HomeMy WebLinkAbout0158.093t .
-
Febcu.ry II, 1993
HOI!CRABlE ClTV COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
._-----------
3400-3460 E1 C,minc ~ea1 and 554-556 Matad,ro Avenue: Application for
Zone C~ange to Apply the Revised Hotel Ov~rlay Zane to a Portior. of the
Creekside Inn Prcpert~
Members of the (ouncil:
Report in Brief
This report forwards tfie reconmendation of the Planning Commission on an
application for a zone change to apply the hot~T overlay zone to a loS-acre
portion of the 3.3-acre Creekside Inn property. The loS-acre portion of the site
t~at would recelve the hotel overli!Y z~n.e is on the East side of Matadero Cree~
and is zoned Service Commerci.1 (CS) (APN 137-08-72, 137-08-84, .nd a portion of
137-08-83). The app1ieant nas indicated an intention to redevelop the ea,t side
of tne site in two phases. Tne first phase would be to modernize the exterior
of til. tower building (APN 137-08-072) and to expand the guest rooms by capturing
eXlsting balcony space. The second pt.asE would be to demolish the remt.ining
buildfngs eut of the creek. and construct a new hotel building(s) with an
e~hanced entranc~ ind lobby.
aackground
The hotel over1ay zone is intended to provide an lncentive for existing hotels
to e.lCpand or remodel. Currently. the hotel {:lye-rlay zone modifies the regula.tions
of thE Ser-vice Co~ercial (CS) District to permit hotels to develop up to iii 0.6:1
floor a.rea ratio (FAR). An agendi! item which is being continued to April 19,
1993 for furthe~ environmental review is tne Planning Commission recommendation
to increase the FAR to l~~ (maxlmum) in the hote1 overlay lone. Staff is recom
mending eYe:'! further relaxation in the FAR is a folTowup to the Gruen Gruen +
Associates study. Approving a hotel overlay on this prop!rty will increase the
potential FAR en the subject portion of the site to 0.5:1, the current hotel
overlay allowance.
Planning C~JmI~ssion Action
At the January 27, 1993 P1anning COlTlTlission meeting, ttle Planning Commission
vcted unanimously, with Commissioner ~arsh and Commissioner Glazier absent, to
CMR:158:93
-'---;;;..
8
--.
o
recO£mend City Council ad{)ptiorl of the negat';'.;e declal'ation :3if1d approval of the
requested zone change to apply the-hotel overlay zone to a portion of the
Cre~kside Inn propert~. Minutes of this meeting are included in your Council
p • .;~et.
1. The propused zone change is in ti'.e public intere-st, because without the
increased FAR, it Is likely that rehabil itatlon of the aging facility will
be precluded.
i2. The proposed zone change \fou1d neate no s.ignificant adverse environmental
effect, in that there would not be sigl'1ificant tnffic impacts; and
effects rel.ted to aesthetics, nois.e, light and glare would be mitigated
through the use permit and site and design process.
3. The proposed zone chaj~3e ~s consistent .... ith Policies 5, 6 and 7 of the
Urban Design [le~ent of the Compreh~nsive Plan.
Becornnendation
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council, based on the findings
above, adopt tbe attached negative decl.l,ration and approve the reqLlested zone
change to apply the revised hotel overlay zone to a portion of the Creekside Inn
Site.
Respectf~'ly subeitted,
'R~S~
ROBERT SCHUBERT
Planner
I"JN~~
U , FLEMING
City Manager
Attachments: Ordlnance
~nxtd:f,j~
KENNE1H R. SCHREIBER
Direttor of Planning and
Community Environment
Envi ronmental Impact Assessment
9/22/93 Planning Commission staff report
Plans (Council f-i.::mbers Only)
cc: Applicant
Barron Park Association
CMR;158:93
~"'.~"'-·"-<c;·~~
~~~-~
2/11/93
Page 1
•
\
\
---------------
o ORD.!NA1"'C~ NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CCmCIL O=F-T"'H"E"""'r"_I"''l'Y (>F PALu ALTO
AMENDING SEc'TION 9.08.040 OF THE ?AW ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE tTl ZONING MAP) 'I'(j CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF 1 ?ORTICN OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN
AS 3400-3460 EI, CAr-~O REAL AND 554-556 1"".ATADERO
AVEN't"'E (CREEKS ~DE rNJ'-4) FROM CS 'r'O 'CS O .. iJ
WFrEREAS. the Planning Co.mmission, after duly noticed public
hearius held J&nuary 27~ 1993, has recomrr.ended that section
18.08-.040 [the Zoning Map) of t~e Palo Alto Municipal Code be
amended as he~einafter set forth; and
~ttEREAS. the City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendation .. finds that the proposed amend.:nent is in the public
interest and will promote the public health. safety and welfare.
NOW~ THBREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the ~Zoning Map·, is hereby amended by changi~g the ~onjng
classification of a portion of that certai~ p~oper~y y~own as 3400-
3460 HI Camino Real and 554-556 Matadero Avenue (also known as the
Creekside Inn.) from Illes Service Corrmercial" to ~CS (HI Service
Commercial Hotel Combining", as 6ho~~ on the map labeled Exhibit
~A·, attached ~ereto and incorporated herein by ~eference.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this project will not
have ~ significant environmental effect.
SECTION.....l. This ordinanc~ shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABS TENTIONS :
A'ITEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk. iV.a.yor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senio~ Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community 2nvironment
•
'.
1-,'
"
.... ----.... ).----I-:S~I;;;TE LOCATION
701 70'f
70S 7""
707 708 ffiHo, -
704 70,'1 ~
~ -:
~~PRUJECT~~~ WI~
NORTH
'. L
"I
•
.-.=---.~~.---~ -"
_ .. -_.-_ . .------.--
Env] r.,nmental City of Palo Alto
BiYll'.ONMtNTAl ASS_l~SMENT
Proj €ct De s(ri pt 101'1/1 i t 1 e: !.MlJ ... ~;:J i on for t e)(.l .. amendment _.1JL '-on iJl.fL.Qr1i.~ .. ~.r.~
<SectiQn lB.4B.0401.nto increase th.l:'_.::rrDOr area raJjo limiJ.'itj9JLJ~ i~te1JH) e ..... e-rlay ZOlHL a"!d",;On~n,r",e,,q,U'2:;.t 12_j lS!,nP",'Y ttl~ revin,',ed, H O~'crla .. l': r.t? to a portion fAPN n7~08·72.:..Jl2.:1dE·83 ?nd D"l-Oa·S4) of t~~ treehide
nrl prooerty at 341JO. 3460,E1 Camino Re~,'" Land 554)556" ",M, atedero A'{, ~"C, iJe. currenth.j,_Jh~r1av zone is int'E'nded_ to rriodin th€._r..~.~l:~Jations=tiT""thp
Service Comm~ri<CS) District and the: Community CO}Th'C:.erdal (CC) JJj.strict to
perm'. h t~t.'3 develos;l lIQ to iIo .6:1 floorm area n.kic .. The pre-r·se.d
amen m nt would al!o .... the floCll"_._area nt10 lobe increas\1d to Z:trr.axjmlUTIl.:.
