HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3499
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3499)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/8/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Mings Site and Design Permit Extension
Title: Approval of Record of Land Use Action Approving a Request for
Extension of a 2010 Site and Design Review Approval to May 2014 for the
Hotel Project at 1700 Embarcadero Road (Mings Site)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment
A) approving a one-year, final extension of Council’s April 12, 2010 Site and Design Review
approval for the Ming’s hotel project located at 1700 Embarcadero Road.
Background
On November 4, 2009, in response to a recessionary based decline in development activity,
Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 5061, Attachment F) allowing extensions of permits
approved before June 10, 2010. Council’s adopted Extensions table is below on this page, with
table footnotes following:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements
Effective November 4, 2009
Table 1 (Revised per COUNCIL action) Time Extension – Permit Life
Permit Type Current Code Requirements Ordinance
Initial Permit
Life
Allowed
Extension(s)2
Automatic
Extension
Additional Maximum
Extension2 Permit Life 3
ARB, DEE, CUP, VAR, IR,
HIE, NPE (no automatic for
historic incl. potentially
eligible)
1 year 1 year 1 year after
allowed
extension
1-year
extensions by
Director with
findings GREEN
BUILDING
Up to 4 years
unless
associated
with a Vesting
Tentative Map
Site and Design Review
(not automatic for historic)
2 years
unless
associated
with a
Vesting
Tentative
Map
0 1 year after
allowed
extension
One extension
by Council after
PTC - one
additional year
GREEN
BUILDING
Up to 4 years
unless
associated
with a Vesting
Tentative Map
Planned Community
(not automatic for historic)
Per
development
schedule
1 year 1 year after
allowed
extension
One extension
by Council after
PTC - one
additional year
GREEN
BUILDING
Up to 3 years +
timeline in
development
schedule
1. The ordinance applies to column one permit types valid from ordinance adoption through June 30, 2010.
2. Project applicants must apply for any extension (except automatic) prior to the permit expiration date.
3. Maximum permit life may be acquired through a combination of initial permit life, allowed extensions, additional
extensions and automatic extension.
The proposed project received three discretionary permits: a variance allowing the building to
vary from “build to” lines; a rezoning from Planned Community (PC) to Commercial Service with
Design Review Combining District (CS(D)) by Ordinance and Site and Design review approval. In
2012, staff extended the project’s Variance approval allowing the building to vary from “build-
to” lines. Council’s rezoning decision does not require an extension because it is not a PC. The
Applicant is requesting an extension of its Site and Design Review Approval which was granted
on April 12, 2010. Under Ordinance 5061, Site and Design Review Approval Extensions must be
recommended by the PTC prior to Council approval. Council’s approval of the extension would
result in a total permit life of four years, with commencement of construction by April 2014.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Existing Site and Context
The project site is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road.
The project site is approximately 2.5 acres and contains a single 15,180 square foot restaurant
occupied by Ming's Chinese Cuisine & Bar with associated parking and landscaping. Most of the
existing site is paved or occupied by the 25 trees on the site. The site is surrounded by office
properties on all sides and across Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. All surrounding
properties are zoned ROLM(E)(D)(AD), except for one adjacent Planned Community (PC) zoned
property to the east. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Service Commercial.
The project site was rezoned to Commercial Service (CS)(D) by Council in April 2010. It had been
rezoned previously from LM(D) to Planned Community (PC Ordinance 2378) in 1967 and revised
by resolution number 2491 in 1969.
Project Description
The existing Ming’s building will be demolished and replaced with a four story building
containing 117,814 square feet containing 147 guest rooms, a restaurant of approximately
5,602 square feet, a small amount of retail (87 square feet), a small gym (541 square feet),
one level of underground parking, and a new surface parking lot and landscaping. The
maximum height of the building is 50 feet. The building form steps up and back from the
corner of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. Facilities for 166 parking spaces include
90 spaces in one level underground and 76 surface parking spaces, located in front of and
around the sides of the building.
The hotel main entrance is accessed via East Bayshore Road and features a cantilevered
porte-cochere. Visitors can also take a left when entering the site, to park in front of the
restaurant entrance located closer to the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East
Bayshore Road. This building corner will open into the central pool courtyard as the building
height steps up and back. Garden terraces would be located above the second and third
floors. Plan sets are provided to Councilmembers only.
Summary of Land Use Action:
In order to grant such an extension, the City Council must find that the project would not
adversely affect public health or safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable
Zoning Code or Comprehensive changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the
original application was deemed complete, and may otherwise adjust project conditions to
address minor changes. These findings can be made as there have been no substantive zoning
changes in this area. The applicant intends to move forward with hotel construction prior to the
2014 expiration of the extended Site and Design Review approval.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On March 5, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission unanimously (on a 7-0 vote)
recommended that Council extend its Site and Design Review Approval one additional year.
