HomeMy WebLinkAbout0543.093I
j ~ . .
~ '''' "r., .• , IY";·
"'
October 14, 1993
HONORABLE CITY COUNC rL
Palo Alto, California
0
625 El camino Real Application for Planned C'prnmunity Zone Change
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
This staff report for,.,ards the Plam .. ing Commission and
Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendations on ~,
application for a proposed planned community zone change for the
Holiday Inn at 625 El Camino Real. The planned community zone
change would allow the Holiday Inn to retain 343 existing guest
roo~~ where 320 are presently approved, and 346 existing parking
spaces where 351 spaces are normally required. No new
construction or development is proposed. The applicant requests
approval not to convert 40 guest rooms into 20 twe-room suites,
as previously planned¥ and retaining t~ree other existing guest
rooms, which were not previously approved as guest rooms. An
analysis of the traffic and parking was conta.ined in the Planning
Commission staff report dated June 25, 1993. A copy is attached
as well as minutes of all meetings.
Plenuing Commission Action
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 25, i993, voted
5-1-1 (Schink absent and Carrasco not participating), to
recommend City Council adoption of the negative declara"cion and
approval of the requested planned commur.ity zone change.
Architectural Reyiew Board Action
On July 22, 1993, the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
recommended Plar~ing Commission and City Council approval of the
amendment to the planned community zone, with the condition that
screening of the electrical switch box return to the ARB for
approval.
CI'tR: 543: 93
-
9
ANALYSIS
, .,-'" "~.,~.--.
<-". ~-: -,-~-~;.""-:.~'
-~""
o
Approval of the project would have no new traffic or parking
i~pacts. because there will be no change from the presently
existing conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment prepared for this project finds that
the project will not result in any direct physi~al impacts and
reco~~ends adoption of a negative declaration. A copy of the
Environmental Ass~6Ement is attached to the planning Commission
staff report of August 20, 1993.
FINDINGS
The following findings of the planned community zone change are
recommended by the Planning Conmissiop-in support of the
proposal;
1. The site is so situated, and the existing uses proposed to
continue on 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 modifications. The proposal is within an
existing Planned Community District and 'Will not res-ult in
objectior~ble environmental impacts, such as parking or peak
hour traffic generation.
2. The requested modifications to the approved oevelopment plan
will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by
application of the re~lations of general districts or
combining districts, as follows:
(a) The 23 additional rooms (this repreaents the existing
number of room.s~ which under the currently approved
development plan would be eliminaT:edl generate
significant revenue for the City's General ~.nd. In
1992, the revenue attributaole to these 23 rooms was
approximately $28,OOD as follows~
Ii)
{ii}
CMR:543:93
In 1992, the 23 rooms generated at least $17,669
in t:::-ansient occupa.ncy tax.
The hotel pays 5 percent of gross room rentals as
ground rent. The ground rent attributable to the
23 rooms in 1992 was $8,835+
10· 14-93
2
(bl
{iii)
o
The City receives sales tax revenues and
additional percentage ground rent on food and
beverage sales. The sdles tax revenue in 1992
att":' ibutable to fced and bevel:age sales ' .... as $514.
The additional ground rent on food and beverages
in 1932 attributable to 23 ~oom9 was $888.
The developer
kitchenettes,
development.
approximately
has offered to donale to the City 13 unused
wrlich would be useful in a 10w-inco~e/SRO
~he value of each kitchenette is
$1, 900.
(c) The additional 23 rooms have spillover benefits to other
husinesses in the City as the hotel guest9 patronize
stores~ oth~r r€staurants and businesses in town.
3. The request~d modifications to the approved development plan~
with respect to the number of rooms and m.lmber of parking
spaces, are consistent with the Service Commercial (CS) zone
designation of the Palo _~lto Comprehensive Plan and are
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining
sites or within the general vicinity. Specifically with
respect to parking, a parking survey conducted in the Holiday
Inn parking lot indicated that a 2S space reduction from the
requir-ed parking spaces does not create a significant parking
impact. In addition, the number of public permit parking
spaces was reduced from 30 to 29 spaces in order to make the
public parking more usable for downtown employees. The
Transportation Division has concluded that the parking demand
does not require the additional parking space.
CONDITIONS
The following conditions of the planned community zone change are
recommended by the Planning Commission in support of the
proposal!
1. The applicant shall provide 29 parking spaces to the City
instead of 30 spaces r as public benefit permit parking. The
eJr.isting parking agreement between the developer and the City
shall be amended to reflect this change.
2~ To screen the electrical switch box which is located
adjacent to the eastern property line, the developer shall
install landscaping and/or screening around the box,
subject to approval by the ARB. The applicant shall file
an application for ARB approval of the switch box
screening within 3D days from t:he effective date of the
attached ordinance~
OtR:543: 9J 10-14-93
J
-.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Cc-..mcil;
1. Approve the negative declaration, finding that the proposal
will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and
2. Adopt the ordinance amending the Planned Community (PC) zone.
Respectfully s~ittea.