£J,!rr nt tie tiQ..t?l overlay zo'!e ha::; beer. apJlned to tl¥Q sites: ~";cru's
H.tt .t 420 -4227 El mino Re.L_and Din,,', Mgtor Lodo! at 42&1-4211TI
Camino . The text change amen.9ment would nincrease the maximum. an.Q.~able
~r arej on t e Rickey's Hya.tt and Dinan's r;~tor lodge sites from .6:Lt..Q
2:1. All inplicat?on has been fiTed to apo1y t~e rsvised H.Overiay Z()n~
1.5 a~!"e PQrtion of the Creeks':;je Inn, prooert)',.", In\~ text o;nanoe ampn.,Qment and
lone change wouid i~c~ea5e the maximum allowable f_oor a.rea_ratio from .4:1 to
gil on ~ha CreeKside Inn Prgperty.
location/Address: Creeks.id Inn 3~Oa 3.i2Q...El Cal!'innc Real and. 554.556
Mated Allenl!Ui R~s Kat 4 07-4227 E~'r:). Rea~)j Din.ah's Motor
o e 4 6 -42]) E1 Camino Rea,) 03.71d a 1"]TopertiE'_ J.!:"'~..li1i. zoned tt and
5_ -,
Sponsoring Agency/Applicant; tJ1Y.of Pa10 ~,1.t..Q
Application for~ Text Amendm~nt to Zoning Ordinance and Zo~e C~anqe
(e.g., zoning change, subdivislon of prop€rty, archltectur~ review, use
permit)
Zwning .at Project Location: CS and CC Fee Receipt No, :92-554(Cri'ekside lrrnl
NOIICE OF DEJERMINATION
Based upon rev1ew" of the project fnes; the ufldersigned member of the Planning
Department has concluded:
IXI
u
Negative Decla~atiQn; The project has ~o s5gnificant environmental
impact. No Enliircnmental Imp.act P.eport ;5 required. nl~ reasons for ;!;
D~c1arat.jon .are:
in the attached 'initiaJ study. A record qJ....Jlrcject actinail is Clvc;it'L~Je
for r~v~ at the .PaJe Altc Phnliir,g Dep;n·tl'!';~ntj located ... _O:7ntLt~h~'::5~:~h'= rroorcf City Hal~.s._..25Q Har.1,rtO)l Avenue. Pii.Ic,.~ CPc g·rlQl.
ThE: project may have a sior,:-:lcant environmental impact. An
Environmental Impact Report wi11 be prep~red.
Planning Department Official: ~ sc.L.~ ___ _
Planning Director: ~Jc4{2--5t;;;;.-P\)\J:.J--,~ Date: ~:30/"f'"-
The projPct has beef1 appro'yea. Date-: -------
The prC'jcct bCls been denier:!.
~evi sed 8/1/79
P'ge J
E~V1RONM[~TAl DOCUMENTS -PALO Al TO
.INtTJ.o..L ST.Y.Qi.* **
r. Project TitlE': Increase the floor area ratlo 1 imft~atiQ.!L 111 the Hotel
iH..L_o.verlay zone from .6: L.1.Q. __ ~
II. Project Description: Text iimelidlT' ... ent to Zoning Ordjnance ISection
18.48,040) to jncre2se!: the floor iil""e.a. ratio limitation in tb ... sJJoteT un
Qyerhy lone and long chan~u_est to aoply th{! revised H O',lerla .... Z_OJ1~
to i1 p~rtion r.~PN 137·08-72~37-C8-S3 ~.1-08-a4) of the Cr~ __ ~
fnn property at 34GD. 3460 n CamiM Re~_1 and 554. 556 Matedero A',Ienl.l€.
Cllrrentl y, the H overlay zon'L.i! intended to modi fy tne regul at lonL.cd
the Servic,:lo CQrr~m:~rchl ItS) DisJtkt a~d the C",orm1l!njh C~mmerc;i3,_L.L.i.U
District to permit hotels to develop up to a .6:1 floor area ratio. The
proposed amendment wquTd al10w the floqr area ratio-1Q ~e increa5€d~q
2:1 (maximum}, Currently. tne Hptel oVt!rlQ_~.rle has been app1ien d....J..Q
two sites: Rick~y'$ ~yatt at 4207-4227 El Camino Real and Dinah's Motor
lGdg€ at 4261-4273 El Camino ReaJ. Tne text cna,,_~_amendment wDuld
;~crease the maximum allowable floor are1!m.Q!l the Rickey's Hyattm_and
D:nah's..11otcr l~ge sites. from .6:1 to 2;1. An application has been
.fi1ed tQ.JP.ply the revised H Overlay Z(1l'le to a 1.5 acre portfonmof the
keekside Inn property. The text change amendment and ?:ona_ change waul d
increase the m~ximJJm a:lawable floor j!re,j. ratio fr:Q1lln.4:1 tc 2:1 on t:'~.
Creekside Jnn property.
fIr. E"nvlronrnental Setting: C( and CS zoned properties a):e primarily 'ocat~q
.along El Camino ReaL with a. smaller number of i:or,es located alona th~
east s,de of San Antonio Road. The tW!L1._ites which curreJ'1Jlv have tnE' ~
Overlay Zone and the site where it is r~quested to __ be_ applied are
cUrrently deve]opea' with hote, ind rel<r:ted u.se_s_. Th-: Rickey's Hyatt
site contains 16.4 a_cres of land with 294,783 square feet_ of existing
floor area {tne eXlst~ng floor area fjl,UO is .47U. The Dinah's Motor
lodge sih contains 4.6 acres of Tand with_62.301 square f-:-et .9nf
fJtlsttng floor area (the exi::;ting floor .area ratiO i~ ._3:11. The LS
acre portion of the Creekstde Inn site wher~--.ib._e H Overlav Zone_1iQ.1IJd be
~1ied contains 3Z.L..~_54 scuare fee-t of exj.stioQ floor are~m (the €Xistir>g
flQar area rat.io is .6: 1).
IV. Environmt!ntal Tmpact Checklist {Explanation of all ·YE--s" answers are in
Sf'ction V')
L Earth. Wi11 the proposal reslJlt in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or cha~ges
in geologic s~b)tructures?
* Adapted fro~ Appendix I, California Guidelines for Implementation of
CEQA, December 14, 1976.
~~ Updated May 1982, June 1983
NO
_X_
-
o
b. Disruptions, displ~cements, compac
tion 01" overcovering of the soil
c. Change in topography ~r ground
surfacE relief features?
d. Th~ destructton, ~ov~ring or modj.
fication Qf a~y unique geologic or
Physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
f. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards su.:h as earthquakes,
landslides, mud slides, ground f~~lure
or similar hazards?
g. Changes in siltation, deposition, or
erosion which may modify the chanr.e1
of a river or the bed of a bay or
inlet?