Meeting minutes are provided as Attachment B to this report.
Policy Implications
This is the only request that has been received, pursuant to Ordinance 5061, for extension of a
Council Site and Design Review Approval and the only extension request that has required PTC
and Council review and action. Other extensions of Director’s decisions have been approved at
the Director’s level and have not required PTC review and Council action.
Comprehensive Plan
The new hotel and restaurant will support the Comprehensive Plan goals, which encourage
private property owners to upgrade commercial properties in ways that will support the City’s
economic base. The 2010 Council report cited Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program Goals L-
71 (strengthen identity of important gateways) and Program T-57 (bike path and planting next
to Embarcadero), and the 2010 RLUA also cited Goal L-1, Policy L-9, Policy T-1, Policy T-23,
Policy B-2 and Goal B-3.
Resource Impact
The applicant will be required to pay development impact fees and other fees in place at the
time of building permit issuance. This action does not result in payment of such fees at 2010
levels.
The project will yield the City additional net annual revenues in the form of property taxes,
sales taxes, utility user taxes, and transient occupancy taxes, estimated in 2010 in the $570,000
to $697,000 range. One-time revenues would include (2010 estimated) impact fees of
approximately $2,204,000.
On the expenditure side, the project’s additional hotel patrons will create additional demand
for City services, but these will be offset by the developer impact fees and transient occupancy
taxes mentioned above.
Timeline
The applicant notes that investors are poised to begin the project in 2013 and only needed to
have the assurance of the extension to move forward.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration for this project was adopted by the Council on April 12, 2010.
Courtesy Copies
Stoecker and Northway Architects
Vicky and Wu-Chung Hsiang
Attachments:
Attachment A: 1700 Embarcadero Road Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes, March 5,
2013 (PDF)
1
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT APPROVAL NO. 2013-____
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 1700 EMBARCADERO ROAD: FILE
13PLN-00016, EXTENSION OF COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE
AND DESIGN REVIEW (Extension of Site and Design
Review Component of FILE 09PLN-00175)
(Stoecker & Northway Architect, Inc, APPLICANT)
On April 8, 2013, the Council approved the requested
Extension of its Site and Design Review Approval for a new four-
story hotel and restaurant, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On November 12, 2010, City Council approved the Site
and Design Review and Variance applications submitted July 29,
2009, by Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc., on behalf of Wu-
chung Hsiang & Vicky Ching, for construction of a four-story hotel
and restaurant with one level of underground parking and associated
surface parking and landscaping (“The Project”) (Exhibit 1, Record
of Land Use Action 2010-02). A request for extension was filed
January 14, 2013, to extend the Site and Design Review Approval for
an additional, final year, in accordance with Ordinance 5061.
B. The Request for Extension of the Variance to “build-
to” requirements has been granted in accordance with Ordinance
5061.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed
the extension request on March 5, 2013, and recommended approval of
the extension.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project was
subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was completed, a
Draft Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for this
project in accordance with the CEQA requirements, and a Notice of
Determination was filed at the County of Santa Clara following
Council action on the project applications. Topics discussed in the
review included aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic, and
expected impacts were noted as less than significant with
implementation of standard conditions of approval and state and
local requirements.
2
SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings
The following Site and Design Approval Findings were adopted by
Council for the prior approval of this project:
1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a
manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with
existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The project is designed for a hotel and related uses and
incorporates a site layout that is comparable to the existing
building and compatible with surrounding uses. Specifically, the
hotel would be located on Embarcadero Road, adjacent to office and
automobile sales facilities and the proposed building is situated
on the site in a similar manner. City standards and regulations
will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site would
be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the existing uses
located in the immediate area. During construction, it is expected
that there would be temporary impacts to the area in terms of
construction-related noise, dust/debris and traffic. These impacts
would be addressed by applicable City construction standards, such
as restrictions on hours of construction, the City’s noise
ordinance, and the mitigation measures found in the draft Negative
Declaration.
2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the
conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other
authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
This site is designated for Service Commercial land use in
the Comprehensive Plan, and is proposed to be rezoned to the
Service Commercial zone district. It is surrounded by one and two-
story office buildings. The replacement of an existing single story
restaurant building with a new four story hotel and restaurant
should not reduce the overall functionality of the immediate area.
Hotel and restaurant uses are expressly permitted in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land
use designation and help to support employment uses and revenue
generation in the City. The proposed hotel location also provides
easy access from State Highway 101.
3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design
and ecological balance shall be observed.
The project would replace a disturbed area on the site,
which is currently developed with a restaurant and surface parking
lot areas. The project would increase the number of trees on the
site and provide for enhanced landscaping and open space and comply
with the requirements in the Baylands Master Plan for compatibility
with the Palo Alto Baylands. Green building features would be
incorporated to achieve LEED Silver compliance. This application
was subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and it was
3
determined that, as detailed in the Negative Declaration, there
will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the
proposed development.
