years of the occupancy tax, together with the clinic’s proposed contribution to the tunnel A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 60 07-30-97 and our contribution to the tunnel, would be enough to pay for a bright, airy, ADA-compliant bicycle/pedestrian two-way tunnel. Let me also point out some other benefits. An obvious one is that we will be supplying hotel rooms to Palo Alto. We need to be able to accommodate our friends, our family, our customers, our suppliers and our visitors here in town. Our hotel is also a good citizen that contributes a lot to the community. We have been a major sponsor of the Black and White Ball for the past eight years. We sponsor the annual chili cookoff in Mitchell Park every fourth of July, as well as snowmen and sleigh rides here in the downtown every Christmas. We collect toys for patients at Children’s Hospital every Christmas, and we just donated Sunday brunches to the silent auction for the Addison Elementary School. We have started donating used linen and used soap to the Urban Ministry, rather than sending it to the land fill as we used to do. We also sponsor the Asia Pacific Film Festival here in Palo Alto. Although these activities are not what the legal department would characterize as a public benefit, I think it is clear that the public really does benefit from our hotel. All of these very substantial public benefits, the dedicated land, the Wells Avenue improvements, the meeting space for non-profits, money for the tunnel, nearly a million dollars for the city, together with our other community contributions, come from a project that has no negative impacts. One issue that all of us in Palo Alto are concerned about is traffic. But as Councilmember Lanie Wheeler said two weeks ago, it is not the number of square feet, it is the use of the building and how people use hotels when they arrive, when they leave. Hotels are a v(ry low traffic generator. The traffic study that was commissioned finds that using transportation engineering statistics, although our expansion will indeed contribute a small amount of traffic, the size of the project is such that no significant impacts, according to the county guidelines, are found. In reality, our expansion will have an even smaller effect than the traffic study projects. The study is based on statistics for full service hotels with convention facilities and retail shops. Our expansion is only for guest rooms. We are not a conference center. We are not a convention center that.is going to be bringing pegple into downtown Palo Alto for SemiCon. We are intending to serve the people who are already here in Palo Alto. They are doing business here. They are visiting Stanford and Hewlett-Packard. They are on our streets today. They just cannot sleep in our town tonight. They are coming in on Willow and University and Embarcadero and Oregon in the morning, and they are going out on Willow and University and Embarcadero and Oregon in the evening.. Our expansion will at least get some of them off of our arteries at rush hour and give them a place to stay that is close enough to walk to downtown if they so choose. Let me mention that we provide a complimentary shuttle to people at our hotel within a five-mile radius, so we already shuttle people downtown to eat at restaurants, to Stanford Shopping Center, to Stanford University and to nearby offices. So in summary, our expansion is a great fit from a planning and pOlicy perspective. It has tremendous public benefits, and really has no negative impacts2 Finally, one area that I am really excited about. Through a sensitive design, we are proposing a project that will be a wonderful A:lPCMinsTlPC0730.reg Page 61 07-30-97 enhancement to the area. I would now like to introduce our architect, Don Sandy, who will tell you about our concept and the type of environment that we are trying to create. Don Sandy, 1349 Larkin Street, San Francisco: I will be brief, because I believe you have all read the report, and the planning stafflaas written a very, very thorough report on this project. I would just like to add a few things to that. First of all, we approach this project not as a building but as a concept. I will start with site planning. Within the report, it mentions that there are five separate building modules. I would like to change the word "module" to buildings. In fact, it is a cluster of five separate, buildings that are attached by a pedestrian link in the center, attaching only eight feet in each building. The reason for this is to break down the size of the building so that it does not have a mass. It also gives an articulation both from E1 Camino Real and from Wells Avenue that makes the building much. more sympathetic to the environment surrounding it. Also in the reportl it says that the building is two and five stories. That is correct. On E1 Camino Real, it is two stories to be sympathetic to that area. On Wells Avenue, it is four stories. We have stepped it from five to four stories on Wells Avenue, and kept it five feet back from that, even though we did not have to. So I think the important aspect of this is that we are trying to create an environment, not a building. The environment is the clustering of the buildings, the landscaping, the materials, and the textures that should fit Palo Alto. Also in the report under Architectural Design, it mentions a contemporary design. This is one area where I would say that that is not the case. This is not a contemporary design. It is quite traditional, and it has connotations of Southern France, Northern Italy, but it also has connotations of downtown Palo Alto. That is seen in the articulation of the elevations and the materials that are being used. The best buildings, in my opinion, the good buildings, the strong buildings that have lasted in Palo Alto, are the buildings that are of the materials that we are using -- rustic plaster, heavy plaster,. deep insets, tile roofs, and friendly and soft colors. It can be seen on the buildings right across from the main building and/or some of the other buildings in the downtown area. So those areas are very important to what we are trying to create. The other thing that is very important is the landscaping. We have five landscaped courts that are going to be done very carefully and very sensitively, and each court will be somewhat different. The interesting part to the concept of the building is that none of the rooms look out onto a street. They look onto themselves, which is very European, away from the street, which solves a great deal oftheproblems of privacy and of sound. The final thing with the landscaping, as just said, is that we have 29 new trees going in surrounding the building, and we are landscaping all four sides plus all of the courts. If you look at the various documents that you have behind you, starting from the right, you can see how the Courts integrate with the building itself and how the rooms look out onto that. The next document to the left shows the elevations and the materials which, again, are plaster, A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 62 07-30-97 tile roofs, shutters, all the elements that make this an appropriate building complex for Palo Alto. The center elevation shows our perspective showing El Camino Real, and on the left are two image boards. On the left side, it shows historical areas and pictures from both France and Italy, characterizing the colors and textures that we want to use on the building. The next image board shows the appropriate landscaping that we are trying to create. I feel that this is a very unique situation, and it takes a unique client to accept a much more expensive design than is normally built. Thank you. Vice Chair Schink: We will now hear from the rest of the members of the public. Susan Frank, 325 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto: I am speaking as President and CEO of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. I am not a consultant. I did not travel 90 miles to be here, although tonight, I wish ! were being paid as well by the hour as consultants are. In anticipation of my 30-mile commute, I will be brief. The Chamber has not yet reviewed the details of the Holiday Inn expansion. We will be doing so next week at our Government Committee meeting. I anticipate a favorable review. I just want to comment briefly on the need for hotel space in Palo Alto. The Chamber has long been on record in support of new hotel space and that we are under hotelled. With the closing of the Hyatt, plus a strong economy and an increase in business and corporate travel, there continues to be that strong need. In addition, we are a community that is rich with non-profit organizations that are in need of meeting space within our own community and not have to travel outside of the community for meetings. We know that there are additional hotel rooms planned in Palo Alto in the near term with the Cabafia Hotel. We also know there are planned redevelopments which, while necessary, may decrease our overall room count. Building hotel rooms in Palo Alto means fewer cars traveling from Palo Alto to destinations outside our community. Of course, the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue is significant, particularly significant for a community so rich in services. Overall, new hotel space is needed in Palo Alto and would be well received by the community. Again, without commenting on the specifics of this particular project, the Holiday Inn and its ownership are exceptional corporate and community citizens. They donate hundreds of volunteer hours, meeting rooms and financial contributions every year for community events and programs. Any new project proposed by that management group would clearly meet those same exemplary standards. Thank you. Sharon Lehane,..2653 Alma Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am a travel agent for American Express Travel Services. We have offices in Palo Alto on University Avenue and at Stanford. University. I am also a resident of Palo Alto. I am for the expansion of the Holiday Inn. American Express is responsible for arranging hotel accommodations for incoming visitors and business travelers to Stanford University, as well as to other companies in the area. I often book the Holiday Inn, Palo Alto for my clients, and I often find that I cannot confirm reservations at the Holiday Inn or the other 15 or more hotels in the Palo Alto area during mid-week and sometimes on the weekends. Recently, one ofPalo Alto’s new employees had to sleep on the A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 63 07-30-97 sofa in his office because he could not find a hotel. He thought he could come to town, drive up and down E1 Camino, and spend one night in a hotel before moving into his new apartment. He ended up sleeping on the sofa. So again, we are in need of more rooms in Palo Alto. I usually recommend the Holiday Inn ljo my clients because they do offer the shuttle service. I recommend that they take the super shuttle from the airport to the Holiday Inn, and the Holiday Inn does provide free transportation to Palo Alto and surrounding areas. American Express employs a person almost full time for the Stanford Hospital accommodations program where patients come in for surgery who do not want to drive or cannot drive before or after surgery. The shuttle service is a key element in having to put people as far away as Sunnyvale when the surgery is in Palo Alto. It is very inconvenient for them. The proposed expansion of the Holiday Inn is at an ideal location, and I urge you to approve the proposed expansion. Thank you very much. Jayne Curtis, 2690 Casey Avenue, Mountain View: Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you this evening. I am the Director of Account Development Operations for Merritt Travel, and I am responsible for servicing the Sun Microsystems account. As you know, Sun has grown and prospered, with its roots in Palo Alto. Our Sun travelers who come in to visit headquarters still insist upon staying in Palo Alto. They have come to know and love thiscity, and want to be here. My company is responsible for arranging travel for all of the employees for Sun Microsystems nationwide, so we bring in people continually. Everyday we have approximately five visitors coming into the Palo Alto area. It is impossible to find hotels during the week. We call the Holiday Inn, Palo Alto and try it for all of our visitors coming in, but it is rarely available, especially on short notice. I would like to stress to you the critical nature of providing more hotel rooms in this area. Even if we are able to find hotel space in Redwood City or in San Jose or Milpitas, oftentimes as far away as the San Francisco airport, the travelers who come in for Sun have become so accustomed to visiting Palo Alto and they love the city so much that they are still coming into Palo Alto for their dining and entertainment purposes. So in addition to coming in for business in the morning and leaving at the end of the day, they often return to Palo Alto later in the evening for entertainment purposes. Traffic