\?~
ROBERT SCHUBERT ... <-
Plar.ner
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning
~~.~
llERN1IRD M. STRo.nJ
As£ist~~t City Manager
AtU9hme Gt.§ :
Ordinance
(Council Members Only:)
and Community Environment
Planning Commdssion staff report of August 20, 1993
Bxcerpt minutes of 6/30/93 Planning Corr:.mission meeting
Excerpt minutes of 7/22/93 ARB meeting
E~cerpt minutes of 9/25/93 Planning Commission meetir.g
Plans ana Attachments
CC~ Planning Comfflission
Architectural Review Board
Applicant
property O".-mer
Carol Jansen, City Manager's Office
0!R:543:93 10-1493
4
folloW's:
c
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF TIlE COUNCIL OP--=TII=E-=C"r-=TY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF TIlE PALO ALro !-ruNIC
IPAL CODE (TIlE ZONING MAP I BY AMENDING THE
EXISTING PLANNED ~ITY ZONE FOR THE PROPERTY
KNOWN AS 625 EL CAMINO REAL (HOLIDAY INN)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
SHerrON 1. Section 18. 08.040 of the Palo Alto MuniCipal
Code~ the ·Zoning MBp~. is hereby amended by amending th~ existing
.pc Planned CommunityW zoning designation of certain property known
as 625 13'1 Camino Real (the "subject property") to allow for
retention of 343 existing guest rooms by not requiring conversion
of 40 guest rooms into 20 t~o·roam suites as previously approved
and required, and to allow the total n~~er of required parking
spaces to b~ reduced from 351 spaces to 346 spaces. The Subject
property is shown on a map attached hereto as Bxhibit ·A" aud
incorporated herein by reference. The existing PC zoning
designation of the subject property was enacted pursuant to
ordinance No. 2637 r adopted November 221 1972. and affirmed by a
referendum vote on May 6. 1973. The PC zoning designation was
amended pursuant to Ordinance No, 3463, adopted September 12, 1983;
and by Ordtnance No. 3902, adopted October 2, 1989. The
development plan for the subject property was adopted pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2637, and was amended by Ordinance No. 3463 and by
Ordinance No. 3902.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property ~hat:
(a} The site is so situated, and the existing uses
proposed to continue on the subject property are of
such characteristics tr~t the application of gene~al
districts or combining districts will not provide
sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed
znodifications. The proposal is within an. eXisting
Planned Community District and will not result in
objectionable environmental impacts, such as parking
or peak hour traffic generation.
(b) The requested modifications to the approved
development plan will result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of the regulations
of general districts or combining districts, as
follows:
1
(i) The 23 additional rooms (this represents the
existing-numht:!r of rooms~ which under the
currently approved development plan would be
eliminated) generate significant revenue fo~
the City's General Fund. In 1992, the revenue
attributable to these 23 rooms was
approximately $28,000, as follows:
(A) )
I (B»
I Ie»)
In 1992, the 23 rooms gen-erated ac
least $17,669 in transient occupancy
tax.
The hotel pays :; percent of gross
room rentals as ground rent 4 The
ground rent attributable to the 23
rooms in 1992 was $8,835.
The City receives sales tax revenues
and additional percentage ground
rent on food and beverage sales.
'!'he sales tax revenue in 1992
attributable to food and beverage
sales was $5144 The additional
ground rent cn food and beverages in
1992 attributable to 23 rooms was
$888.
(ii) The developer has offered to donate to the
City 13 unused kitchenettes~ which would be
useful in a low-income/SRO development. The
value of each kitchenette is approxilrately
$1,900.
(iii) The additional 23 rooms
benefits to other businesses
the hotel guests patronize
restaurants and businesses in
have spillover
in the City as
Eltores, other
tOVD.4
(iv) The requested modifications to the app.roved
development plan l with respect to number of
rooms and DUIWer of parking spaces, are
consistent with the Service Commercial
designation in the Palo Alto ComprehensivE
Plan and are compatible with existing and
potential uses 00 adjoining sites or within
the general vicinity. Specifically with
respect to parking, a parking survey conducted
in the Holiday Inn parking lot indicated that
a 25 apace reduction from the r~~ired spaces
does not create a significant parking impact.
2
In addition, the number of public permit
pdrking spaces 'Was reduced from 3D to 29
spa<:'es in order to make the public parking
more uBablf'~ for downtown employees. The
Transportation Divisivn has concluded that the
parking demand does not require the additional
parking space.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to secticn 18.68.120 of the Palo Alto
MUnicipal Code, the City Counci I hereby approves chs further
amendment of the Development Plan approved by Ordinance No. 2637~
and as amended by Ordinance No. 3463 and by ordinance No. 3902, by
approval of t,hoBe certain plans, entitled "Palo Alto Holiday Inn
Expaasion", prepared by Carrasco & Associates. dated December 12~
1990~ and approved by the Architectural Review Board on July 22.