2. Air. Will the pr{)posal result in;
a. Substantial air emission3 or de
tertorat;on of ambient air qua1ity?
b~ Tne creation of objectionab1e od~rs?
c. A1teration of air movement, w-oisture
tempera ture. or any ch ange ; n t 1 t.
mate, either locally or regionally?
3. ~:.atel"". will tne proposa.l reS'Jlt ir1:
iL Cnanges in absorption rate:s, drai nage
patterns, or tfle rate ana amount of
surface water runoff?
b. Alterations to the coursp or fl{!, .... Df
flo.od waters?
c. Disc'targe into surface ~aters, or in
any alteration of surface water
Quality, inc1uolng but not limjted to
temperature, dlsso1ved oxygen or
turbidity?
d. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of grc~nj ~aters?
1
-',.-
_x_
__ 1_
_1_
_x_
_1_
_x _
_ 1_
_1_
_x_
_x_
." e. Exposure of peoD1E or p~operty to
watEr related hazards such as flood
ing or tidal wawe?
f. C~ange in the quantity of ground
waters, eit~er through direct
addit~ons or ~ithdrawals, or thr~ugh
illtercepti"ns of an aquifer by cuts
Dr e.xcavatianc;!
4. Plant life. Wi 11 the proposal r,sult in:
i. (hange in the diversity of species, or
~urnber of any spec'es of plants (in
cluding tre~St shrubs, grass, crops~
microf7ora and aquatic plants)?
h. Reduct ion {If the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of pl ants.?
c. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to tne normal replenishment of
existing species?
do" Reduction in acreagE of any
agri cul tural cr'Op?
5. Animal life. Wi 11 the proposal result in;
a. Cnange in the diversity of species,
or of any species of animals \birds t land animals inrluding r~ptiles,
f sh and shellfish, benthic organisms,
inSEcts or micr~fauna)?
b. R~duction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animal s?
c. Introduction of new species of
~nlmals into 3n area, or result in
a barrier to the migrat'on or move
ment of anima1s?
d. Deterioration in existl~g fish ~r
ioIl ldl ife habitat?
,. ,
l
•
. --'~.' '
_x_
_1_
_x_
_x_
_x_
_L
./'
~--~--------~----------;-'":';----S7~
o
6. Noise. Will the pr-o;Josal result in:
7.
8.
a. Increases in existing neise lev~l$?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
1...i..9-~_U~nd Glar~. Will the proposa1
produce new light or giare?
land Use will the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land vse of an area?
9. .fnergy/Natu_ra1 Re;;QlJrces. Win th2
proposal resuH in:
)0
a. U5e of substantial am~unts of fUEl
or energy:
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or
require the deve1op~ent of new
sources or energy?
Increase in the rate of u~e of any
natural resources?
d. SUbstanti<.tl dep1etio~ of any nonre
ne· .... abl e natural resource?
B __ Uk of Upset. Does the. proposal
involve a risk of an explos10n or the
release of ~,azardOtJs substar.ces (in
cluding~ but r.ot limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or Tadiati~n) i~
the event ~f an accident or upset?
11. Populatipn.lHousing.
a. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribUtion, density, or growth rate
of the human populatio~ of an ~rea?
b. ",'ill the proposal effect e):lsting
housing, or create a dema~d for
additional housing?
4
•
NQ
_x_
J._
_x_
_x __
_x_
_x_
_x __
x
"-
12, Transportat;on/~irculation. ~ill the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular mo~ernent?
b. Effect:i en existing parking facili
ties, or demand fer naw parki~g?
c. Alteritions to present patterns of
circulat10n or movement of p~Dple
and/or goods?
d. Increase in traffic ~al_ard5 to motor
vehicles, bicyclfsts or pedestrians?
13. E.i!l!l!J; Services. Will the proposal have
an effect ~pon, or result in a need for new
or altered governmental services in any of
the follOWing areas;
i. Fire protection?
b. Polfce protection?
c. School s1
d. Parks or other re~reational
fae; 1 itie.s?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. OHer governmenta1 sendc.es?
14. Util ities. Wi 11 the ,proposal resul t in a
need for new systems, or substantial
aHerat',:ms to the following utilities;
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systel:1s?
c. Water?
d. Se~er or septic tank?
e. Storm ~ater drainage?
5
_x_
_x_
_x_
_x_
_x_
.1,_
_X_
_x_
_X_
J. __
_X_
_X_
" .
/
f. Solid waste and disposal?
15. Human Healt~. Will the proposal resu1t
in:
i. (reation of any hea1tn hazard vr
potential nealth nazal"d (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential
heai th hazards?
16. Ae-sthetics. 'Jill the propo!::al resuTt
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the pvblic; or will the
proposal resu1t in t.'e creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open tc pubic view?
17. Recry-t.i.Qn. 1t'f1) the ~rotJcsal n.s.c1 t
71'1 an impact upon the qval itl' ~r quantity
of existing recr~atior.al opportunities?
18. ~u1tural ~esources.
•. Will the propos.l result In the
alteration af/er the destructiQr.
of a prehistorfc or historic
archaeo7cgical site?
b. \.-111 Ute proposal resul t in ad
Yen:! physical or aesthetic effel:ts
to a prehistoric or nl~taric
bUilding, structure; or obje~t?
c. Does tn~ propos aT have the potential
tc cause a physical c~lnge which
would affect unique cultural values?
ci. Will the proposal restrict eXisting
religiouS or sacred uses within the
~ot€ntial impact area?
\
... L
_x_
_x_
__ x_
_x_
_x_
19. Mandatory Findings of Sj9-njf~[ance.
a. Doe5 the proj~ct have th~ potential to
degrade the q~ality of the environment.
substantially reduce the habitat of a fis~ or wildlife species, cause a fish
or ~ildlife population to drcp below
se'f-~ustiining le~eJs. threaten to
eliminate a plant or ar.imal CiJnmlJi';~'y,
reduce tne number or restrict tr.e
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or el ilTlinate important exampl es
of the major periods of California
history Gr prehistory?
b. Does the proj~ct nave the potential
to achieve snort-te"rm, to the dis
advantage of long-t€r.m, enVironmental
goals? {A short-term ir.pact on the
environment is one which eccurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period
of time While 1{1ng-term impacts win
endure well into the future.)
c. Do~s the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulatively corlsiderable? fA ,pro
ject may impact on two or more
separate resources where th~ impact
on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the
total of tnose impacts on the
environment is signfficant.)
d. Does the project have en .... ircnmental
effects which ~il1 cause substantial
adverse effects on ~uman bEings,eitner
directly or indirectly?
Exp lanat 7 on of • ,Ies· an swers in env i ronmen ta 1 check 1 ; s t.
See attached.