is increased by their not being able to stay in the city. I cannot stress enough the critical nature of being able to put more people in the city as opposed to shuffling from one place to another. Thank you very much for your time. Vice Chair Schink: That completes the members of the public who wish to speak, and it brings us back to the applicant to sum up in five minutes. Mr. Chen: I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Vice Chair Schink: Let me make One point Which is important for the applicant to understand. We are reviewing the project tonight, making comments, and it then goes to the Architectural A:lPCMins7]PC0730.reg Page 64 07-30-97 Review Board, as I am sure you know, and then it returns to us. Considering the lateness of the hour, I am sure that some of us have more extensive comments to make when it comes back to us than you will probably hear tonight. I, for one, have some areas that I want to get into, but I feel comfortable doing that after it comes back from the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Chen: I guess I would just ask that those comments that are particularly pertinent to the Architectural Review Board review be brought forth so that the review board can have some direction with respect to certain policy issues. Vice Chair Schink: If you have already summarized in your opening remarks, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Mr. Chen: Yes, I have. Commissioner Beecham: My only ARB type comment is that I would like to consider having perhaps broader trees on the Wells/El Camino corner, if at all feasible. I feel that some tall trees there would help break up the large mass of the building that is still going to be apparent at that point. Commissioner Byrd: This is not directly a point for the ARB, but I want to raise it at this time in any event. It concerns the composition of the public benefit package. I think it is nicely balanced. There is need for the work on Wells Avenue. I can understand why the applicant would want to characterize the Tr~insit Occupancy Tax as a portion of the package. It certainly does provide public benefit, broadly speaking. However, in terms of establishing a’precedent in the community for having payment of taxes accepted as a portion of the public benefit package, I have some concerns around that. I think there is a way for us, as a community, to acknowledge that value without quantifying it as a portion of the public benefit under the PC. Frankly, I think the most significant portion of the package is the contribution to the tunnel. I remain disappointed that the medical foundation was not able to fund more of that effort and that we, as a city, cannot find additional public funds to make that happen. I continue to think that Town’and Country Village and the medical foundation and the Holiday Inn together remain isolated frdm our downtown. There is a clear nexus there between circulation for this project and the people who will stay overnight there and desire to get downtown or walk in the evening through Professorville. So I would encourage the applicant to sharpen the pencil around what assistance can be provided toward making that tunnel a reality. I don’t think the city can expect you to fund it and build it, but I would encourage you to look more closely at the contribution that can be made there. Commissioner Schmidt: I want to comment that I do think the plan is a clever solution to a hotel on a difficult site. Indeed, the courts are envisioned as wonderful areas, and that will make this a very nice facility. The architect as done a great job of addressing all sides of the hotel in A:lPCMins7]PC0730.reg Page 65 07-30-97 relationship to each of the streets and facilities there. I was talking to a member of the public who mentioned the possibility of trying to have some more emphasis on an entrance toward what you call the back side of the facility, because of the medical foundation and the bicycle pa,th and related access that will go across the back area there. I am not aware of all of the specific plans, but I think somewhere again toward the back, I believe that is where Dena Mossar has spoken to you, and that would be something to consider, to have some kind of entrance that would relate somewhere to what is going on. I think it is really important to try and relate all of these facilities better to downtown. We have all mentioned this, and I don’t "know if the tunnel will become a reality. If it is something that will work, that will be great. If money can be focused on just improving the underpass area, the Dream Team ideas we know are way off in the future and are very expensive. There may be some short-term things that can be done, also to look at any possible improvements, any better shuttle facilities, anything that would bring all of these places into better connection with downto,;vn. I think the public benefit package is fairly reasonable. It is reasonable to put this kind of density in this area. We keep talking about putting higher densities close to transit. It is possible that one day, your customers could actually fly in to San Francisco and take the train down to the hotel. So it is quite reasonable to have a higher density in this location. Vice Chair Schink: I generally agree with the comments that have been made both by Kathy and Owen. Just a few points that I would hope you can address when you go to the Architectural " Review Board, and maybe share with us when you come back. I would hope that the architect could talk to us a little bit about the relationship of architectural.styles, that is, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation style of their new building as it relates to your building, and then your building as it relates to the existing facility. So if you could give us a quick little explanation as to how you tied all of those together. If you could also address in more detail the genuineness of your architectm’al style in the detailing..You have shown us some wonderful images, and I am hoping you can come forward and say that what makes these images wonderful is that the windows are set back one foot in the openings, and we are going to do that same thing. Or if you are not going to do it, how it still works for the style that you are presenting to us. You’do not need to answer now. Mr. Sandy: I understand. I could talk for hours. Vfce Chair Schink: I am sure you could, and that is why I am going to give you some time to prepare so that you can give it to us very succinctly. If you could address generally how you can rationalize the massing of your building as close to E1 Camino as it is, recognizing that El Camino is generally a pretty open avenue in this section of Palo Alto. What you are proposing is to introduce a pretty strong element closer to the street than is traditional along there. I think it is justifiable, but you need to do so for us in architectural terms. A:lPCMins71PC0730.reg Page 66 07-30-97 Finally, under public benefit, I would be looking for you to present to us a strengthening of the pedestrian connection towards Town and Country Village also. Most of the focus in our discussion has been toward downtown Palo Alto, but we have to recognize that tie-back to Town and Country. Also, I imagine the medical foundation has done a nice job with their landscaping in front of their facility, but there is a bit of a gap, and maybe we are going to have tO call upon you to help finish some of the landscaping along El Camino or at least, spruce it up so that it all ties together from Town and Country on down to your facility. You may come back and tell me that it cannot be done for infrastructure reasons, but I would hope you can address that when you come back. That completes my comments. Are there any staff comments? Mr. Schreiber: Just to note that regarding the underpass, the next step in that process is to do an engineering alternatives analysis and a cost estimate. That work will be an adjunct to the PAMF/SoFA coordinated area plan. You should receive in this week’s packet a copy of the staff report that goes to the City Council next Monday night. It calls for the council to authorize the next steps ahead in that process. So we have not forgotten about the underpass. The real need, now, is to get additional information. Finally, I cannot resist sharing that in terms of the shortage of hotel rooms, last week Wednesday, we interviewed Chief Planning Official candidates. We had three candidates coming in from out of state. Human Resources staff began almost two weeks before to find three hotel rooms for Tuesday and Wednesday nights. We found them close to the San Francisco airport. We could not house the candidates in Palo Alto. Vice Chair Schink: We have reviewed and commented. We now need a motion to send this forward to the Architectural Review Board. MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I so move. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. MOTION PASSES: Vice Chair Schink: All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners Bialson, Cassel and Ojakian not participating. Ms. Cauble: I would like to call attention to the report I have put at your places tonight. It is a memo regarding your homework on remembering what conflicts you have and being prepared to disclose them as we go through each element so that we can separate out the votes. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at midnight.. A:lPCMins71PC0730,reg Page 67 07-30-97 IEev,ew Board City of Palo Alto ......... DRAFT MINUTES Thursday, August 21, 1997 8:00 A.M. Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Frank Alfonso James McFall Dave Ross Bob Peterson Che~lP~a Lisa Grote Dave Dockter Phillip Woods Bob Schubert (contract planner for Items I. 1, II.2. IL3, II.4, II.5) Chandler Lee (contract planner for Items II.7 and II.8) George White B.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. Ce AGENDA CHANGES. DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS: Item II.4 was reviewed after Item II.5. AGENDA ITEMS APPROVALS: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) decision on the design of the project is a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (the Director), who makes the final decision. Unless otherwise stated by the ARB or the Director, project approvals generally incorporate Project Review Committee conditions as mailed to the applicants and staff conditions as recommended in the Information Memorandums. CHANGES: Any change to an approved design plan must be resubmitted to the City for approval. Resubmittal of a project may also be necessary if changes are mandated as a result of complying with other City department requirements, other applicable codes~ or ordinance A:kARB24kMIN0821 .drf Page 1 PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Tom Gillman, architect for the proposal presented the architecthral concepts; Tom Richmond, landscape architect, presented the landscape concepts; Roy Whitefield, applicant, describe the proposed use of the project; and Susan ¯ Meany, Stanford Management Company, described plans for proposed upgrades to adjacent properties. None. REVIEW BOARD ACTION: No action on a preliminary McFall stated conflict of interest and through a process to a quorum, McFall Peterson stepped down. -Frank Alfonso- This original sketches to the approach to the project landscape design is going further development entryway. The second story entry The outdoor parking lot is a direction to break down the scale needs to be decomposed; the proposal and reveals. very exciting project, there has design. The proposal it incorporates an direction. The existing be steppe to thi lot of thought from the an "archeological". of sycamore trees. The area around the building needs should be incorporated into the better articulate the entryway. The proposal takes the right The second story portion of the elevation trticulate the exterior facade with fenestration Jim McFalI- He appreciates the of the existing oak tree at the applicant should look at the glazing. The mansard roof should have a nineties lo~ should incorporate a building get too tall or even a new of sycamore trees. The preservation with the landscape. The good example of materials, reveals and a "tophat" effect. The building look; the materials and details Dave Ross- It is should make the circulation identified. off the a lesser pitch for the mansard. that site has the existing ical history. The applicant landscape reserves to reduce the parking The proposal should of trees stand out. Investigate paving materials the pedestrian site. The location of the utilities including pad should be ajuxapostion of formality and organic ; the site plays and natural elements. The solar shading might reduce the He was in support of raising the height of the mansard roof and r~commended The project is headed in the right direction. 