1993~ A copy of said pians is on file in th~ office of the Zoning
Administrator. and reference is hereby made to said plans
concerning the full particulars thereof. Said amendment to the
Deve10pment Plan is approved subject to the following conditions:
Ca) Permitted Uses. No change.
(b) Conditignal Us~s. No change.
(c) Site Development Requla~~ No change except as
specifically changed by the amendment approved by this
ordiLl.allce.
{d} Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking and
10ading requirements governing ~he subject property
shall be in accordance with the Development Plan as
amended.
(e) ~ements~ The following conditions are
made special requirements conditioning the approval
graD ted by this ordinance:
(i) The developer shall be required to provide 29
parking spaces to the City instecld of 3D
spaces; as public benefit pe~~t parking. The
existing parking agreement between the
developer and the City Shall be amended to
reflect this change.
(ii) To screen the electrical switch box which is
located adjacent to the eastern propercy line~
the developer shall install landscaping and/or
screening around the box, subject to approval
by the Architectural Review Board.
3
(f} DeveJ ggment Sc:hedale No construction is required b}~
this amendment; however, developer shall file an
application for Architectural "-eview Board approval of
the s'Witch box screening required by paragraph (e) {iiI
within tllirty (30) days from the effective date of
this ordinance~
SECTION., _ The City Council hereby finds that this project
will have no significant environmer.tal effect.
SECTION
commencement of
adoption.
INTRODUCED :
PASSBD:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
A'1'TEST:
City Clerk
5.
the
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
This ordinance shall be
thirty~first oay after
APPROVBD:
Mayor
effective
the date
00
of
the
its
City MaDa·~g~e~r~------------------
Senior Asst. City Attorney
4
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
,
r
1
r
: '?-:: .
~tl}:"UoJ 0 ji\l~ufes _________ aryd~.~ __________________________________________________ __
MHIUTES T,ursday, July 22, 1993
8:00 AM
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California
A. ROLL CH.L
Board Members Present: Thomas Hise
Jul h Maser
Aino-Vieira-Da-Rosa
Board Members Absent; Mic",el lyzwa
Shirley Wilson
Staff M~bers Present: Jim Gilliland
lorra.ine Weiss
•• APP\lOIiAI. j)F MIMES OF JULY S. n93
C.
APPROVEO IS corrected (3-0-2-0, Nichael lyzwa and Shirley Wilson
absent) .
ORA!. CI!!!!IU!!!CATIOl!$ None
D. WJP!I !TOO
APPROVALS: The Architectura' Review Soal'd (ARB) decision on the design
of the project ;5 a recomnendation to the Qirector of Planning and
Communit1 Environment (the Oirector), wha makes the final declsion.
Unless otherwise stated by the ARB or the ~irector, project .pprovals
Incorporate Project ReView Committee conditions as mailed to the
appl1Ci"ts and staff conditions as recommend!d in the lnformation
Hemo randums.
CHANGES: Any c~ange to an approved design plan must bP resubmitted to
the City for approval. Resubmittal af a project ~ay be necessary if
changes are .. ndated as a result of c~lylng with other (ity
department reqUirements, or any ~ther applicable codes, o. ord1nance
requir~nts or other regulatory agencies.
APPEALS; All m,jor and mInor project appro •• 's are sobject to an appeal
perIod, which allows for the applIcant or m .. bers of the public to file
an appeal from the decision af the Director on tne project. The a.ppeal
period for major projects (deSignated witn an asterisk ~ •• ) ;s eleven
(11) working days follooing the date of the ARB's recommendatIon on the
project. The appeal period for minor projects ;s seven (7) working days
following the date of tne ARB's recommendation on t~e project. The open
period for a minor project is se~en workin9 days fallowing the date of
Page 1
-,.-
o o
ARB's retommendatton. Appeals of minor site and design and m;~ot zone
changes are subject to Chapter 18.93 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
If yO" .ish to appeal a.y item on this agenda, contact the Planning
Of'ision (329-2441) rog.rding timo and fee. If you cnallenge this land
use declsio" in CGurt, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else ratsed It tne pub11c hearing dtscribed i~ this
n~t1ce, or In ~itten correspo"d~nce delivered to the City of P.lo Alto
at or prior to, the public hearing.
ENVIRONM£NTAL IMPACTS: All major projects not identified by an [IA file
number following the project address have been determi~ed to be
Categorically Exempt from CEQA review. All minor projects have been
deterolned to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA review.
TIME LIMIT: Project approval is yalid for one(l) ye,r from the original
date of lpproval. T~e time period for a project may, upon application,
be e.tended once by the Director for an additional year.