4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Service Commercial per
the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project
for rezoning from Planned Community to Service Commercial, and
construction of a new hotel and restaurant is consistent with the
land use designation. The project is also consistent with The Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace
existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are
more competitive and better serve the community. The commercial
properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting
for pedestrians. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are
incorporated into the Draft Record of Land Use Action.
SECTION 4. Site and Design Approval Granted. Site and
Design Approval is granted for the project by the City Council
under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070, subject to the
conditions of approval in Section ___ of this Record.
SECTION 5. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Stoecker &
Northway Architects, Inc. titled 1700 Embarcadero Road, consisting
of ___ pages, dated _______, revised _____, and received ______,
except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in
Section ___. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of
Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in
Section ____ shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
The same conditions of Council approval in Exhibit 1 shall apply to
the extended Approval (Exhibit 2).
SECTION 7. Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction
of the project is not commenced within one years of the date of
council approval of the requested extension, the approval shall
expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.82.080 and Ordinance 5061.
SECTION 8. Indemnity Clause
4
Add this
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by _____ titled “______”, consisting of ___
pages, dated _____, (revised ______), and received ______.
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
March 5, 2013 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
Extension of Council Approval of a Site and Design Review Application for a Hotel at 1700 7
Embarcadero Road 8
9
Chair Martinez: Ok. We shall resume the public hearing of Planning Transportation 10
Commission (PTC) and first we’ll start with closing the public hearing on the last item. Let’s 11
open the public hearing on Item Number 3. And this is, I have to recite it now; request for 12
extension of the Council approval of site and design review approval for a hotel at 1700 13
Embarcadero Road. We’ll begin with a staff report. 14
15
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, 16
once again. Staff does recommend Commission recommend Council approval of the draft 17
Record of Land Use Action, Attachment A. This would allow a one year final extension of the 18
Council’s April 12, 2010 site and design review approval for the Ming’s Hotel project at 1700 19
Embarcadero Road. 20
21
The extension would be in accordance with the ordinance that Council adopted on November 4, 22
2009, in response to a recessionary based decline in development activity. This ordinance, 23
Ordinance 5061 is Attachment F to the report. The table was included in the body of the report 24
to show you the range of projects, planning entitlements that could be extended through this 25
ordinance. So it allowed for extension of permits approved before June 10, 2010. As you can 26
see we’re near the sunset of this ordinance because this approval that’s being requested to be 27
extended was April of 2010. So we only have a couple of more months where this ordinance is 28
in effect. 29
30
So the applicant does have a presentation and there are project plans available, but there are no 31
changes to the projects the applicant will be presenting. You can see the map on the screen there 32
shows the site and the surrounding area context. And staff’s available for questions. So let me 33
call up the applicant’s presentation. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: Can I do a point of order please? 36
37
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: Yes. Is this a quasi-judicial item? And if so should we declare any 40
contacts? 41
42
Cara Silver, Sr. Assistant City Attorney: Yes, thank you. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 43
Attorney. I was going to wait until the end of staff’s presentation and then it would be 44
appropriate to do disclosures. As it is a quasi-judicial item. 45
46
Chair Martinez: Fine. 47
48
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 49
2
1
Chair Martinez: Ok, before you begin John. We are as a quasi-judicial item Commission is 2
required to disclose ex-parte communications. And Commissioner Keller, yes? 3
4
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I have seen Vicky Cheng at Ming’s several times and she asked 5
about this project and I didn’t talk about the substance of the project, but I did say that it was 6
possible to get an extension and she should talk to the staff about that. 7
8
Chair Martinez: So if we’ve eaten at Ming’s. Anyone else? Yes, Commissioner Alcheck. 9
10
Commissioner Alcheck: My assumption just off what our Planning staff said is that this is going 11
to be a very similar presentation to the last one. I’m wondering if we anticipate having a lengthy 12
discussion about this project with respect to the extension or if maybe we can forego the 13
representation of the exact same design discussion because this is not, this is sort of just an 14
extension of a permit. I’m wondering if we need to go through that. I’m curious to know if 15
people anticipate having a long discussion? 16
17
Chair Martinez: As part of disclosure the applicant did meet me outside and said that he’s 18
amenable to just requesting the extension and not making a presentation. It was at our pleasure 19
which we prefer. And related to that I was going to ask our counsel what’s our purview here? 20
21
Ms. Silver: This has been noticed for a very limited purpose. It’s just a request to extend the 22