_x_
_x_
_1_
"
"
•
"~-'-
---",~,----,----
Ll..hl Soil. The zo~e tex:t c~angl? would allow additioMT floGf" area to b-c
constructed on the three ho~e1 site~ whicn could res~lt in increised
disruption of soils Safls reports sh~11 be reQwired and mitigation measure~
shall be develQped on i case-by-case basis. All p7ans for grading wauTd be
suoject to City review~
lhe hate~ sites are located in a moderate seismic risk area, subject to very
strong gro~nd sha~lng in the event of an earthquake. All ne~ cDnstr~ction
will be subject to the prollisions of the most current Uniform Bu;:ding Code
(~BCJ, sections of whicn are directed at minimizing s~jsrnic risK and
preventing loss of 1 i fe and property 7n tne event of an eClrtnquake.
~ Air. Additional traffic generated as a result of the revised floo~ area
ratio t:ould resLilt in increased air qualt~y impacts from vehicular emmissions.
The Bay Area A'fr Qualtiy Management D"lstric.t (BAAQMDJ has estabHshed
thresholds for activity levels which produce land US! related mobile source
f:!mhsions. Ar1y hotel project with 200 or more unft~; wC'·uld be re-::uired to
submit environmental documents to 8AAQMD for review. Any air .qual it)'
mitigation measures wo~ld be required as a co~dition ot app~cval under the
conditional use permit process.
lJ..il.19ter. Additional floor area on the hotel sites which receive approval
for the revised hotel overlay Zone cauld result in incr~ased imper ... jo~s
coverage. All plans for drainage would be subje~t to City rev1ew.
~ NQis~. Many of the hotel sites ar~ near residential areas. Explnded
activitles on the hotel sites resultfng from the revised fl~or area ratio
(FAR) could increas! ambient nofse leveT~. Noise from buman vOlc~s 1S not
addressed in the City~s Noise Ordinance. but afly ampl ified music would be
s~~~ject to the ordinance. Such potential sourtes of n.oise would are not
expected to have sfgni·~lcint impacts. However. sensitivity snould be employed
by the City in authorizing and controlling. the scheduling of any outdoor
activities and actfvities using amplifled music, or other types of
amp1ifi!ation on the hotel sites.
1.:.. llg~t and Glare. Redevelopment of the hotel sites with rle~ buildings
and re'iated lmpr{lvements couid increase the amount of llgh'"ing and thereby
,esult in increases in the amount of iig~t and glare generated by the sites.
10 mitigate potential impacts of any hotel overla, zone a~plied to a site
adjacer::t to any residential areas, outdoor lighting should be kept to a
m'nimu~ and all outdoor light fixtures should be directional and 5~f!lded. In
~ addition, no lighting sho~ld be a110wed to spill over i~to adjacent
residential property. Detailed lighting plans shOUld be required prior to
iSsuance of a building pe~mit.
-
1L.. L.u. -'. ·iffi.~. The Transportation Division as;esHd the potential traffic
impacts of increasing the rAR to 2:1 on the Cree~side Inn, RiCKey's ~jatt and
Dinah's Motor Hotel sites. This ~nalysis is based on a ·worst case" scenario,
be(ause I) there are no proposals before the City to add the number of roo~s
used in tne analysis, and 2) other types of de~elopRent constraints (e.g.,
parking requirements, setbacks, height restri~tions, etc.) were not
cDnsidered. As indlvi1ua1 projects are submitted to the city fo~ re~iew,
8
~--~----~----~-"-------
additional trafflc impact a'1alys~s wou1d bE.' rcqu1red. Any traffic-mitigation
measures would be impl~mcnted throug~ the candit10Ildl use permit process
With a 2:1 FARl the additionil number of rooms {·worst case~J were esti~ ted
to be as feliows at the three s!tes (th~ number of room:> W35 e-stimat.ed b sed
upon the ratio of the total e~isting floor are~ on the site to the eAist ng
total number of rooms):
~ddit lonal
Ronms {MaxLmum}
Tri~!:!neration
~lilY PM Peak Ho~
Creekside. !nn
Ri ckey' s Hyatt
Dinah's Motor Hotel
Total
70
767
......ill.....
1,516
610
5,675
~~
13,195
The following i~tErsections and street segments were analyzed:
OregonjMiddlefield
(1 Camino Real/Page Mill
Foothill/Page Mili
Foothil1/Arastradero
San Antonio/El Camino Real
Charleston/San Antonio
Middlefield/San Antonio
Charleston/Alma
Ar.stradero/El Camino P.e.1
[} Camino Real betWEen Arastradero and San Antonio
fist Charleston between £1 Camino Real and San Antonio
1 ,lSI
The Transportation Divjsion'~ assessment of potential traffic impacts
T!sultfng from increasing the FAR to 2;1 at the three sites found that there
would be no s1gnificant.1mpacts. No level of service (LOS) F C(Jnditions would
result (based on today/sf not futl.!re, base traffic conditions). The 9reatE!.t
lncreases in traffit would OCCUr at the following intersections: San Antcnio
Road/El Camino Reali West Charleston Road/San Antonio Road, Middlefield
Road/San Antonio Ro~d. West Charlesto~1 Road/Alma Ayen~e., and Arastradero
Road/El Camino Real. E1 Camin,:, Real averagE daily traffic south of .'
Aras;;'radero Road' would ir.c:rease by approximately 10-15 percent. West
Charleston Road ;verilg':! daily traffi c east of £1 Camino Real wou1d increase by
approximately 25 percent.
~ rt was assumed t~at a IlEW traffic signal would be installed on
-.-"
[1 Camlno-R~al at the sout~ernmost existing RiCKey'S Hyatt driveway. the
existing rnedfan openi1"l9 would be closed, left turns would be allOWEd from West
Charleston Avenue intc the site, and right tur~ls out of the site ~ould bE
allowed onto West Charleston Road. The \l.'est ChClrleston Road access "wc'uld
remove conslderable Rickey's Hyatt traffic from Arastradero Road/El Caminoo
Reil. thus reducing impacts on the operation of this intersection. Hawe\ler.
the West Charleston Road access would t~nd to make (~arlesto~ Road a more
attr~,ctive acceSs to Rickey's. Hyatt to and from Alma Avenue and High .... ay 101.
This access would require widening of West Charleston Road between Wilkie kay
and El Camino Rea1 ne~t. tIJ Ri(key~s Hyatt. The Ridey's Hyatt expar!s.ion could
9
\
,
--~ ... -. --~
.-
o
take place without th~ West Char1eston Road access. However, t~~re would be
mor~ Impact upon [1 Camino Real ilnd the lntersecllGn of Ara.stradero ROdd/El
(amina ~eaJ. E~en without the We~t Char1esto~ Road access, tnere wou1d be no
significant impacts at this intersection.
In orde~ to prQc~ss the increased vclu~e of Teft and right turns witnout
c!luslng long qU~4Jf!s. widenin:J of the intersection of Ara.stndero Road/El
Camino R:eal would prabably be required, particularity adjacent to RicKey's
Hyatt. Th~s would be due to a cQmbination of H,e Rickeyr s Hyatt and Dinah's
Motor Hotel expansions.