EXPIRATlOH: In V.e event the teilding pennlt for a project Is not
secured within the above specified time limits, the approval of the
project will expire and be of no further force and effect.
I. COIISEIIT CAl£NDAR
It ... to be approved as a group without debate "nless discu'slon is
requested by the Board, public opplicant or st.ff.
Thl. list is not necessarily cooplet., as items .,y be placed on the
Consent Calendar up to 72 hours In advance of the meeting.
I. 1&51 Pa" Mil] !ned
Syst ... ix
93-ARB-SS
Final landscapo pl.n per previous ARB opproval.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: APPROVED (3-0-2-0, Mich.el
Lyz •• and Shirley Nilson absent), ~s presented with the follo~i"g
previous ARB approved conditlons:
1.
2.
3.
The equipment roof screen shall be a light tan color to be
reviewed and approved by Stanford lands Management prior to
construction.
The .pplicant Shill obtain. temporary le.se for landscape
installation within a city public utilities easement near
the eastern property line prior to subllssion for building
permi t.
AnY construction within the City of Palo Alto right-of-way
must conform to standards established in the City of Palo
Alto Standard Specifications for the utilities Depart •• nt
and Public Works Department.
Page 2
•
•
2.
--7'::> 3.
4.
o
4. The applicant shall ohtaln a permit from Santa CJara County
for construction within the pub'?c right-af-way prior to
5ubmissio~ fnr a building permit.
249 California Avenue
k,nko's Copy Center
93-ARB-6J
Awning and sign details per pr~vious ARB project condition_
Thfs item was pulled from t~e CQn£ent calendar for discussion by
the ARB.
PUBUC TESTIMONY: Amarish Khan, answered Bcar4 quest10ns.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SOARD ACTION: APPROVED (3-0-2-0, Michael
lyzwa and Shirley Wilson absent) as presented subject to the
follo.lng:
CONDITION
1. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for awning
installation over the pub1tc right·of-way prior to issuance
of a building permit_
62S £1 C .. lno R.al*
Holiday Inn
93-ARB-76
93-ZC-8
93-flA-lS
Amendment of Planned Community (PC) District to allow the HolidaY
Inn to ret~in 343 existing guest rooms where 310 are prEs.~tly
approved and 346 existing parking spaces where 351 spaces are
normally reqolred.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Recommend ~PPROVAl (3-0-2-0,
Michael lyzwa and Shirley Wilson absent), is presented of tne
Environmental Assessment and recommend to the Planning Commission
and City Council approval of the amendment to the Planned
Community zone with the condition that screening of the electrical
switch box return to the .A.rchihctural ReYiew Board' for approval.
180 [1 caalne !\eal
Stanford Shopping Center
93-ARS-124
lnsta11 brick to replace old pavers, remove awnings a~d fountain,
repaint building facade and plant flowers adjlcent to Ristorante
Piatti .
ARCHITECTURAL REVIE~ BOARD ACTION: APPROVEO, 3-0·2-0, Mich.el
lyzwa and Shirley WiTsorl absent), as presented.
Page 3
m rft.fi nil IIUI ~ ~). wednesd~. AU9ust.25. WJ U LU lJU Lb d.J Regular Meetlng
1993
Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto
I. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28. 1993. 3
2. 1050 ARASTRAPfRO ROAO: Application for (I) a Compreh.nsive 3
Plan map amendment to change the corresponding land use
designation from M~ltipie-raml'Y Residential to
Researcfl/Offici!' Park:. (Z} a site and design revie'lll1 of two
proposed research and developme~t buildlngs and related
site improv~nts; (3) variances to eKceed the allowable
height by five feet and. side yard setback of 20 feet
-nere 40 feet is the minimum requiredi and '4) approval of
a development agreement extending the time period for
development of the project and modifying the proposed
housing mitigat10n. w~ich ma~ include p~rchase by the·city
of property at 753 Alma Street as a potential Sit2 for
construction of housing. Environmenta' Assessment: A
n~ative declaration has ~!n prepared. Zone District:
LM-5(D)_ File Nos_ 92-CPA·2. 92-EIA-19. 92-D-4. 92-Y-13.
92-MB-BE_
3_ 625 El CAMINO REAL: Amendment of Planned Community (PC) 38
~istrict at 625 El Camino Re,l to all"" the Holiday Inn to
retain 343 existing guest rooms wnere red~ction to 320
rooms is presently required and to allow 346 existing
parkfr.g spaces where 348 spaces are required. No new
construction is proposed. The applicant reque5t~ approval
to retain 343 e~;sting guest rooms, whereas conve~ting 40
guest rooms into 2Q two-room suites was previously approved'
in the prior PC zone change. The applicant also proposes
to retain three other existing guest rooms which were not
previously approved. , Environmental Assessment: No
significant impacts were determined to result from this
project~ and a negat;ye declaration has been prepared.