entitlement permit and the applicant is not asking for any design plans or any additional 23
entitlements at this stage. It’s just a very limited area of inquiry. 24
25
Chair Martinez: So can the Commission request changes of the applicant or not? I’m not saying 26
we’re going to do that, I’m just trying to follow with what Commissioner Alcheck has said and 27
kind of limit what we’re focused on. 28
29
Ms. Silver: It hasn’t been noticed for any design changes. You can probably put some conditions 30
on the extension request that are not substantive in a way that would elicit public testimony. So 31
we would want to comply with the Brown Act in terms of noticing the public and allowing the 32
public to come out and talk about substantive changes to the overall project. But there could be 33
some sort of ministerial administrative types of conditions that you could consider under this 34
item. 35
36
Chair Martinez: Ok and the applicant now. You have up to 30 seconds. 37
38
John Northway, Stoecker & Northway: John Northway, Stoecker & Northway. I’m happy to say 39
nothing more except we would like the extension because the financing world has gotten better. 40
And I’m happy for you to vote and we can all go home. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Ok Commissioners do you have questions? Commissioner Panelli. 43
44
MOTION 45
46
Commissioner Panelli: I don’t see anything particularly controversial with this. I don’t think 47
we’ve had any substantive change. Well there’s no change in the project. I don’t think there’s 48
any change in sort of how we want to plan the City. Extending this for another year to me, this 49
3
seems almost like a consent vote type item. So I’m going to make the Motion now to, I’m going 1
to move that we approve the extension. 2
3
SECOND 4
5
Chair Martinez: Recommend approval of the extension? Ok, we have a Motion to recommend 6
approval of the one year extension and a second by Vice-Chair Michael. I take it you don’t want 7
to speak to this Motion, you’re ready to vote? 8
9
Commissioner Panelli: The only thing I’m going to say is if anybody’s opposed to this I want to 10
hear why. 11
12
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck, do you take that challenge? Ok. I did have some 13
questions of the applicant. What happens after a year? Things do take time. Is there a Plan B? 14
15
Mr. Northway: Well in talking with Amy if the year, the year extension as I read in here is final. 16
And I believe that we would, everything that I’ve been told by the owner is that he has two 17
people who are ready to finance him and basically they just want to make sure the City approval 18
is intact. We’re ready to start the construction documents. If for some reason that doesn’t 19
happen then it’s my understanding we’d have to go back through the site and design process 20
again, which we don’t want to do. We’re incredibly optimistic that this is going forward. But 21
you know the world out there and God knows what the sequester will do. So we’re cautiously 22
optimistic. 23
24
Chair Martinez: Ok, before you sit down. You’re aware of the golf course project. 25
26
Mr. Northway: Only what I’ve read in the newspaper. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Right. And so at a previous hearing the Commission has suggested the hotel at 29
Ming’s would be a great addition to what’s being planned for the golf course and I think we all 30
support that. Would that suggest any kind of changes or anything that if you were starting 31
planning now you would do differently or you believe it just sort of all falls into place? 32
33
Mr. Northway: I don’t think it would cause us to make any changes, no. Everyone’s happy with 34
the design and we’re just getting ready to execute it. 35
36
Chair Martinez: Ok, very good. It was really more informational for us than questioning the 37
logic of it. 38
39
Mr. Northway: I’m sure a better golf course might bring in more people to occupy the hotel so 40
that would be a good thing. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Yes. Maybe you don’t have enough rooms. Anyone else, comments? 43
Commissioner Keller, yes? 44
45
Commissioner Keller: So first of all this is exactly the kind of reason why the ordinance that was 46
for allowing extensions was put into place in 2009 so it’s good to see that this is being used to 47
good effect. I vaguely remember this as being a hotel that people would stay at for some time 48
and I’m wondering if there, what we decide in terms of whether the units would qualify or not 49
4
towards our, not Below Market Rate (BMR), but towards our Association of Bay Area 1
Governments (ABAG) housing requirements. Are there kitchens or anything like that or what 2
do they qualify? 3
4
Mr. Northway: I believe in the language of how this was approved, people can’t stay there for 5
more than 30 days. If they’re there for more than 30 days it questions whether you can collect 6
the hotel occupancy tax. So they are restricted to not, no one can stay for more than 30 days. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 9
10
Mr. Northway: So I don’t think it would help out with the housing allocation. Amy’s shaking 11
her head, so I think I remembered correctly. 12
13
Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: That is correct. They don’t qualify as a unit under the state, or 14
a housing unit under the State code. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: Ok, thank you. Just figured I’d check with that. Thank you. 17
18
Chair Martinez: We’ll give them concessions. 19
20
Ms. Silver: By the way we did try and HCD rejected that argument, but we tried. 21
22
VOTE 23
24
Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Ok, we have a Motion to recommend approval of the extension, 25
the one year extension and it’s been seconded by Vice-Chair Michael and all those in favor of 26
the Motion say aye (Aye). Ok. The Motion passes unanimously and thank you all very much. 27
And let me just add for our Assistant Planning Director this doesn’t mean you can add a fourth 28
agenda item last time. We were lucky. 29
30
MOTION PASSED (7-0) 31
32