The Cre!Kside Inn expans~on aTonoe would have onl,Y marginal impacts upon E1
Camino !:\eal and nea.rb, intersections.
~ (bl Parking. Parking m:eds for hotels will be evaluated on l. case-by
case basis thrcu9h the conditional use permit process.
~ A!stbetics. Aesthetic iSSUES which may ari~e due to arthitectural needs
of ~otel buildln9s lrIiill be addressed' through the Arcnitectural Review Board
process. All exterjor changes to bui1dings or sites must be approved by the
Arc~ftectural Rev1e~ Board. Through their process, the Board wili be able to
assure compatfb11ity with Exf!tfng development. To assure comp~tibl]ity with
e:dsti;1g development. staff can require three dirc-ensionsal models of proposed
projects throu~h the Architectural Review Board process.
doc I
10
~---~~".--~--.. --~---
~ ____________ ~ __ .,,:.-~ __ ~n~~= ... "'--''''''-'''---~------~--
DATE: January 22, 1993
F",O ~HH ! ;<JU
,o,;W ':':'!C1, CA ~4303
TO: PALO ALTO PLANNING COMMISSION
PREPARED BV: Robert Schubert
R&!'ORT :IN PRZ"~ 34:00-3460 El Camino Re_1!Il and 554-556 ~atadero
Avenue (Creekside rnn): Zone change request to apply the revised
hotel overlay zone t~ a portion~of the Cree}:side Inn property at
3400-3460 El Camino Real and 554-555 Matadero Avenue
Environmental Assessment: An Initial St~dy recommending
adoption of a negative declaration
is attached~
Zone District! CS, sarvice Commercial District
File NoS.: 92-EIA-35, 92-ZC-15
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Applicant:
Type of Application:
Dat.es:
SITE INFORMATION
Mark Wilson
3400 £1 Camino ~eal
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
(415) 493-2<111
Zone Chanqe to apply hotel (H)
overlay i,one
Application receiv~d 10-28-92:
Application complete 11-28-92;
Mandatory action deadline 6 month~~
~Nner: Wilson Family , Flamin~o
Consolidated
3400 El Cdmino Real
PalQ Alto, CA 94306
(U5) 493-2411
Assessor's Parcel NumberS! APN 137-08-72, 137-08-84, ana a
portion of 137-08-83
Comprehensive Plan Deslqnatio~: Service Commercial
Existing Land Use:
P:\BS\PCSR\CRY.SDE2.SR
HQtel, market, realty office and two
restaurants
1-22-9)
1
---..... '-
H
II
" ','
-T +H
•
, .
--,,-+---_..:.
o
S~rroundin9 Land Use: Northeast: Service/commercial UEes
souttLE!ast: Service/commercial and
multiple-family residential uses
Southwest: Single-family ~e6identi~1
Northwest: Research use
Existinq Zoning:
SitG Size:
PRCJE CT INFORMATION
~t History:
H~52-1970
December 17, 1992
.fl:2i..ect Descripti.on:
CS~ Service Commercial District
1.5 !lcre
The existing hotel, restaurants, real estate
office and market buildings were constructed
in several ph~ses.
Approval ~as granted by the Architectural
R~view SQard 'ARB) to demolish 36 existing
hotel units on the western portion of the
site and replace -with 3J. new hotel units .
The applicant is requesting a zone change to apply the hotel
overlay zone to a 1.5 acre portion of the ].] acre Creekside Inn
property. The Creeksi~e Inn property consists of five parcels,
two of Which have split ~oninq. The western side of the hotel
site and a portion of the eastern side are zoned RM-1S, a~d tne
remainder of th'=! site is zoned CS. The parcelization and zoning
is further fragmented by the fact that Matadero Creek divides the
site~ The hotel has a total of 138 unit,s, 89 units are located
east of ).Jatadero Creek and 49 units are located west of the
creek ..
The 1.5 acre portion of the site that ..... o-..;ld receive the :totel
overlay zone is on the east side of Matadero Creek and is zonect
CS (AP~ 137-08-72, 137-08-84, and a portion ot 137-08-83). This
section of the properties is cur~ently occupieQ by four
buildings: Se~or Taco, Driftwood Market, a five-story tower
hotel building and the Fresco's Restaurant building. There are
5l existing hotel units on the portion of the site where the
hotel overlay zone would be applie~.
The ,applicant has indicated an intention to develop the east side
of the sit~ in two ph4ses. The first phase ~ould be to modernize
the exterior of the to~er building (APN 137-08-072) and to expand
the guest rooms by capturing existing balcony space~ The second
phase would be to demolish the remaining buildings east of the
creek and construct a new hotel building(s) with an enhanced
entrance and lobby.
Amended 2/~~/9J --changes in italics
P:\BS\PCSR\CRKSDE2.SR
l-22-93
2
R
The western portion of the property (APN 137-08-006, 137-08-82
and a portion of 1J7"'08-a3), ";J.bich is toned RM-1S, is not
includen in the subject application. i.e., the existing F.M-15
zoning would remain4 The portion of the site located ~est of
Katadero Creek is occupied by fO':lr existi~g h.:Jtel buildings
containinq 36 units that will be demolished and replaced ~ith )1
ne~ hotel units, ~hich are und~r a separate application that has
been approv"ld by the ARB. The redevelopment of this
qr-andfathered use was previously di,o;;cllssed by the: Planning
Commission on .July 29, ~992 (th.e background staff report dateo.
July 24 I 1992 is attact.ed).
ANALXSrSI!SSUES
Zone change and FAR
The hotel overlay zone is intended to provide an incentive tor
exis·tinq hotels ~o expand or remodeL currently, the hCltel
overlay zone modifies the regulations of the Service Co~ercial
(CS) District to permit hotels to develop up to a .6:1 floor area
ratio (fAR)4 An earlier agenQa item is the proposed Zoning
Ordinance text amendment, whi~h ~ould increase the maximum FAR to
2:1 in the hotel overlay zone. Depending on the outcome of the
earlier text amendment itertl..-the applicant's proposal will either
increase the FAR on the subject portion of the site to .6:1 or
2:1, as summarized in Table 1. The potential floor areas
rep~esent a ftworst case~ scenario, because 1) there are currently
no development plans before the city to expand the creeksid~ Inn,
anQ 2) other types of development const~aint5 (e.q., parkin;
requirements, setbacks, height restrictions, etc.) ~ere not
considered ..
ABSegIO". P~rcel N~mber'
~ 31-08-72 13'-G-6-S3
Site lor",. 19,.370 .If. f. 23/894 s. f.
EJl:ietinl] FAll L4=1 FAA .4: 1 FlU<
Exlst.ing Fleor Area 23,554 s.f. !O,2CiJ •. f.
Total Floc& At"aa
'With ~6: 1 FAll 11 ,62:'.! iii. f. 14,3.36 B. f.