Zone District: PC. File Nos. 93-Ze-8, 93-ARB·76.
J. Slocum
08/25/93
-1-
4. 4156 £l CAMlNQ REAL, Amendment of Planned Community ,PC) 39
District .t .164 El Camino ~.al to add the property at
4156·60 El Camino Re.l and to allow the construction of 15
new .atel un!t5 with re'atfd parking and landscaping.
Envlronmentil Assessment: ~ environmental assessm!nt will
"" propared prl Dr to fl nal re"low by the PI ann I n9
COBOiss;on and City Council. Zone District, RM·30. File
Nos. 93-ARB·lll, 93-ZC·IO, 93·E1A-25.
5. 4277 MIRANDA AVENUE: Zoning ordinance text amendment to the 52
no~,onformfng use termination pro~fsiDns in Section
18.94.010 of the Pa;o Alto Municipal Code to extend the
termination date for a noncQnfo~in9 use, a gero-
psychiatric skilled nursing facility, located in an
R-l(929) SfngTe-FamiTy Residentiil Combining District, from
July 20, 1993 to January 20, 1994. Env;ronmentol
Assessment; A negative declaration has been prepared for
this project. Zone District: 93·EIA·IO, 93-ZC-14.
6_ Review and comaent on rnvironmental Protection Agenty SS
Draft EnvirDnmental Impact Report, Drift Redevelopment Plan
Bnd Draft Specific Pl.n for the G.te.ay 101 Corridor
Redevelopment Proposal.
7. AppOintment of two liaisons t. the AI •• Plaza Improvement 60
tOllllllttee.
08/25/93 .z-
• I , ~
The planning commission met i~ a regular meeting ~n Wednesday~ August 25,
1993 at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Conference Room with Chairman Beecham
presiding.
ROLL CAll
Present: C~iss;oners Beecham, Carra5co~ Cassel, Glazi~r~ Ojakian
and S.chmidt
Ab1!n1: Commissioner Schink
staff Present: Susan Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney
William Fellman, Manager, Real Property
James GiT1iland, ~anager Pl~nning Projects
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning
Rohert Schubert, Planner
Carl Stoffel, TranspDrtat10n Engineer
George Zfmmerman~ Assistant Planning Offictal
ORAL C~NICATIONS
Cha1rmin Bee<ham~ The first item on our agenda is Oral Communic~tions.
Any member of t~e public wishing to speak to us on an it~m not on the
agenda is welcome to do so. Seeing nQ speakers. we wi11 move on to the
next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM I APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 28, 1993.
Chairman Stech .. , believe Commissioner CasseT has a ccrr~ct1cn.
(ommiss1one~ tassel; On Page 17, t~e first paragraph reids ·Commissioner
Sc~idt~~ the second paragraph reads "Commissioner Schmidt,· the third
paragraph reads ·Commiss'oner Scrnmidt~· The secDnd paragraph was comeents
by CommissIoner Cassel.
~; Commissioner Schmidt: 1 move approval of the mi~utes as
corrected.
SfCQnD; By Commissioner Cas~el.
~TIOH PASSES: Chairman Beecham: All those in favor, say Aye? All
opp~sed? That passes on a v~te of 6·0, with Commissioner Schink absent.
AGENOA iTEM 2 1050 AEASTRAOERO ROAP: Application for (I) a
ComprehenSive Plan map imfndment t~ change t~e
corresponding land use deSignation fr~m Multiple-Family
Residential to Research/Office Park; (2) a site and
design review of two proposed research and d€¥elcp~~nt
b~;ldings and related Site imprcvements. (3) variances to
exceed the allowable height by five feet and a side yard
setback of ~O feet ~here 40 feet is the minimum required;
and (4) appr~val of a deve10pment agreement extending the
time period for deve10pment of the project and ~difyin9
the proposed housing mitigation. which may include
purc~a.e by the city of property at 753 Alma Street as a
08/25/93
-3-
· ~ ...
o
AGENDA ITEM 3 6ZS El CAMINQ REAL: Amendment of Planned Community (PC)
District at 6ZS El Camlno Real to .llow the Holiday Inn to
ret,ain 343 existin9 guest rooms where red ... cti,," to 320
roorus is present1y required and to .11ow 346 ex~sting
parking spaces w~ere 348 spaces Ire required. No ne~
const~ct1on is propos!d. The applitant requests approval
to retain 343 existing guest roa.5. whereas converting 40
guest rooms into 20 two-rDom suites was p~ev1ously
approved fn the prfor PC zone c~ange. The applfcant Ilso
proposes to retain t~ree ether existing guest rooms which
were not prevlo~sly approved. Environmental Asselsment:
No significant impacts were determined to res~lt from t~1s
project, and. neqatlv. declar.tion ~.s been prepared.