675-695 E! Camino Real and 31 Wells Avenue* Clement Chen & Associates 97-ARB-92 AAARB24kMIN0821.drf Page 6 Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to review an application for a Zone Change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of three existing warehouse and commercial buildings and construction of a new 194 room five story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Clement Chin, III, applicant presented the project concepts; Don Sandy, project architect presented the architectural concepts and April. Phillips, project landscape architects presented landscape concepts. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: (3-0-1-1 Piha, absent; McFall, stated conflict of interest and stepped down). Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project for construction of a new 194 room five story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements.based on the attached findings and conditions. .RECOMMENDATION WITH STAFF CONDITIONS: Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit 1.A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any modifications by the ARB, Planning Commission and City Council. The revised site plan shall include a 5-foot right-of-way dedication along the entire Wells Avenue frontage for the construction of a sidewalk. The site plan shall include the mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Study conducted by ESA Associates (May 7, 1997) which indicates that the building facade facing E1 Camino Real should be acoustically designed to reduce indoor noise by at least 18 dBA (page 2). The site plan shall include a revised street profile of Wells Avenue to conform with those approved for the adjacent PAMF project. The loading zone should be relocated to Wells Avenue at least 120 feet east of E1 Camino Real provided that it will be shared with other users. The front drop offzone should be expanded from 54 to.sixty feet, if possible. The entry and exit driveways should be narrowed from 20 feet to 15 feet to minimize exposure to pedestrians. The location and number of bicycle racks need to be clarified on the plans and be consistent with that shown on the project summary sheet. The project shall include two 64 gallon containers each for newspapers, mixed paper andwhite paper; three sixty-four gallon containers for plastic and glass; three sixty-four gallon containers for aluminum and tin cans; and one four-cubic yard container for cardboard. The Utilities Division will require sewer A:LM~B24kMIN0821.drf Page 7 and water mains larger than those sized for the adjacent PAMF project to accommodate the proposed hotel. The color and texture of proposed concrete sidewalks shall conform to Public Works standards for special sidewalk treatment. A statement of the circumstances of the tree removal and intent of replacement on the applicants property, inclusive of all expenses and ongoing maintenance, shall be sent to the owner of the tree and written approval established. Protect the two oak trees located ;near the drive up entry and near the front of the project. The Black maple street trees should be 24 inch box? Utilities Electric The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. Public Works Operations 3. PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing., The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). b.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. c. The ground around the tree canopy area Shall not be altered. A :La.RB24~/IIN0821 .drf Page 8 d.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection plans. The plans shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their protection during construction. The certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify that the PAMC Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to demolition, grading, or building permit issuance. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 worl~n, g days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit Utilities Electric This project requires a padmount transformer. The applicant shall provide an easement for installing the padmounted equipment and associated substructure. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Planning Department and the Architectural Review Board. The final site plan shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for establishing the location and dimensions of the required easement. Fire Department The applicant shall submit f’mal plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that include the following: (a) automatic sprinkler system is requ’.n’ed (NFPA-13R modified). Plans and permits required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system b) wet standpipe system is required, c) Floor con~ol vfilues, d) elevator gurney access is required to be large enough to accommodate a gurney 24" by 82" and emergency personnel, e) illuminated exit signs and emergency lighting and low level signage, f) one-hour rated corridors, g) unit smoke detectors and occupant maximum signs for public areas, h) Portable fire extinguisher, and h) net suppression system for cooking appliances. Planning/Zoning 9.The approvedbuilding materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. A :L~,RB24WIIN0821 .drf Page 9 10.Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plan table areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Utility Marketing Services Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan,, and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public street trees. b.Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. c:Irrigation schedule andplan. d.Fence locations. eo Lighting plan with photometric data. The existing lighting plan shall be revised to reduce illumination so as not to exceed 1.5 footcandles. All lighting must be shielded in a manner to prevent visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. The lighting plan, photometrics and specification sheets should be revised to meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning staff for review and approval. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application. The project shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area which complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070 (PAMC). The final site plan shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area wi~h a roof. The trash!recycling facilities shall be approved by the City of Palo-Alto Recycling Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Works Engineering 13.The applicant shall submit a f’mal grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. 14.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the-adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month A:La, RB24kMl’N0821 .drf Page 10 15. following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest. 16.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vebdcular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map Which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 17.The applicant shall submit a conceptual stormwater pollution control prevention plan (SWPP) to Public Works for review and approval. Transportation 18.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements. 19.Bicycle parking shall be provided in the amount, type, and location specified in PAMC 18.83 and submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division prior to submittal of a Building Permit. Guest bicycle parking shall be Class III. Utilities Electric 20.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design, and setback requirements. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 21.The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 22.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, A AARB24LMIN0821 .drf Page 11 and any other required utilities. 23.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 24.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. Planning/Zoning 25.This project is subject to a housing in-lieu fee based on $3.63 per square feet of new floor ¯ area (127,019 proposed minus 48,000 existing = 79,019 square feet). The fee as of April 1997 was $3.63 per square foot for a total fee of $286,838.97. One half the fee ($143,419.49) is payable at the time of building permit issuance and the remainder at building occupancy. The actual fee due will be based on the building square footage shown on the building permit plans. The fee is adjusted annually in the spring and the fee in effect at the time of building permit, issuance is the fee required. This fee is not reimbursable. The fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division, Advanced Planning Section. Public Works Engineering 26.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. 27.A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 28.An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to remove-the underlying lot line from this parcel. 29.A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water- table and basement construction issues. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 30.The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the perkon requesting the relocation. 31.A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the AAARB24hMIN0821.drf Page 12 account. 32.A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail. 33. 34. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 35.An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Backflow Preventor Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 . inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 36.An approved Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly. 37.A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 38. A new sewer lateral installation is required. 39.The applicant shall install a new sewer manhole and install a new sewer lateral per Utilities requirements. During Construction Building Inspection 40.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances AAARB24LMIN0821.drf Page 13 originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. Utilities Electric 41.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 42. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. 43.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. Planning/Zoning 4°All street trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist before final sign off is approved. Police 45.All construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. Public Works Engineering 46 No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 47.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) " for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No A:La.RB24LMIN0821 .drf Page 14 Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo near all drainage inlets. 48.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Utilities/Water -Gas-Wastewater 49.The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS for all utility work in the E1 Camino Real right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County Department of Transportation for all utility work in the County Road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department. 50.The applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit from Santa Clara County Valley Water District for the gas service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 51.The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water ¯ service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 52.The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor. Prior to Finalization Planning/Zoning 53.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy. Public Works Engineering 54.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. 55.The unused driveway located E1 Camino Real shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 56.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be f’mished prior to this sign-off. A:~kRB24hMIN0821.drf Page 15 After Construction Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 57. 58. The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one- third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the. City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). 8.425-435 Sheridan Avenue. (440-460 Page Mill Road)97-ARB-97 97-ZC-8 97-EIA-10 ~ Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a Zone Change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of an existing 26,000 square foot laboratory building and construction of a new 35 unit three story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Serena Trachta, project architect, presented architectural concepts. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: (4-0-1-0, Piha, absent). Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and Recommend that the City Council approve t.he proposed project for construction of the 35 unit three story condominium complex, 81 parking spaces, and related site improvements based on the attached findings and conditions; and Recommend approval of DEE. A:LARB24kMIN0821.drf Page 16 CARD ZA TRAVEL SERVICES Premier Service. Preferred Value. August 6, 1997 Mr. Ken Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ken: 1 7997 Depanmem ~t ~’12nn~ng ~n~,, Community/~nvironrnen~ I attended the Palo Alto Planning Commission meeting on July 30 with the intention of speaking in favor of the Expansion of the Holiday Inn - Palo Alto project. However, because that agenda item was delayed, I was unable to stay and speak personally. I feel strongly that Palo Alto desperately needs more hotel rooms, So let me state my views in this letter. I trust this letter will be given the same weight as my personal statements at the Planning Commission Meeting would have been. It seems to me there are only benefits to Palo Alto with the approval of this expansion project. Clearly, the need for more hotel rooms in Palo Alto already exists. Being in the travel business we come face to face with the shortage almost daily. We frequently book the Holiday Inn Palo Alto because of its downtown location. People like a hotel within easy walking distance of downtown. More often than not, however, my staff is unable to find available rooms at the Holiday Inn or the few other downtown Palo Alto hotels. Palo Alto and its merchants are loosing out on potential revenues. By not having visitors stay in downtown where they can easily patronize our restaurants and merchants, Palo Alto and its merchants are loosing out on capturing the extra dollars spent by visitors. Cardoza Travel often confirms our customers in hotels as far away as the San Francisco Airport or San Jose and those neighboring communities are gaining the visitors’ discretionary dollars. Palo Alto still suffers from extra traffic and parking congestion without any offset. Incoming visitors who are coming to downtown Palo Alto specifically, end up driving to and from our city adding to the already heavy traffic_congestion on city streets and filling up the scarce parking spots. There is a perfect space between the new Palo Alto Medical Clinic and the existing Holiday Inn which seems a natural place for this expansion. Guests at the Holiday Inn can park at the hotel and walk into downtown for business or entertainment. In summary, I feel we definitely need more hotel rooms in Palo Alto and the proposed .expansion of the Holiday Inn is ideal. I to approve the proposed expansion. Presid~ 550 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 125, Palo Alto, California 94301-2029 415-325-5600 800-654-4746 fax 415-328-9446 EXCERPT of draft minutes of the Palo Alto Attachment CPlanning Commission meeting of October 29, 1997. The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, October 29, 1997 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt Absent:None StaffPresent:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attomey Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment ~COMMUNICATIONS Chairma-’~Schink: This is the time on our agenda where we allow for oral communications. If there is a m~er of the public who wishes to address us on an item which is not specificallyooyou ,vo W° o,o Elaine Meyer, 609 Ka’n:~l_ev Avenue, Palo Alto: I am here as a member of the University South Neighborhoods Group. ~,~ve made a state.,m, ent about the reaction of our organization to the Peninsula Creamery project, r~as follows: ’ ARer almost a year of meetings and detailed discussions with Mr. Rapp and his’~;,ff, the University South Neighborhoods Group cannot - support the proposed Peninsula Cream"~ project prior to its consideration within the CAP (Coordinated Area Plan) pro~esl ihat h~s ~,,,. begun. If Mr. Rapp elects to proceed with. an ~ et .rnative ~ct which is not a PC, the project should conform to current zoning regulations, and we trust tlt~ty review processes (the Planning Commission, the ARB, an Ell{ etc.) to ensure that the pr’bj~t is tasteful and environmentally favorable.\. regret the timing ofMr~e" appreciate th’~ncerity of his desire toWe produce a building that w~ell, and we also app~ate the good faitheff°rt he has made in exchang.ing i~as with us t~ that. end"- ..... However, we do not bel~en p.n’marily by the~ng of a business opportunity when th~ community input.’\, n the CAP, we now have a co~eptance or reject~of the Creamery project. The CAP process is our opportunity to help developers conform to a community that the citizens desire. - A:lPCMins81pc1029.dff Page 2 10-29-97 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 675 EL CAMINO REAL: Review of an application for a zone change from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of three existing warehouse and commercial buildings and construction of a 194-room, five-story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. Environ- mental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration hasbeen prepared. File Nos. 97- ARB-92, 97-ZC-6, 97-EIA-8. Chairman Schink: I believe we have several commissioners with a conflict of interest on this item. Commissioner Bialson: I will have to withdraw from participation due to a conflict created by a client of mine whose property is located nearby and could be impacted by this development. Commissioner Ojakian: I have a potential conflict, since my wife works for the medical foundation. So I will not participate. Commissioner Cassel: I have a conflict due to the fact that the owner of this property is Stanford University, and it is integrated, in a sense, with exits and entrances onto that property. Chairman Schink: Would stafflike to introduce this item? Mr. Lee: This item was originally scheduled for commission review on September 24 and was continued to this date. Your commission previously reviewed the project on July 30 and sent it to the ARB for their review on August 21. The project entails a new 194-room hotel complex adjacent to the existing Holiday Inn. Comments from the ARB were generally supportive. Staff is recommending approval of th’e project, subject.to the conditions and findings attached in your staffreport. Thank you. Chairman Schink: Seeing no questions for stafffrom commissioners, I will open the public hearing. We allow the applicant 15 minutes for a presentation. Clement Chen, HI, 675 El Camino Real. Palo Alto: Good evening. I am appearing on behalf of the Holiday Inn and also the property owners of 675-695 E1 Camino Real. I would like to thank you for your positive comments regarding the design and appropriateness of the use of the property at our previous hearing. As Chandler Lee informed you, the Architectural Review Board also reviewed our project, and they were very supportive ~of our design, as well. I will respond to your specific design comments in a few minutes, but first, I would like to cover a few other topics. I would like to note that the need for.additional hotel rooms in Palo Alto was demonstrated in September when we had to tell the leader of the Free World, President Clinton, that we could not provide him with rooms when he brought his daughter to college. I would also like to touch on A:lPCMins81pc1029.drf Page 6 10-29-97 our announced plan to convert the existing hotel from Holiday Inn to Sheraton. As you may know, we operate the existing hotel under a franchise agreement. What that means is that we agree to pay them a lot of money every year, we agree to adhere to their standards, and in return, they give us the right to plug into their reservation system and to use the name either Holiday Inn or Sheraton. With respect to the proposed expansion, there is really very little interconnection except for a couple of aspects. No. 1, obviously the expansion is now going to be part of a Sheraton Hotel, rather than a Holiday Inn. Second, as part of our upgrading of the hotel to.meet Sheraton standards, we are going to be upgrading our landscaping, submitting plans to architectural review, and One of the aspects that responds specifically to Commissioner Schmidt’s comments about, orienting ourselves better towards University Circle and downtown, we are going to be replanting the landscape strip between University Circle and ourselves. At the back corner of the existing hotel, we are going to be creating an entrance with brick pavingl a wooden arbor overhead and wooden benches so that we have a interest that faces University Circle rather than at present, where what we have is really an opening with a door. So we are now trying to reinforce that connection to downtown. I would like to comment first on the public benefits, both the legal public benefits, as well as the other intangible public benefits of our project. What I Would characterize as community benefits of our project, although not technically public benefits, would be the following: our project will provide sorely needed hotel rooms. Bill Clinton will still need to call further in advance than he . did, and I have our 800 number shown here (projected overhead). It completes redevelopment of what used to be really quite a junky Urban Lane area. Now with the medical clinic and our project, this whole area will have transformed itself dramatically with what we believe is a very appropriate use, given the arteries, the destinations where travelers would go to -- downtown, Stanford, etc. I would also like to point out that our project is not the same as a manufacturing facility. We are a hotel, an active business, an active member of the community. We pride ourselves on taking that to heart. We sponsor a number of community activities, such as the Black and White Ball, the Chili Cookoff, snowmen and sleigh rides, the Asia Pacific Film Festival. We collect Christmas toys for Children’s Hospital, and we provide free shuttle service to our guests within a five-mile radius, so whether they be going downtown to eat, or to offices offofPage Mill Road to work, or to Stanford, we provide them with complimentar3i shuttle service, which helps to relieve the congestion that we would otherwise have on our streets. Turning now to public benefits, the first public benefit, and the largest, is the transient occupancy tax. When we submitted our application, we estimated the transient occupancy tax to be approximately $940,000 per year. With our conversion to Sheraton, I am absolutely confident that we will be contributing over one million dollars per year to the city’s general fund. What does one million dollars per year represent? One million dollars a year would pay for the entire fire suppression services payroll for a year. These are the men who come out and put out the fire at your house. Or it would cover the entire library circulation budget, which is the lending and retrieval of books. It would cover half of the entire budget for city parks and facilities, or it could A:lPCMins8lpe1029.drf Page 7 10-29-97 cover the entire youth and teen recreation programs for a year. Or one million dollars is sufficient to keep Cubberley Community Center open and maintained for a year. So my point is that this is not an insignificant benefit. This is a very substantial benefit to the city and to the community. I would also like to point out that this benefit is a result of our selective use. For instance, if we had proposed a medical office or a retail building, there would be no comparable financial benefit to the city. The Palo Alto City Council in these chambers debated whether occupancy tax is or is not a public benefit back in 1988. They concluded then that the occupancy tax can be found to be a public benefit. There was one dissenter, Emily Renzel. In addition to the occupancy tax, a significant benefit is the work that we will be doing on Wells Avenue. We are proposing to dedicate land for a sidewalk, approximately 1,800 square feet of land that we are dedicating to the city. Our cost, which to you and to me looks outrageous at $60 per square foot, is a cost to us of $106,000 of land. Also, it has cost us higher design and construction costs. We are going to be installing upgraded sidewalk paving, 18 new street trees, and we will be installing a new five-foot-wide landscape strip for these street trees along Wells Avenue, and we will be improving the grading and drainage of Wells Avenue. In addition, we are proposing to provide meeting space for non-profit groups once a month at no charge. This has a rental value of approximately $6,000 per year, or if you were to value that as a one-time contribution, that is equivalent to $60,000. In addition, we have also proposed to install a large piece of public art facing E1 Camino, which we estimate to cost approximately $20,000. I would now like to turn to the pedestrian tunnel. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation has proposed a contribution of $300,000 toward a tunnel connecting the clinic campus to Homer Avenue. We have proposed $50,000. Our proposal of $50,000 is based upon the relative distance from our hotel to the tunnel, as well as the fact that the tunnel connects to Homer, which our guests and staff‘are less likely to want to go to, as opposed to, say, University Avenue. So we made the subjective evaluation at that time that $50,000 seemed appropriate. Based on your comments that we should perhaps consider sharpening our pencils, we then evaluated the clinic’s proposal relative to ours. Their proposal is to contribute $300,000, and they are going to be constructing up to 345,000 square feet. This works out to 87¢ per square foot. Our expansion contains 127,000 square feet, so if we apply that same 87¢ pe~ square foot ratio, that equates to a contribution of $110,000. We are therefore prepared to contribute $110,000 toward the cost of the pedestrian tunnel, or, since the pedestrian tunnel is, in fact, in doubt and may not get built as it is a very costly undertaking, we are also prepared to say that this. .will be available for other transportation improvements that can connect the project to downtown Palo Alto. Finally, a new benefit that we are prepared to propose, which arose out of the fact that I am on the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce and I have become aware that the Chamber is talking about rehabilitating the train station. That is going to be a major undertaking. There is A:lPCMins81pc1029.dff Page 8 10-29-97 seismic work. There is HVAC. Among the things they are talking about is that they will be renovating the existing pedestrian tunnel under University Avenue, but they do not have anybody to renovate the tunnels on the other side, the Holiday Inn side of University Avenue. Speaking with Susan Frank, the President of the Chamber, they are estimating $15,000 per side of University Avenue to renovate those tunnels, which I believe includes increased lighting and perhaps opening up some ventilation, that sort of thing, and we believe that there is, for our project, a very clear nexus and a very clear benefit both to us and to the public, so we are prepared to contribute what we believe to be the cost and a comfortable cushion of $20,000 for capital improvements to the existing University Avenue tunnels. We see both a very clear nexus and benefit to us and to the community in this manner, so we are prepared to propose that. If.I may now turn to some of the specific comments that you raised at our previous meeting, Commissioner Beecham had inquired about the tree selection, particularly at the corner of Wells Avenue and E1 Camino. In our meeting with the Architectural Review Board, they had no issue with the tree species, and I would also add that it was selected based upon the recommendation of the city arborist. There are also some limitations with respect to the notion of putting a larger tree at the corner. First of all, this corner is indeed where we are hoping t’o locate the public art. So therefore, we would not want it to be lost beneath a large, leafy tree. There are also some overhead lines running along El Camino Real which will limit the height of the tree that we select, so therefore, we respectfully desire to retain the species as selected. Commissioner Schmidt raised the question of a connection to the downtown and also about the back side of the hotel. I think our upgrades to the existing hotel addressed that, and our contribution toward a University Avenue tunnel works in that regard. I would also point out on the elevations that the hotel really has no rear side. The elevation facing south towards the clinic is virtually the same as the elevation facing the existing hotel and downtown. Even the elevation that looks back over the existing white warehouse building is detailed, and we have windows along otir corridor that overlook the roof of the building. So all of our elevations are detailed, and I think we have tried to make as little of a back door for the new project as possible. Chairman Schink asked for comment regarding the location of the building with respect to El Camino Real. You can see that in fact, the existing buildings are closer to E1 Camino Real than the proposed building, and furthermore, our buildings at E1 Camino Real are two stories. You do not reach our four-story building until you get to this point, which is actually_139 feet away from E1 Camino or to this point, which is approximately 110 feet back from E1 Camino. Given that there are also other buildings, such as Robert Krohn Shoe,s, the Palo Alto Pet Hospital and the clinic along E1 Camino, it is our view that it is appropriately located, and the Architectural Review Board also felt that the design was compatible and attractive. I believe Chairman Schink asked about continuing the connection to Town and Country Village. We are doing the best that we can with respect to the sidewalk that starts from University Circle and continues in front of the existing hotel.. We will continue that in front of our property. We can only go as far as Wells Avenue, but we do have a continuous connection. I think one of our A:lPCMins8[pe1029,drf Page 9 10-29-97 plans may have overlooked that, but we do have a sidewalk all the way through, so there will be a nice path until you get back to the existing sidewalk in front of the Palo Alto Pet Hospital. That summarizes my comments. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you have. Also, our architect, Don Sandy, is here to respond to any questions you might have. Commissioner Byrd: You may have addressed this previously, but are there any signage plans for the new project, or will people identify it by the signage on the existing hotel? Mr. Chen: We have not developed specific signage plans. We do expect there will be some signage, but that would be something we will resubmit for architectural review at the appropriate time. Chairman Schink: I have a question on the transient occupancy tax figures that you provided us. Is that j_ust for the addition? Mr. Chert.: Yes, that is only for the new project. We are generating about $1.5 million right now from the existing hotel, so that is pure incremental occupancy tax. .Chairman Schink: So your combined contribution from both hotels would be close to $2.5 million? Mr. Chen: That is correct. Chairman Schink: We will now hear from other members of the publi.c. Irv Brenner~ 250 Byron Street, Palo Alto: I am here to express my concern about this project for two reasons. One is the traffic, and the other is the so-called public benefit. I was involved with the project on Lytton, the Jim Baer project at 360 Lytton, involving the issues there and the public benefits that it entailed. The project there asked for an increase of 9,000 square feet. The public benefits equated to about $350,000, more or less, and that over some objections from the public. They thought it still was not quite adequate. We have this perception that we are giving away zoning at very cheap prices. Now, the public benefit that Mr. Chen has described here is woefully inadequate by those standards. I add up the numbers, and I come to something like $250,000 to $300,000, to be generous, for a 105,000-square-foot expansion. Based on other comparable projects and smaller projects, this does not even compare in terms of what we should be getting back for what we ar giving. This is an enormous expansion. I think the Planning Commission and ultimately, the City Council, should expect to get a fair return, and something that the city can indeed call a public benefit. I also have an objection to the project because of its location. It is a huge 200-room expansion located between the two busiest intersections in the city -- Embarcadero and El Camino, University Avenue and El Camino. The medical clinic is coming in, and the Sand Hill expansion will further disrupt that general area with traffic? I cannot see how anyone could imagine putting A:lPCMins81pe1029.drf Page 10 10-29-97 a large hotel at that location. I believe that when this project was first.proposed, I don’t remember, maybe I am wrong about this; but I think Stanford has since proposed a hotel at the Page Mill Road/El Camino intersection, which was not on the radar screen when this first came up. So if we are talking about a shortage of hotel rooms, I believe the Cabafia has now come on line, and I think that Dinah’s Shack, is it not, is also converting to a hotel, again after this project was first proposed. The developer claims a need for more hotel rooms. I think we can always build more hotel rooms. There are plenty of good locations for them. It is just that this location is one of the worst. I personally would like to see the city expect developers of projects to pay back what they are getting. In this case, it is an enormous zoning variance both in terms of the project size and the height limit exception. I hope you will examine that situation very carefully. Thank you. Chairman Schink: We will now return to the applicant for concluding remarks. Mr. Chen: IfI may respond briefly to the comments just made, with respect to height limit, we are within the 50-foot El Camino Design Guidelines. So we have not violated the height limit, and we are of a comparable height as the medical clinic next door. I would like to note that although the Cabafia is indeed reopening, it is doing just that. It is reopening. It is bringing back into service ultimately 200 rooms that used to be in service. They are not new rooms. The Dinah’s project is also of a relatively small size, insignificant when you consider that our hotel is going to run approximately 90% occupancy for the year, and indeed, all of the hotels in Palo Alto are running at an occupancy in the high eighties. With respect to public benefit, I believe that I have enumerated the benefits. I don’t believe it is a question .so much that the zoning is being sold for the right price as to whether the public benefits are appropriate and whether the project is appropriate. I think we have put together a sound package. I sympathize with the first comment made in Oral Communications that there does need to be a nexus and a connection with respect to public benefit. We have tried to find areas where there is that nexus and to do what we can. We believe it is an excellent package for the community, both from the public benefit as well as the overall community benefit point of view. Chairman Schink: Are there any further questions? Commissioner Schmidt: I vei’y much appreciate your addressing the questions that we had from the previous hearing. On one of the questions I had at that time I would like to ask for a little more clarification. It was not that there are bad sides to the building, as it always looked like it was very well detailed on all fagades, but rather, could there be physical entrances into the building from Wells Avenue, from nearer the railroad tracks and closer to downtown, just to make it easier for people to get into the building. The entries are concentrated right at the comer that is closest to the existing Holiday Inn building. Mr. Chen: You are right about where the entrances are located. Due to the site constraints, it was difficult for us to provide access from Wells. There will be two-way traffic on Wells. The A:lPCMins8lpc1029.dff Page 11 10-29-97 medical clinic anticipates that there will be some service traffic to one of their buildings that is along Wells, and we will also be having service traffic, and we felt that it was best that to the extent that the property has a drive entrance, it is only from E1 Camino. Since it is intended to work with the existing hotel, we felt that people would likely be driving up to our existing main entrance and checking in there, so we provided an entrance here which we felt was very accessible from the main lobby, as well as the restaurant area. We have not provided any sort of public entrance here. We felt that this was rather far removed from our main facility. The pedestrian and bike path that will be built will be coming along here, so it is not very convenient to get to our property at this point. Therefore, we felt it was best to concentrate our exposure to the public up here. Given the fact that we have separate land ownership for the existing hotel, which belongs to Stanford, leased tb the city and subleased to us, as.opposed to the new project, we have had to wrestle with a few of those constraints. So we have not made any progress or changes in that regard. Commissioner Schmidt: So for example, ifa person were staying in the last module next to the warehouse facility, and they wanted to walk to downtown Palo Alto, they would walk to the front corner of the hotel, and then back and across. Mr. Chen: Yes. We also feel that for security reasons, we do not want to have a very porous property. Chairman Schink: If there are no further questions for the applicant, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Commissioner Beecham: I have a basic question for staff. We have a letter from Menlo Park, and they have questions on our traffic study, in particular. I wonder if staff could respond, either in general or specifically, to these comments? Mr....Schreiber: The transportation staff reviewed the letter. We disagree with a variety of items in the letter, and we did not find anything in the letter that would cause us to want to go back to expand or redo the traffic analysis for this project. They raised concerns about the traffic consultant firm. This project has been handled according to normal city practice for projects. The consultant was selected on the basis of our satisfaction. We approved the consultant., and the work was approved by the city. We do not forward traffic analyses done by consultants for particular projects until we are satisfied that it is acceptable to us. There were a variety of technical questions regarding this and Sand Hill Road. I can go into some of those, if you wish, but again, suffice it to say that we did