Additional Flcor Arell
""i~h .6:1 FAA 0 ',0,& ~. f.
Total Floo:: Area
with Z!l .... 38.740 s. f. 41,7138 s. f.
AdOition&l flOOr Aroilll
wit:n 2: 1 y ... 15,186 s.f. 37,528 s .f.
P:\BS\PCSR\CRXSDE2.SR
131-08-84
'Dritt~ood p+rcell
.2:1 I'Ail
4,524 s.f.
11/9~9 a.f.
1,41S s.f.
35,472: s.!.
1-22-93
3
·.-_ .... _--
o
As shoyn in Table I, if the building on the tower parcel .. ,'ere retained
and the properties ~ere not consolidated into one ~arcel. no
additional floor area could be obtained fot' the tOlJer buildiriq 'With a
.. 6:.1 FAR. The maximum additional floor-area on the remaining portion
of the 1.5 acres site 'With a .6:1 FAR ""ould be 11,551. with a: 2:1
FAR} the maximum additiona.l floar area on the entire L 5 acres site
'Would be 73,000 square feet. However, the applicant has indicated an
intent to request consolidating the CS zoned p~operties into one
parcel at the time that development plans are s'.J.bI!litted. Thus, 'Under
a nworst case" sce~ario ~ith a 2:1 FAR, an additional 88,1&6 square
feet of floc!. area could be o.evelcped, as sho'Wn in Table 1.
Alternative Zoning Approaches
There are two alternative zone change r~quests that the applicant
considered and rejected prior to filing the subject application.. One
alterna.tive ..... as the PC, Plann-ed COmI!lunity District, .... hich would set
its o~n development parameters. Under PC zoning, develop~ent plans
must be submitted at tha time the application is filed. The applicant
decided not to pursue this alternative primarily because financing for
a coropreher.sive hotel rr::model became mOore. difficult to obtain, making
phased improvements necessary. Prior to investing in de.velopment
plans, the applicant 'Wisbe" to dE!'terrninE. the maximum allo'Wable amour.t
of developmer.t possible, avoiding the risk of preparing drawings ~hich
... ".ere unacceptable to the eommunity~ Pro"iding public benefits in a
ph~$ed scheme was also problematic.
~nother alterative c~n5idered by the applicant was to request that the
property east of Matadero Creek which is zoned RM-15 (i.e., APN 131-
08-006 and a portion of IJ7-08-83) be rezonea to CS with the hotel
overlay zone.. Under this alternative, a Comprehensive Plan ~mendment
would also be req1lired to change the land use desi;nation of the RM-15
zonad property from Multiple Family Residential to service Comme~cial~
If the RM-15 property is not rezoned, it may not be redeveloped ~ith
any more than the existing 10 /990 square feet of floor area, under
current qrandfath~r provisi?ns. If the property wer& rezcned, the
entire port~on of the site east of Matadero Creek ~ould be within the
cs District .,ith the tl.':>tel overlay and a total of 59.776 square feet
of additional floor are~ (maximum) could be developed, ~ith a 2:1 FAR.
The applicant decided not to pursue this alternative because it would
be di.t!icult to obtain approval to rezone property from residential to
commercial, due to the impacts of loss of residential zoned land.
Impacts Upon Resident ial~ Are_as
A single-family residential area is located west of the site and t~o
story apartment buildings (Matadera Apartments} are loc~ted to the
south, across Matadero Avenue~ Expanded activities on the site
resulting from the increased rAR hav~ the potential for increased
traffic, aesthetic (particularly fro~ additional bujlding mdssing),
noise, light and glare impacts. However, since the RM-lS zoned
property on the soutnwestern portion of the site serves as a buffer
between the single-family re~idential neighborhood and the hotel use,
the expanded acti .... ities loioIJ.ld have a r,inil't'o1'lo1 impact upon the nearby
single-family neighborhood.
P;\BS\PCSR\CRXSDE2.SR
1-22-93 •
,
"
-. --«
The five-story hotel tower building is located across Matadero Avenue
from: the two-story 1"I'atadero Apartrr.ents. The existing t<:) .. ·er blJildinq
is nonconforming in terms of t~e height limit. The existing building
is approximately 45 feet ntgh ("ornp'Ired to a J5~fcct he._i.ght limit in
the CS District~ Therefore, even "With a 2:1 FJ'.R, the building .massing
across from the apartments .... ·ould not be any more intense than the
existinq to~er hvtel develcpment~
Specific aesthetic issues, ~hich may arise due to the architectural
needs of any ne~ or remodeled hotel bLJildings, \0;"11 be addressed
through the site and design revie ..... pr<:)cess. To .... ssure compatihility
with existing development, statf could r-eqilire a three-dimensional
model of the proposed project at the time any significant
refurbishment i9 proposed.
Other potential impacts upon the residential areas, including noise~
light and glare, ~ill be addressed at the time that development plans
are submitt.ed. Tr.e need for mitigation would be evaluated through the
site and design revie~ process.
Traffic
The Transportation Division assessed the potential traffic impacts of
increasinq the FAR to 2:1 on a 1.5 acre portion of the Creekside Inn
site. The analysis concluded that the Cr-eekside Inn-expansion would
have only a marginal impact on El Camino Real and the nearest
intersections (see the attached environI:l.ental assessmentJ. Should the
text a .... endment t\l the hotel over-lay zone not be approved, and a .6~1
FAR continues, the traffic impacts would be ccnsiderably less
siqnifi~nt.
Comp~ehensive Plan Consistency
The ?bjectives of the Comprehensive Plan considered ~ost pertinent to
this request are the followi~q:
1~ Urban pesign Pol~ -Encourage rehabilitation of aging retail
ar-eas to keep them economicallj' healthy.
2. Urban pesign Policy 6 -Upgrade standards for El Camino j Midtown,
and the Circle and Al~a areas ~f Downtown~
3~ Urban Dgsian PoliG~ ~ Strengthen gateway identity.
The intent oF. the above-listed policies is to keep the City's business
areas attractive while maintaining their economic vitality~ This
request is precisely that type of project. Application of the hotel
overlay zone to a portion of the site ~ill allow tha h~tel to
redevelop and modernize so it can remdin a successful business~
P:\BS\PCSR\CRl<SDE2.SR
1-2<-93
5
:~
o
ENV1ROID!E."lTAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed text chGnge will not have a significant impact on the
physical environment. An envirQn~~~tal assess~e~t rec~~ending
adoption of a negative declaration is attached~
RECOMMENDATION
•
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council find that the project ... ill not :-esult in any significant
environmental impacts, and approve the requested zone change to apply
the revised hotel overlay 20n~ to a 1.5 acre portion of the Creekside
Inn site.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed zone Cha!lge is in the public interest, because
without the increased FAR, it is likely that rehabilitation of
the aging facility will be precluded.