Zone District: PC. File Nos. 93-ZC-8. 93·ARB·76_
Commissioner Carrascg; I do not ha~e a real conflict of int~rest on this
appHc.a.tion, however, my drawings ~ere used in thi"s a.pp1ic.aUQf'I, a.nd __ e
were th~ architects a year-ind-a-nalf ago on t~fs p~oject. so I will not
p.rticip.t~ in this ito&.
Chairman Betfbi': Ooes the commission have any questions for stiff?
Lggmissioner Schmidt: On Page 1 of the ordinance, Section 1, I b~lieve
tnere is • typo on the eighth line. It states • ... spac.s to be reduced
frem 151 .~.ce. to 2~6 space •. • i'at should be 146 spaces.
Chai!!i~ BtechJm! We vill now open the public hearing. a~d we have one
speaker tonight.
Clement Chen. Holidav fnn. 625 El Camino Real, Palo AJto: My famil, owns
the HolidlY Inn, and I represent the applicant. I was before you two
months ago, Since then, .y app1icition hiS gone t~rough the Architectural
Rev1ew Board , where the application was approved is a consent cllendar
Item, and It Is recommended that it be approv.d and returned to the
Archit~ctural Review Board ~fter ~ltimate approval for rescl~tlDn of what
to do w'lth our electrical equi_nt box in the back parking lot. I think
we covered the proj.ct pretty well the last time. I will be happy to
a~swer any additional questions.
C"ajrman Bee~ham: I must agree that we cDvered it adequately the last
time. ]f tnere are no questions or further comments I ! will close the
publ ic bearin9.
~: Commissioner Schmidt: I will be happy to move approval .ith the
findings and conditions as listed. We nave revie~ed this previously and
everything was in order. The applicant did. very clear and thorouqh job
Df supporting the reQ~est for a red~ctjan in the required number of
p6rking spaCES, and he has .1so dQn~ted to the city some kitcken units
that were not going to be used In this project.
~: By CommiSSioner Ojakian. I basltally agree with everything that
K.th) said.
MOTIOH PASSES: Chairman Beecham: A11 tho,e in favor of this motion by
Comml,sioner SchRldt and second.d by Commissioner Ojakian, with the
correction of the number of spaces in the ordinance , please say Aye? A11
De/2~/93
-38-
..
, .
opposed? That pass~s unanimously, with (ommlssioner Carra~co net
particlpating and Commissioner Schink absent.
Mr. ~il1i'and: This is scheduled for the City Council on September 20th.
AGENDA ITEM 4 4156 El tAMINO REAL: Amendment of Planned Community (PC)
District at 4]64 rl Camino Real to add the property at
4J56~6a £1 Camino R~al and to allow the construction of IS
new motel units with related parking and landscaping.
En~ironmental Assessment: An environmental assessment
will be prepared prior to final review by the Planning
Comission and City Council. Zone District: RM-30. File
Nos. 93-ARB·llI, 93-1C-IO, 93·EIA-25_
Chairman Beecham: Are there any staff comments or clarifications?
Mr. Schubert: 1 have two items. Tonight, ~e gave the commission a copy
of a lett~r which we received yesterday fr~~ Dor. and Veronica Si~s,
supporting the project. They live in the house at the rear of the motel,
and they are requesting that the two large trEes along that rear property
line be saved. Tne applicant is proposing t~ save those trees.
Th~ second item is tnat we have so~ photos of the existing site to be
passed around to you.
Chairman Beecham: Regarding the two trees that the Sims have asked about.
are these at any risk? I nave not noticed ir. the plans how close they are
to the proposed construction.
Mr. Schubert: Ho. the applicant is not doing any construction work around
those trees.
Chairman Beecham: A~e there questions for staff?
COMmissjoner 01akian: So is our responsibility tonight to rezone i piece
of property from RH-30 to • PC?
Chillrman Beecham: I believe not e)(actly ; n
we are doing is conceptually approvlng it.
eventually rezoning for a PC.
those words. I believe what
lt is with the intent of
Mr. Cilliland: For clarification~ as a Plann~ Community lone, ~ou see it
twice. You Eee it as a preliminary item, th~n it goes to the
Architectural Review Board and it comes back to you. This is the first
hearing. This is a conceptual approval to relone.
CQmmlssioner Oia~ian: So in essence, at the end of this process, what we
would be dOing is, if it goes through the ARB and co~es back to us and
meets with our recommendation, the council is looking Gt ~ezonin9 a piece
of property from 8M-3~ to PC.
Mr. Gilliland: That is correct.