not find anything in reviewing their letter that would cause us to want to change or expand upon the analysig that you have been given previously. Commissioner Schmidt: I have a traffic-related question. In the traffic mitigation fees that are discussed for the Holiday Inn, reference is made to the Page Mill/El Camino intersection, saying that 6nce there is enough money, work will be done to add turn lanes, etc. Would that work at Page Mill and E1 Camino be one project such that it would include the work that was discussed A:tPCMinsSlpe1029.drf Page 12 10-29-97 recently at the City Council in relationship to the condominium project at Sheridan and Page Mill? Mr. Schreiber: Yes, the wcirk that could occur at Page Mill and E1 Camino (and I underline "could" because there is no approved project at that location), but if.the mitigation measure goes ahead to improve the level of service at that location, it would involve a variety of turn lane movements. One of those is associated with the project that the commission reviewed last month and which the council recently approved, that is, the residential project in conjunction with the former Linus Pauling site. Commissioner Schmidt: I would note, since I was the commission representative at that council meeting, that various members of the council expressed the desire to not have additional lanes at E1 Camino and Page Mill. Chairman Schink: Perhaps Ken could best answer my question. One of the concerns I always have in loold.ng at these projects is, would I approve a project like. this, regardless of the public benefits? In looking at this one, I find the one area that I would have the most concern or reaction to is the size of this building in this location. I would like your feedback as to how you feel this is appropriate. What makes it appropriate here on El Camino in relationship to the medical foundation? Then the other question becomes, why not on the carwash site? Mr. Schreiber: The carwash site is on the other side of the medical foundation between the medical foundation site and Town and Country Village. Let me start by noting that it is very important, from the city staff‘perspective, thatthe fundamental project is consistent with what we consider to be city land use policies and objectives and planning for the area. You can have for a particular project the world’s greatest public benefit package, and maybe a very good design, but if it is the wrong building, if it is too large, if it is out of place, staff‘will recommend denial. So there is an initial screening that a project has to pass through, and that is fundamental planning acceptability. Then you go on to look at public benefit and more detailed design issues, etc. For this project, which I will contrast with the areas along Encina, the site is located between the medical foundation and the Holiday Inn. The Holiday Inn is a large structure with substantial FAR. The medical foundation will be a 50-foot-high structure with an FAR of 1:1. So you have an area along El Camino that essentially has been approved and is occupied by fairly large structures that have a relatively strong relationship to the road, especially the medical foundation, and now, this project. So we found, in terms of the context of the overall planning for the area, that this project would fit in quite well. If you look at the properties at Encina and El Camino,~ we do not have that. There is nothing in city policy that would support a significantly higher density in that type of location. The discussions that have occurred with the Draft Comprehensive Plan (and I will note that we do not rely on the Draft Comprehensive Plan as it has not yet been adopted) but certainly the discussions involving Town and Country Village have mirrored the discussions in the Citywide Study in the late 1980s that Town and Country Village and that area A:lPCMins81pe1029.dff "Page 13 10-29-97 should retain its existing density and scale and appearance, its ambience. So for the Encina area, you do not really have any basis to say that the higher density and more massive building layout that you have from the foundation on up to University Circle would be appropriate. If someone came in and talked about sites in that area, that is the advice I would give them, that staff would not support higher density buildings in that area. There is no policy basis for us to do it, but we think that between the approval of the medical foundation, the historic approval of the Holiday Inn, the relationship to the train station, walking distance from the station certainly for this site, that this is a different situation than Encina. That is the conclusion we reached in terms of our initial review of this project that it would be acceptable from a land use standpoint. Then we went on to the public benefit package and the design issues. Chairman Schink: Thank you. That was very helpful. Mr. Schreiber: Let me add one 0ther,thing, as there is another factor that was present in this consideration. It is not a first-line factor, but it is an important one. A hotel has a significantly lower traffic generation rate than most other non-residential uses. That is both daily traffic and peak hour traffic..While I do not have the specific numbers with me, I know that our calculations in the office indicated that if this site we are looking at tonight were dev~eloped consistent with the existing zoning with any number of retail uses that are allowed as permitted uses under the zoning, you would have a higher traffic generation than you would with the hotel. So it is important not to equate size of building with traffic generation, because the use is very, very important. Ira building of this size were an office building, for example, it would have a very high traffic generation, and that would be a significant problem. In this case, we have a traffic generation that is, in fact, better than what we could get under existing zoning with an active retail use compatible with the underlying zone. That was part of the staff thinking in terms of the acceptability of this use in this location. Chairman Schink: We are now ready for discussion. Commissioner Beecham: I am happy to start talking about the project. I think what we have in front of us is a project that goes along with what Jon had indicated earlier as being a good project regardless of any public benefit requirement. We have seen the project before, and we did not have any comments at the commission level earlier, in good part because this is a very nicely designed project. Ken has reminded us that on the traffic, this has a favorable traffic impact compared to other applications, and the traffic runs more or less counter to peak hour, which is especially important in this corridor, Ken has also indicated that this type of use is very appropriate in the corridor and fits in with the general business needs and community needs in that area. There was a question raised earlier in the public comment about the need for hotel space in the city. Just speaking for myself, we run a business in downtown Palo Alto, and we have people coming in, and it is sometimes difficult for them to find places to stay anywhere within Palo Alto. We find that we need to send people up to Redwood City or down to San Jose, as those are the A:lPCMins8[pc1029.drf Page 14 10-29-97 closest places we can find on a short-term notice basis. One other aspect of this is that probably the only reason we are considering this is because it is next to the existing Holiday Inn. That complicates the situation in assessing the appropriateness of it, basically. One tends to look at the adjoining parcels and say that this is an appropriate design and they go together and that the overall FAR is not that bad, etc. However, as the applicant explained earlier, there is separate ownership of the two parcels. One cannot plan on what is going to happen between the two in the future. They may be entirely separate in the future. What we have coming before us tonight on this separate parcel is, in fact, a very high FAR. I can hardly imagine other places in the city where we would consider allowing something like this going in at such a high FAR, except that it fits in this location. So as we get into the conditions, we always have to find that the parcel is extrao.rdinary in some fashion. I think that in this case, it clearly would be. One area where I still have some significant concern is in the public benefit. There has been other discussion tonight as to whether it is enough, and how should it be done. We had one member of the public early on talk about how public benefit ought to be just in dollars, and that’s it. I am entirely on the other side of the equation. I think public benefit has to be something inherent for the community. Ideally, they are inherent in the project. It is probably not favorable to the community to simply have a bottom line where there is some negotiating, and then the developer writes out a check and hands it in and says, there is my public benefit. I don’t think that is where the city ought to be going. In this case, most of the notable public benefits are financial. One can say that it is a public benefit that we need more hotel space, and I agree on that. One can say that it may be a public benefit in that this is a nice design, but I think it ought to be a nice design anyway, so I would not put that down as a public benefit, but I am glad it is a good design. At any rate, I am very much troubled by the public benefit, but I do not have any other good options. I am in a position where I feel that it is an appropriate project. I think it is good for the community. It does vastly exceed what the zoning standards are for this area, but I cannot think of what would be a public benefit that fits within the nexus that we used to talk about on public benefit. It has kind of gone away in the past five or ten years. With that, let me see whether my fellow commissioners have similar feelings. Commissioner Byrd: I happen to think this is a terrific project. It is well designed; it is much needed. It is in the right place, and I think its mass is consistent with its surroundings. I think the. applicant has shown a great sensitivity architecturally, and he will be meeting a substantial need in the community by delivering the additional hotel ~ooms. So my comments will be confined solely to the public benefit package, because I am so enthusiastic about the project on its merits. I do not believe, in principle, that the transient occupancy tax should be considered a portion of the public benefit package, per se. I think it is extremely significant, as Commissioner Beecham sfiid, as to those other public benefits ,which may not be a part of the package but which still accrue to the community, and there is no denying that a project that is going to throw off" close to a million dollars in tax revenues is a very significant project to this city and one that is welcomed. A:lPCMins81pc1029,drf Page 15 10-29-97 But as soon as we acknowledge those revenues as a portion of the public benefit package, that is the slippery slope to the fiscalization of land use. I think we should be making our land use decisions based on use and design, secondarily on the content of the public benefit package, but not on whether or not it is a revenue generator for the city, as attractive as that is. I think that will lead us to conclusions on projects that, in this case, may be appropriate but which may not be appropriate in other cases. If you remove the transient occupancy tax calculation that the applicant provided, and you are right, we do have to work in dollars here tonight, because that is the nature of the package, I add up the remaining benefits -- the Wells Avenue improvements, the meeting space, the public art, the contribution to the tunnel or other transportation improvements, the University Avenue tunnel -- at $316,200. In my mind, that is what I have to weigh as the public benefit package and consider whether or not it is appropriate for this project. Given this project’s scale and impacts, I think there is still some room to improve the public benefit package. My suggestion would be that the contribution to what the applicant described as the tunnel or transportation improvements be more narrowly defined to be the tunnel and/or "pedestrian" transportation improvements, because I would like to seethose dollars narrowly focused. It is not clear that we are going to get a tunnel. If we do not get a tunnel, those dollars need to go to something else, and I would like to see them pedestrian-oriented. On that basis, you can then suggest that a higher figure of perhaps $200,000 as opposed to $110,000 might then be appropriate. The applicant provided a perfectly reasonable basis for the $110,000 on the square footage calculation offthe medical foundation. I agree with you that your clients will be less likely to use the tunnel, due to its orientation toward Homer Avenue. But that puts too close a focus on the tunnel, and in my view, not enough focus on the fact that that portion of the public benefit package is for pedestrian