2. The proposed zone change would create nO significant adverse
en-"ri.i"onmental p4"fect, in that there would not be siqnificant
traffic impacts and effects related to aesthetics, noise, light
ana glare would be mitigated through the use permit and site and
design process.
3. The proposed zone change is consistent ~ith Policies 5, 6 and 7
of the Urban Design Elemgnt vi the comprehensive Plan.
Attachments:
e .. 4inaP.<>e NOTE:
~i_-Mal'
b~1'IJItent-al--li!:I~-il.~!'!!!l~t
statement fro~ Applicant
Plan~ing commission Staft Report of 7/24/92
Plans (CommIssion Members Only)
~s Sent To:
Applicant
Bar-ron Park Associatio:r.
P:\BS\PCSR\CPRSDE2.SR
For ordinance. location map and
ETA, see CHP:158:93, datf'd 2/11/93.
1-22-93
6
, ,
•
r, m CREEKSIDE Ir'-JN
'lhis application ooncern5 tr..ree oontiguous parcels, all owned by the
Wilson f3nily I either in joint tenarcy or i.."1 part..r'l"'"-XS."'ti.p. Parcels
137-08-072 and 08~ are zoned O::mrercial Service. Far>:el 137-08-083
is zoned Camercial Se1vice alo:g E.l C&nioo Real a.-Q FM-15 to the
:rear of the parcel. (A fourth rontigu:ru.s parcel, 137-08-006, is also
owned.by tr..e Wilson family, but it is 1X:lt pa.rt of this application.)
parcel s 072 and 083 moke up approxilnately boo-thirds of the Creeksid<!
Inn. OJ...'l"XenUy 011 parcel 084 is a fast-fcod M=x1can restaurant, a
re.al estate offioe, a.'"d a Deli.
By this ,awlication we seek. to ~ 'tiotel OJe.rldY z,''Jning addecl to
,:_. -.! Q:mrercial Service zoned property we own. 'lhis ~tel OJerlay
zoning will provide the fle>dbili ty ..., neEd to reJ:uild the Creekside
Inn in a ma . .-"lIier ",t>..ic:h \'till be nuch rrore attractive and cx::rI"p'O'ti tive
in tcdayts difficult wtel market.
Specifically, our plans are as foll~"S:
1. Q1 par<:el. 083 to = existing buildi.J>;;s aM ,ebuild
n:oJetn, Cl:l'!'lpetitive qUe.'5t rocrns ~
2.. O'l parcel 084 to raze the Mexican restaurant; the n=li
a:.' the real estate office, and replace 't.hem'ioo'ith a
OC"W, special eI!tratv::e &nd lot:by.. '!hi s wi~l create fa::
the Czeekside Inn an en.~ presence on, as "'<ell as
~roIled acces-:; fran. El cami.no Feal, ool1cCI"ldtantly
increas.irq security fa;: the entire Inr. ~
3.. Q, parcel 072 to enlarge existing t stlhst.arrlard ~t
rocrns by capbrring e.v-.i sting ba.1oony space. As thi 5
is ocI"'e, we will rro:3:ernize ard iJq:Jrove the dated
facade of the building r as "''ell :is ~let~ly refurbi:>.'1
t..he inter ict'S of the guest roans.
-' .. ' .
o
The Creekside Inn ......as built in f01...:r phases: 1952, 1958. 1962 ar-.c
~97{l. 'Ihe hospitality i..nr3,..;stry has c!1a .... Sed ru-a.1'.c:tically over the
last forty yea ..... s. '!he travelin::r put'lie is !TOre soohisticate--J,
g\lest ~tions are t.igher. Beco".J.Se of our datE{! facilities,
\ole have lost business to ne-.. .r hotels prcliferati..ng in tlle Sa. ... .Jose
area. Ar-plication of the Hotel Overlay zone to au=-C"l::rnrerch.1 Se...-vice
properties Yill pro\Tide the fl-exibility ~ ncoo to recor.s:truct and
rrodernize the Creekside Inn so it can rerein a ·successful rusi'1esS
aM. a .sou.rr:e of pride for t!:e City of Pale Alto.
Thank you.
t~lJ~
Mark Wilson, Partner
.. --:
•
RMCfs CS TOTAL
PARCEL , BLDG LAND BLDG LAND BLDG I,AND B.!..DC FAR
137-08
-083 1-4 18,186 8,740 23,894 10,260 42,080 19,000 .45
-084 S,6 0 0 19,998 3,740 19,998 3,740 .19
_072 7 0 0 19,370 23,554 19,370 '23,554 1.22
-006 8 11,702 2,250 0 0 II ,702 2,250 ,19
TOTAL 93,145 48,544 .52
BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS:
Duild~ng 1: Fresco Restaurant. hotel lobby and 4 guestrooms. Built, 1957.
Buildings 2,3. &~: 12 gueBtroo~9 each, ftlao built 195~.
Bu;i.lding 5: Driftwood Market ftnd Deli.
Bu,ilding 6: SCnor Taco.
Building 7: Fiv~ story building, 47 Rue8troo~B and penthouse apartmen~. Built 1962.
I B\Jilding 8: Dllplex: two long-term lease 8p6r~~~nts.
t
u
t
J
I
~
/:-,',
.:;'" .. j:
./ , ~
, '
•
,
,I
July 24. 19!1
PLANNING COMMISSION
P.l. Alto. California
fit!' " 1\1. ,Uts
n{l4JNf~
I Pglicy Interpretation -Grandfather-eel' Motel Uses
Me.oers of the Comm1ssion:
Rgpprt in Brief
This report, addresses a staff-inithted c.hange in fnterpretation of the ZOfl.ing
Ordinance prCtvistcr)s whic,", ore) ate to re;>1aet.illlmt of site improvements fa,
speciffc uses gratKtfathered fn Juiy 1978. These uses include motels. medical and
professienal offices, ind two-family or multiplt-family ~ses existing on Tower
de~sity, residentia1ly-zoned parcels.
The purpose of the report is to: IJ inform the Planning COlTIni 5510':'1 of the
reVlslrt code interpretation and its pote~tial effects, and 2) request d5rection
an recommended cad! revisions.
lackqround
Each of the l~nhg code sectfons re1 ated to the replicemert of si te fmprcYernents
for uses gr.ndhthered in July of 1978 contain on. of the two following phrases.