ComRiss;~~gr Cassel: Regarding the property fmmediately to the north
along El Ca~ino Real, there has been some reference that that 1S going to
OB/25/9:;
-39-
", ,
AG ENDA ITEM 3
Pl~. G COMMISSION [XCERPT MINUTES ~
f!:.:J 8/25/93 V
625 El CAMINO REAL: Amondment of Planned Community (PC)
District at 625 El Camin~ Real to allow the Holiday Inn to
retain 343 exist ;n9 guest roorr,s where reducUon to 320
rooms ;s presently required and to allow 346 existin9
parking spaces where 348 spac!s are required. No new
construction is proposed. The applicant requests approval
to r~tain 343 existing guest rooms, whereas ,onverting 40
gue~t rooms into 20 two~room suites was previously
approved in the prior PC zone change. The applicant a1so
proposes to retain three other existing guest rooms which
were not prelliously appr-o\led. Environmental Assessment:
No significant impacts ~ere determined to res~'t from this
project, and a np.gative declaration has b~en prepared.
Zone District: PC. r,i. Nos. 93-ZC-8, 93-ARB-76.
COffi'issloner Carrasco: I do not have a reaT conflict nf interest on tnis
application, however, my drawings were used in this application, and we
were the architects a year-and-a-half ago on this project. so r will not
particfpate in tnls item.
Chairmpn Beecham: Does the commission have any qu~stions for staff?
Commissioner Schmidt: On Page 1 of the ordinance, Section I, beli~ve
there is a typo on the eighth l;ne. It states M ••• spaces to be red~ced
fr~ 351 spaces tn 246 spaces~" That should be 34& spaces.
Chairman Be€charn: We will now open the public hearing, and we have one
spedker tonight.
Clement Cken. Hal id..u'. Inn. 625 E1 (amino Heal. Palo_ Alto; My family owns
the Holiday Inn. and I r~present the applicant. I was before you two
months ago. Since then, my application has gone thr~ugh tne Arch1tectural
Revfew Board, wh~re the application was approved as a consent calendar
item, and it is recQrnmended that it be approved and returned to the
Architect~ral Review Boar~ after ultimate approval for resolution of what
to do with our electric~l equipment box in the back parking lot. I think
we covered the project pretty well the last time. I will be happy to
answer any additional questions.
Chairman Bee~ha~: [must agree that ~ covered it adequate1y the last
time. If there are no questions Dr further comments, 1 will close the
publ ic hearing.
HOTION: Commissioner Schmi~1: I will be happy to moye approval with the
findings and conditions as 1i5ted. We have reviewed this preyiously and
everything was in orde~. The applicant did a very clear and thorough job
of supporting the reqlJest for a reduction in the requi red number of
parking spaces, and he has also donated to the city some kitchen units
that were not going to be used in this project.
SECONO~ By COrmJlssioner Ojakian. 1 basically agree with everything that
Kathy said.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: All those in favor of this motion by
C~iss1oner Schmidt and seconded by CommiSSioner Ojakian, with the
correctfon of the nun-,be)"" of spaces in the ordinance, please say Aye? All
08/25/93
-38·
•
o 0
opposed? That pas:ses unanimously. witf'. COm'lliS5ioner Carrasco not
p.~ti'ipati~g and Commissioner Sthink absent.
~I"'. Gjlliland: This is 5cn!duled for the City Cauncil an Sept~mber 20th
AGENDA I1EM 4 41St EL C~lNQ REAL: Amendment of Pi.nned community (PC)
District at 4164 El Camino Real to .dd the property at
4156-60 El C.mino Re.l and t~ alloo the construction of 15
new 6Ote1 units with related parking and la~dscapin9.
Environmental Asnssment: An er\'J1ron~!'\ta.l assessment
will be prepared prior to final review by the Planning
Commission and City Council. Zone Oistrict: RM-30. File
Nos_ 93-ARB-131, 93-ZC-10, 93-EiA-25_
tbairmaD Oeecham: Are there any staff comments or clarificatfons?
eta S~hubert: I have two items, Toni9"t, we ga~e the comrnis5i~n a copy
o a letter which _e received yesterday from O~n and Veronica Sims,
supporting the project. The~ live i~ the hQuse at the rear of the motel,
and t~P.y are requesting that the two large trees a10ng that rear property
line be saved. ihe applicant is prcp~sin9 to save those trees.
The second it€m is that we have some photos of the existing site to be
passed around to you.
Chairman B?echam: Regarding the tw~ trees that the Sims have asked abDut,
are these at any risk? t haw! net n~ticeO ,~ the plans how c)o5e they lre
to tne proposed construction.
Mr, Schubert: ND, the applicant is not doing any construction work around
those trees.
Chainman Bee~ham: Are tnere questio~s for staff?
CommiSSioner Oiakian: So is o~r responsibility tonight to rezone a piece
of property from RH-30 to • PC?
(ha irman Beecham: ] be 1 i Ne not exactly in those words. 1 bel; eve what
we are doing is co~ceptua'ly approving it. It is wit~ the intent of
eventually rezoning for J PC.