transportation improvements, which we hope will be a tunnel, but may not be. So on that basis, I would want this package to be reformulated to include an increased contribution toward those pedestrian improvements and to exclude the transient occupancy tax on a policy basis. That would then be, in my mind, an adequate benefit package for this project. I come back to where I started, which is that this is a terrific project, and one that I hope gets built. That is where I am at. Commissioner Schmidt: I agree _with many of Owen"s comments about the merits of this project. I also agree with the idea of trying to make better pedestrian connections with downtown as something Which really is a public benefit. I have a question for staff. I want to make certain that I understand that the transient occupancy tax has been recognized as a public benefit on the earlier Holiday Inn project or on other hotel projects? Mr, Schreiber: The generation of transient occupancy tax was part of the public benefit package for an expansion of the Holiday Inn in 1988. The application actually came in in 1986 and was approved’in 1988. Mr. Chen is correct. At that time, it was an 8-1 City Council vote to acknowledge the transient occupancy tax as a public benefit. A:lPCMins81pc1029.dff Page 16 10-29-97 Commissioner Schmidt: However, I agree with Owen’s discussion that I would prefer if that were not recognized as a public benefit, and that other benefits that directly relate to the project and to the public be put in place. I do like the addition of the thought of improving the existing tunnel. I think lots of people use it already, and to improve both sides of that will make it a much more attractive pedestrian connection. That is one of the great reasons for doing this hotel at this location. It is close to downtown, close to the train, close to the shopping center, and close to Stanford. People can use their feet to get around, or even on bicycles. Perhaps you would want to have some bicycles available for people to use. I think this is a good project. As I mentioned earlier, the design of it is a clever- design on this site, really making an attractive project. I still will continue to lament that we Still get mostly Spanish type buildings, although this is an attractive Spanish building, a Mediterranean type building, but I would hope we would get some more variety in Palo Alto in terms of nice design, akhough this is a nicely designed building. Chairman Schink: I would like to return to stafffor a minute and ask if you could explain, in a PC application, we have a public benefit package, and it is my understanding that the applicant puts forward the public benefit package, and it is then up to us to act upon that. So as a Planning Commission, if we were sitting here and we were not finding it, as it sounds like there is some concern about the adequacy of that public benefit package, maybe you could explain to us what our options are at this point. Ms. Cauble: Under the PC zoning ordinance, you are required to make a recommendation, among other things, of finding that the project contains a benefit to the public. If you are unable to make that finding, based or/the project before you as amended this evening, then you should be voting to deny the project. You have made many comments on the project, and all of those will go forward to the City Council, but your alternatives, if you have concerns about the public benefit not enabling you to make the required finding, would be to recommend denial on that basis. You certainly could give the.applicant an opportunity to respond to the commission’s comments in that area, if you want to reopen the public heating to allow the applicant to respond to issues raised by the commission. You certainly can do that. Chairman Schink: IfI choose to reopen the public hearing, would it be appropriate for me to also give Mr. Brenner an opportunity to comment? Ms. Cauble: I certainly think that would be appropriate. Chairman Schink: It looks like we are having some trouble with the public benefit. Should we give the applicant ann opportunity to talk about this, or do you want to talk about it some more as a commission? Commissioner Beecham: I will make another comment or two. In the proposed ordinance before us as Attachment #3 in our packet, staff has not included the transient occupancy tax, so that is A:lPCMinsSIpe1029.drf Page 17 10-29-97 something that was indicated by the applicant as a benefit but was not one of the five benefits that staff is formally listing. Mr. Schreiber: If it was not, it was a mistake. It should have been included as a public benefit. Commissioner Beecham: In that case, I support the omission. I earlier commented, and I support. what Owen said tonight, that an occupancy tax, to me, is not a public benefit. Ms. Cauble: It is in there on Page 2 of the ordinance. Item (b) at the top of the page lists the staff recommendation on what public benefits are offered by the project.. Item (ii) is the item in question. Commissioner Beecham: In that case, I would delete Item (ii). I do agree with Owen that the tax will certainly accm. e to the city and will benefit the city, and one can certainly decide many ways to spend that money over and over again, but in terms of a public benefit for the purposes of what we are considering tonight, I would not list that. That would be my recommendation to the council, in spite of their previous action on this. To go beyond that, I think all of us inherently support the project, ifI am reading this right, and I would say that I am in the position of supporting a good projec~ for the wrong reasons. It is a good project, and it is appropriate there. I do not know what are better, more appropriate public benefits that would have a true nexus to this project. We certainly have worked out things to be very financially based. One thing I do not want to do, and Owen, I think, began to say that this is not a financial decision, but then he added up the numbers for us very carefully, and I do not want to do that, even though that is our only option. But if one were to ask how much weight should one give to a public benefit, how heavy should it weigh before it is appropriate to the impact on the citizenry for a certain project, I would say that in this project, there is not much detriment to the public. This fits so well, so on that end, I would say that the weight of the public benefit does not have to be in any particular proportion to a ratio of any other program we have seen. Whether it is on a square foot basis or an FAR basis or anything else, that is a game I do not want to begin, and in this case or any case, it is not appropriate because we have a bit of an apple and an orange here. Commissioner Byrd: I hear you saying that you know it when you see it. I don’t know what else to do except to reduce it to the numbers. If it is the commission’s pleasure, I would like to invite the applicant to respond to this thought. I think what you are heating from all of us is that even with the deletion of the transient occupancy tax receipts on a policy basis, the package is still roughly adequate, and the question is whether you would entertain alternatives to what you have proposed on any of those specifics. You know I threw out that alternative on a contribution to pedestrian transportation improvements that might provide a package that would be adequate for the impacts that are envisioned by this project. You do not have to respond if you do not wish to do so. Please do not feel pressured by my request. Chairman Schink: If the applicant wishes to respond, we need to reopen the public hearing. A:lPCMins8tpe 1029.drf Page 18 10-29-97 MOTION: Commissioner Byrd: I so move. SECOND: By Commissioner Beecham. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: All in favor, say aye. That passes on a vote of 4-0. Mr. Chen now has an opportunity to comment on our discussion. Mr. Chen: Thank you. I appreciate all of the discussion of the public benefit. Clearly, my sympathies lie with some of the statements of Commissioner Beecham that the project itself has a lot of inherent merit. I firmly believe, first of all, that the package we originally proposed was a good and appropriate package. I believe that the increase of the contribution for the tunnel is the maximum that one can, at least, rationally say. Beyond this now, we are going beyond rational and off into another direction. Let me remind you that I have added another $20,00Ofor pedestrian-type improvements with the specific designation for the University Avenue tunnel. With respect to the request to limit the contribution for the tunnel for pedestrian improvements, that I am perfectly willing to do. I don’t know whether the commission favors that more restrictive limitation or a broader interpretation. I guess I pick the broader interpretation under the impression that it would give the city more latitude, which might be more appropriate. However, if the commission desires to limit it to pedestrian-type improvements, I am perfectly happy to accept that. With respect to the magnitude of the contribution, the original proposal was for $50,000. At this point, we are at $110,000 plus $20,00, for a total of $130,000.. I think this is the maximum amount for which one can come up with any arithmetic to justify. Nevertheless, if it would help the commission balance the scales and feel that it is more appropriate, we would at this time be willing to increase our contribution for the pedestrian tunnel aspect to $150,000. We would still retain the $20,000 for University Avenue, and the other elements would remain as is. We believe that this firmly puts the thumb on the tough side of the scales for an appropriate public benefit package. Chairman Schink: We will now give Mr. Brenner an opportunity to comment further. Mr. Brenner: Thank you. First, let me be clear. I am not opposed to the project, either. I think there is a need for more hotel rooms in the city. If this is an appropriate place, as determined by staff, that is fine. The point I am raising is simply this. Ifa project is built that is so far over the allowed zoning as this one is, either the project should be scaled back to conform to the zoning (or exceed.it in a much smaller way), or the public benefit should be proportionately large. The reason this is important is because when other developers see you .giving, as Commissioner Byrd pointed out, $312,000 of public benefit for a 105,000-square-foot overage, they are going to say, "Why not me? I am only building a 30,000-square-foot office space, so why can’t I get away with $30,000 of public benefit, or $40,000?" That is a legitimate argument. Thepoint I am trying to make here is that there has to be some consistency. I also agree that public benefit is not purely A:lPCMins8[pe1029.drf Page 19 10-29-97 dollars and cents. There has to be a real public benefit that may not be monetary, but in this case, most of it is monetary. It involves direct costs to the developer, and it should be equated in dollars and cents. Finally, I also agree that the transient occupancy tax should not be. considered a public benefit simply because logically, it does not make sense. Furthermore, if that were true, then every retail business that pays taxes should also be allotted that public benefit. When they are doing a project, whatever tax payments they make to the city are equivalent to an occupancy tax. I know that is slightly farfetched but in a direct way. So that is where I stand on this. I am not trying to stop the project. I am only trying to keep it reasonable, one way or.the other. Thank you. Chairman Schink: I will now close the public hearing again. Does stafffeel that there is a clear understanding of the applicant’s revision to the public benefit? (Yes) Then it is appropriate for us to return the item to the commission. MOTION: Commissioner Bwd: I would like to move that we recommend council approval of the mitigated negative declaration, finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if the conditions of approval are imposed, and secondly, we recommend that the council approve the proposed project for construction of the new, 194-room, five-story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements based on the attached findings and conditions, with the following modifications: That the public benefit package be modified so that the reference to the tunnel be made a generic reference to pedestrian transportation improvements, including a possible tunnel beneath the traintracks; secondly, the . applicant’s contribution to those pedestrian transportation improvements be increased to $150,000; and thirdly, that the transient occupancy taxnot be included as a portion of the public benefit package. Also, the $20,000 for the University Avenue tunnel south side improvements be included in-the public benefit package. SECOND_: By Commissioner Beecham. Commissioner Schmidt: I have one small question. On the first page of the drat’t conditions near the bottom, it talks about protecting two oak trees. It seemed to me that it said in the stat~f_ report that there was just