·such uses (grandf,thered .ed1·C~J and prDfessiona] office uses)
shall be per-aitted. without necessity to ,o"Ply o;ith site
develojJllfent regulitfons J t.a-remodeJ. iaprolle, or rep;ace site
fllpr-ove.ents for continual use and occupancy by the same use:
pro,idfHf, that I.ny such retIlOde7 ing. ilJproveaent or rep1acelllent sha11
not result in increased floor arel, number of Qffices, height
1ength, or any ether increase .in.size of the ilDprovement .•. •
·such uses (gr,,"/f,thered two-family, lIJJJ1tiple-fami1y .nd -.ote'
uses) sh.71 be pe,..itted to relllOde1, ieprove, or replace site
7/24/92
Page J
I"
-
i.prov~nts on the same site:! withilut necessity ta comply with site
deve'opt1lent regula! ions for continual u~e and fJCCUpar1cy by the_ same
use; provided that any such re/!JrJrJeh'n9t improvement Clr replacement
shlTI not result in increase floor arel~ number of dWe',ing units~
height, 1ength, Dr iny other fm::rease fn thoe size of the
i~rov~nL •.•
The C'leaning of these sectior,s .-as recently raised by repre.s~mt.aU..,.u of the
Cltmers of the Creekside Inn, a grandfatherfd motel on E1 CamiM Real, who wish
to rep7ac~ the ~xisting ~tel structure with a modern facility jn a reconfigured
site plan which would c"'a"g! the bunding locations .and envelopes. The prcplJsal
would not increase the number of units t cr e)(ceed the maximum btii lding height on
the Site, the cumu1ative length, or floor area of all buiidrngs.
Change in Interpretation
Staff has tradHio:lal1y aDd consistently int~rpreted tnese clius!"!s to fr1ean that
tne sHe improvements of si..I,:h 9Talldfathered wses c::ould~be replaced but all the
1mproveme-nt .... ould ha .. 'e to occur within the S'ame but1diTl9 envelope (meaning same
~eig.ht, lliidth, depth), and same building footprint (meaning location). This
interpretation was applied to a recent office remOdel, the Ober property at lSJ5
El Camino Real, and to a office rep1acement, the Weeks property at 16~5 El Camino
Real. With this interpretation ttle motel could redevelop. but only iii t'n.e sam~
build1ng location and envelope. -
Tnis stIff interpretation was documented and raised with tne CommisSlon it the
tlme of the reCE',.t ordinance modifjcations to clarlfy the portior.s of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming and grandfathered uses (see attache::f PC
staff report dated November cl, 1990, and excerpt PC ~i~ute5 dated 11-2S~90)_
At the applical1t's rEquest, tl"le Planning Departt!l€'nt staff hi~ revisited this
section anc' decided tkat, as currently drafted~ tl'lese grandfather clauses do not
limit redevel~p~nt of grandfathered' uses t~ the same building location, and not
necessarily the same building en'lelope. Staff has determined tnilt the hoh1
redevelop~~nt proposal may proceed.
Effects of Change in lnttrpretation
Staff believes t~at the traditional interpretation of these code ~ections has
served to discourage redevelop~nt of tne ~randfathered u~~s with new upgraded
facilities. rhe limitation to same b~jldin; foctprint and en~elope acts as a
strong diSincentive to redevelopment because so litUe is gained fer such a
substantial in~estment. Yet in the course ~f public hearings ~n November of
19SQ. staff lea,ned that it was not the intent of the policy makers to discolJra9~
redellelopment. This ;ntent 'is evidence b'y the w.ord -replace" in these
grandf~{heT sections whicn al]~ws the property owner to comp1etely rebuild an
aging facil Hy_
The result of the new interpretation is increased fluibility that will allow
g"andfathered lJses to completely redevelop which ..... ith benefit of required AMB
7/24/92
Page '2
-
_~~--_____ ---------... --'!!iII
.~"'~---
review, shoul~ result in bitter arc~ftecture and site ~lans. Th~ exception ~ay
b! where medical or professional office lises arE lccated 'Withili sil191e-famlly
homes. Replacement '()f tnese sing1e-fan:i1y structures with more "office"
ii'peadng structures could be S~!fI as .a. de~riment t.o t~p cha,-acter of the
adjoinln9 residenth1 neighbQrnooo'S. Ag.ttln, ARB revie'Ji'. with the benefit of
public helTing, should assure compatibility of dpS;9n.
The new interpretation could also potentially afffct t~e number and' cost of some
af the City's more affordable housing units. Redevelopment of s~me of the older
IIIlJltipl.-hml1y projects with newer pr.joel. could increase the cost of such
hous.ing.
However, comp1 Lincl!' with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Cornpre~en.s lve
Plan, which requirE'S a Below Marke-t R.i1.tt lBMRJ contdolJtion (If JO percent fOr" all
hOl!sing projects with thre-e 01'" more uniU, may discourage redevt:1opment of older
mu'tlpl~-farn;ly projects.
A housing development which is mere1y replaced would n.ot be subject to tne BJ'tR
requirements. However, a housing site which is redeveloped ~ould be subj~ct to
the BMR rtQuire!'lents. This interpretation wou1d be consistent for all hO'llsing
prDjects, grandfathered or not.
hsue of C(lncern
Th01lgh staff suppprts the 'increased flexibil ity in redevelopment a1 To",ed for
grandfathered uses, staff is c~ncernEd abo~t allowing complete redevelopment of
gral1df.athered uses -withQut necessHy to comp1y with site delle70pment
regu1,tfDns_-Ideally, redeyelopment 5hould increase the degree of compliar,c~
with current s1t! deve1~pment regulations, and at I ~;nimum shou1d not i~crease
the degree cf r.oncompl tance. Therefore, staff recolllllends Hiat grdndfathel"'ed uses
should be .11Qwed to rEde~~lop witnout necessitJ to comply with site development
regulatiDns provided that they do not 'increase the degree of noncompl iance.
Such iI clarification woul d r!Qui re I .minCor text amendment to each of the
grindfither eliu"s.
Rtt;cmmenda t i on
Staff recomr.!;enc!,s that the Pl anning Commi ssicn reco:rnJfnd to the Cfty COline n t~~at
C.ouncil direct s.taff tG prepare Zoning Orchnlnc.e te.1t .ilr'!1~~1~.:;-,ts to the c:1auses
pertaini~g to uses gral1dfatnered in July of 1978, to require that rede~elopment
of such ~ses shall not increase the degr!e of noncompliance with applicable site
d~yeTopment regu1atlons.
Respectfully submitted,
ffi'/A(t
SARAH CHENEY
Senlor Pll anner
'/4,,0/ ;Ifd# .:f~
NANC I tfVTl [
Zoning Administrator
7/24/91
Page 3
. "
/
o
Att;chments; Planning Commission Starf Report dated 1J-21-90
Exce-rpt Planroing COlit'T'i.:s ion Minute-s dated 11-28-90
Plans for Hotel RedHelcpment (CoJ'i"lmis:sion Me'l1bers only)
cc: Fred Hennan, Chief BlIilding Offici al
Sue Case, Senior Assistant City Attorne~
Ritho.rd Campbell. c/c Hoover Assochtes t 87 Encin3 A,,'enue. Paio AHo, C.~ 94301
Mar. Wi1 •• n, c/o CreeksIde Inn, 3400 [1 C.mino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Barron Park. Association, t/o Dave Chalt<ln, Pre-sident. 3875 El Centro, Pa1C' Alto, ell 14306
. --~-:-~--------~--.~----.. -~-.-
7/14/92
PagE 4
•