one oak tree to save, and it was not necessary to save the other one. Mr. Lee: I believe there are three oak trees on the site, two of which would be saved and one needing to be removed. Commissioner Beecham: i would like to return just one more time to the question of whether there is some appropriate cost per square foot, as I believe Irv Brenner was indicating. I think that is entirely the wrong way for the city to go. There is certairdy no value throughout the city of exceeding square footage, and in the downtown area, there are other considerations that are vital. One is parking. Another is traffic congestion, etc. There are very differentconsiderations of what going over the zoning means in the downtown area versus on El Camino versus in some small residential-commercial area. So #1, I don’t think we could find any universal figure for the city, A:lPCMins8lpc1029.drf Page 20 10-29-97 and #2, I certainly would not want to even begin to try and apply that on a broad basis to say, if you want to avoid our zoning, here is the going rate. As it turns out in this whole process with public benefit, it turns out being somewhat negotiated. Ba-ck in the the former days, public benefits were easier because they were smaller. We have gotten a lot more sensitive to the impacts of exceeding zoning, and the public benefits that we look for are much more significant than they used to be. So it is much harder to say that the public benefit is going to be a little bit of a yard, or I am going to put a patio in here, something basically simple. We have gotten much more demanding in what we are looking for, but it is hard to find things that justify those requirements. So that is one comment I wanted to add tonight. Commissioner Schmidt: You might call this a plug for future applicants. It is nice that many projects now incorporate a piece of public art. It is typically a piece of art that goes on a corner or in a courtyard, etc. One of the ideas that came out of a workshop last year that the Public Art Commission sponsored was to involve an artist in the design of the whole project, right along with the architect and landscape architect and all of the other design professionals who are involved, to make art an integral part of the building. I would hope that sometime, future projects will begin to do that. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Bialson, Cassel and Ojakian not participating. Mr. Schreiber: This item is now scheduled for the November 17th City Council meeting. Commissioner Byrd: Mr. Chair, I will not be present for the remainder of the meeting. " A:lPCMins8lpe1029.dff Page 21 10-29-97 STEPHEN M SCHMIDT MAYOR BERNIE NEVIN MAYOR PRO TEM ROBERT N BURMEISTER COUNCILMEMBER PAUL COLLACCHI COUNClLMEMBER i CHUCK KINNEY i COUNCILMEMBER PARK R E C r’. ~ gAttachment D 701 LAUREL STREET/MENLO PARK, CA 94025-~3483 / 650.858.3380 / FAX 650.328.7935 September 23, 1997 Chandler Lee City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Negative Declaration for the Proposed Expansion of the Palo Alto Holiday Inn Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Holiday Inn, located at 675 E1 Camino Real. Although not fully described in the Negative Declaration or Initial Study, the City of Menlo Park understands the proposal to include a 194-room expansion of the existing Holiday Inn. The expansion would be constructed to the southeast of the existing hotel and would be comprised of five, five-story tall buildings offset from each other and separated by landscaped courtyards. In addition to the guest rooms, the expansion would provide for 2,768 square feet of meeting space, 3,584 square feet of ~estaurant and lounge, administration offices, exercise facilities, including a swimming pool, and two levels of subterranean parking for 197 automobiles. This information was obtained previously by the City of Menlo Park, but was not included in the Negative Declaration or Initial Study. In addition, ,we question the thoroughness of an environmental document that does not provide a location map, project plans, or a stated public review period. The project site is located a little more than one-half mile from the southerly boundary of the City of Menlo Park. The project’s location directly on El Camino Real will potentially result in wide-spread traffic impacts in Menlo Park. The City is concerned that the environmental analysis was limited to a Negative Declaration. These concerns are based on the following issues. The Traffic Impact Analysis report for this project was prepared by a Traffic Consultant hired by the property developer. Is it the practice of the City of Palo Alto to have the property developer hire the finn to prepare the Traffic Impact studies? That raiseg a number of questions about conflict of interest. Printed on recycled paper Chandler Lee Proposed Expansion of the Palo Alto Holiday Inn September 23, 1997 Page 2 bo The trip distribution for the Holiday Inn project (attached) varies greatly from the trip distribution identified in the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects. For the Stanford project, Palo Alto staff strongly echoed the belief that all of the project traffic was going to head west to Interstate 280 via Sand Hill Road. The Holiday Inn traffic study assumes a more even distribution between eastbound and westbound traffic as highlighted in the attached diagram. Which traffic distribution is correct? A couple of intersections show significant delay differences between the Holiday Inn Traffic Analysis and the Stanford Sand Hill Road EIR. These intersections are El Camino Real/Alma Street and University Avenue/Middlefield Road. The El Camino Real/Alma Street intersection under scenario 2 has a 40 second delay in the PM peak under the Holiday Inn analysis and a 22 second delay under the Sand Hill Road analysis. The University AvenueiMiddlefield Road intersection under scenario 2 has a 29 second delay in the PM peak under the Holiday Inn analysis and a 24 second delay under the Sand Hill Road analysis. Which analysis is correct? It is .likely that some streets in. the City of Menlo Park will experience significant impacts due to anticipated volume increases from the proposed development. The Negative Declaration does not provide su. fficient information to determine if there are.any significant traffic impacts at signalized intersections along the primary City of Menlo Park transportation corridors of Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real and Middlefield Road. The intersections that should be analyzed include Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and Alpine Road/Junipero Serra; Willow Road/Middlefield Road, E1 Camino Real/Cambridge Avenue and E1 Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue. The City of Menlo Park has defined significant impact of development in its General Plan with the following four (4) policies. II-A-1 Level of Service D (40 seconds average stopped delay per vehicle) or better shall be maintained at all City-controlled signalized intersections during peak hours, except at the intersection of Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road and at intersections along Willow Road from Middlefield Road to US 101. II-A-2 The City should attempt to achieve and maintain average travel speeds of 14 miles per hour (Level of Service D) or better on E! Camino Real and other arterial roadways controlled by the State and at 46 miles per hour (Level of Service D) or better on US 101. The City shall work with Caltrans to achieve and maintain average travel speeds and intersection levels of service consistent with standards established by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan. H-A-3 The City shall work with Caltrans to ensure that average stopped delay, on local approaches to State-controlled signalized intersections does not exceed Level of Service E (60 seconds per vehicle). II-A-4 New development shall be restricted or required to implement mitigation measures in order to maintain the levels of service and travel speeds specified in Policies H-A-1 through II- A-3. Chandler Lee Proposed Expansion of the Palo Alto Holiday Inn September 23, 1997 Page 3 It has been determined that any additional traffic to a City-controlled signalized intersection at LOS E or, F, and any additional traffic on a local approach to a State controlled signalized intersection at LOS F is a significant impact in the City of Menlo Park and must be mitigated. The City of Menlo Park has a strong and sincere interest in further development that is likely to have a regional impact, especially an impact on traffic. For this reason, we would request that our comments and concerns be forwarded to the Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council and that they be given serious consideration prior to acting on the proposal. We urge a more thorough environmental analysis, especially regarding traffic impacts. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the above comments, please feel free to contact either Don Dey, the City’s Transportation Manager, at 858-3363 or me at 858-3400. Sincerely, Arlinda Heineck Chief Planner C:Menlo Park Mayor and City Council Jan Dolan, City Manager Bill McClure, City Attorney Don Dey, Transportation Manager v:/ltrmemo/1997/a~h/pahinn 6% STANFORD UNIVERSITY []PROJECT SITE PALO ALTO HOTEL Figure 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chair BARBARA GROSS Glendale Federal Bank Chair Elect RiCK STERN Stern Mortgage Company Vice Chairs TONA" CARK~SCO Carrasco & Associates PATRICIA KUNZ Stanford Park Hotel N&NCY PETERSON Roche Bioscience PAUL WRIGHT JM Perry Corporation Past Chair JEFFREY L. VAILLAN~r lectric Power Research Institute JANE ALHOUSE GEE Mhouse,King Realty JIM BXLBONI Otis Elevator BETSY BECHTEL Citibank CLEMENT CHEN Ill [oliday Inn Palo Mto / Stanford MIKE COBB Mike Cobb Associates GEORGIE GLEIM Gleim the Jeweler LARRY HORTON Stanford University CHARLES J. KEENAN III Keenan Land Company, JEANNE LABOZETrA ’amily Services Mid-Peninsula JOHN LAZAR Cornish & Carey JANET R. LEDERER ’alo Mto Medical Foundation DAVID LONGBINE Stanford Shopping Center DAVE ROSS Jack & Cohen Builders, Inc, RiCHARD H. SCI~ARTZ Attorney at Law KRISTIN SEUELL Pete’s Brewing Company PETER TABER Hobee’s Restaurants President & CEO SUS&N E. FRKNK October 29, 1997 Palo Alto Planning Commission City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Department of Planning and Community Environment re: Hotel Expansion--675-695 E1 Camino Real Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Board of Direc[ors to express the chamber’s support of new hotel space in general in Palo Alto, and the chamber’s support specifically of the proposed hotel expansion of the Holiday Inn (soon-to-be a Sheraton, we understand). The Government Action Council and Board of Directors of the chamber have both reviewed the proposed project and wholeheartedly endorse and support it. The healthy local economy and corresponding increase in business and corporate travel create a strong need for additional hotel accommodations in Palo Alto, and at the same time we understand that planned redevelopment may decrease the number of rooms available. Building hotel rooms in Palo Alto will mean fewer cars traveling into and out of Palo Alto from hotels outside of our community. The Holiday Inn’s proposal to provide meeting space to non-profit organizations at no charge is a significant public benefit, and one which also reduces travel outside of the community for meetings. The Transient Occupancy Tax revenue of nearly $1 million is substantial, and it will be a great aid in maintaining and enhancing the services that make Palo Alto a special community. ~ We are also excited about the proposed contribution for capital improvements to the existing University Avenue underpass pedestrian/bicycle tunnels on the Holiday Inn side. The tunnels are an important connection between Downtown and the Holiday Inn/future Palo Alto Medical Clinic, and we enthusiastically support this proposal. For your information, the chamber--in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University and several transportation agencies--has been investigating rehabilitation of the University Avenue Train Station and adjacent structures, including the tunnels. --continued-- 325 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301-2515 415/324-3121 Fax: 415/324-1215 page 2 We anticipate that it would cost $15,000 per side (north and south) to renovate the existing University Avenue underpass tunnels. In fact, th6 northwest tunnel (closest to the station) is currently undergoing improvements as a result of the chamber’s collaboration with the organizations mentioned previously. Renovation of the northeast tunnel is pending, and we would greatly appreciate the Holiday Inn’s contribution of $15,000 for renovation of the tunnels closest to the hotel (southwest and southeast). The proposed hotel expansion has substantial and meaningful public benefits to Palo Alto, and fills our desperate need for more hotel rooms. We urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Susan E. Frank President & CEO