Mr, Gilliland: For c1ariflcation~ as a Planned Community zone, you see it
twice, You see it as i preliminary item, then it goes to the
~rthitectuyal Review Board and it comes back to you. l~is is the fir$t
hearing. Tnis is a concept~ai apprDval t~ rezone.
Coanissfoner Oiakian: So fn esse-nee, It the end of t.his process, what we
would be doing is. if it goes through the ARB ar.d come-s bac.k. to us and
~ets ~ith our recommendation. the council is locking at rezoning 5 piece
of property from RM-lO to PC_
Mr, Gillil.nd: That is correct_
Commissjqn!; Cassel: Regardlng the property fmmediately to the north
along £1 Camino Real, there has been some reference that that is going to
08/25/93
-39-
....
o
AU8USt 20, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, California
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Planged Community Zone Change -625 E! Camino ReallHgljday Inn)
Members of the Commission:
RClX'" in Brief
This repcrt addresses a proposal for a planIled community ;roue change that is .necessary
to allow the Holiday Inn to retain 343 existing guest rooms where 320 are presently
approvod, and 346 existing parking spaces where 3S I spaces are norma1Iy required. No
new coostruction or development is proposod. The applicant requests approval to retain
343 existing guest rooms, thereby not converting 40 guest rooms into 20 tw<>-room suites
as previously I'IanIled and retaining three other existing guest rooms which were not
previously approvod as guest rOOIDS.
This application was cooc...-ptually approved by !he Planning Corrunission, on. 6-0-1 vote
(Com;:nissioner Cullen absent), on June 30, 1993. Minutes for the1une 30, 1993 meeting
were included in the p:lCket for the July 28, 1993 meeting. An analysis of the traffic,
parking and eleetrieal switch box was coruainod in the staff report for the June 30, 1993
meeting. A copy is attached.
8·10-93
PAGE I
I Archjtccllmll Review Board Meeting
On July 22, 1993 !he Archltcctural Review Board (ARB) recommended Planning
CommissiOll and City Council approval of the ameudmeru to t ... planned community zone
wilb !he condition that screening of the electrical switch box return to the Architectural
Review Board for approval.
ANALYSIS
Approval of !he project would have no new traffu: or parking impacts because !here will
be no change from the presently existing conditions. The design for electrical service to
the hotel was dunged which resulted in Ibe install arion of a large .lcctrieal switch box
in the pvIdng 101 on the eastern side of Ibe site, adjacent to the SP parking lot. To
screen the switch bo., it is recommended that a coodition of approval require new
landscaping and/or screening around the box, subject to approval by the Architectural
R ... iew Board.
EID1RONMENTAL ASSliSSMENI
The Environmental Assessment prepared for this project finds that it will not result in any
dim;t physi<:.al impacts, and recommends adoption of a negative declaration. A copy of
!he Enviromnental Assessment included in Ibe Planning Commission sUff report dated
June 25, 1993. is au.aelted.
HNPlNGS
The following findings of the planned community :roue change have been prepared by
staff in support of !he proposal:
I . The site is so situated, and the existing uses proposed to continue on the subject
property are of s'.leh characteristic, that the application of general districts ex
combining districts will II<)( provide sufficient flexibility to allow the propored
modifICations. The JlrOPO'lal is within an existing Planned Community District and
will not result in objectionable enviromnental impacts, such as parking or peak
hour traffic generation.
2. The reqoested modifications to the approved development plan will result in public
benefits nOl OIherwise attainable by application of !he regulations of general
districts or combining districts, as follows:
8-l0-93
PAGE 2
I
:"','
· . .-'
The 23 additional rooms (lhis represents !he existing nwnber of rooms,
which under the curren~y approved development plan woold be
eliminated) generate significaru revenue for the City's Genera! Fund, In
1992, Ibe revenue attributable 10 these 23 rooms was approximately
$28,000 as foHows:
(i) In 1992, !he 23 rooms generated at least $17,669 in transient
oc<:upancy tax,
(ii) The hotel pays 5 percent of gruss room rentals as ground
rent, The ground rent attnbutable to the 23 rooms in 1992
was $8,835,
(iii) The City receives sales tax revenues and additional percentage
ground rent on food and beverage sales, The sales tax
revenue in 1992 attnbutable 10 food and beverage sales was
$514, The additional ground rent on food and beverages in
1992 attnbutable to 23 ro<JI!IS was $888,
(b) The developer has offered 10 dooate 10 the City 13 unused kitclieoettes,
which woold be useful in a low-ineomelSRO development The value
of each kitchenette is approximately $1,900.
(c) The additiortaI 23 rooms have spillover benefits to other
businesses in the City as the hotel guests patronize
stores, other restaurants and businesses in town,
3, The requested modifications 10 !he approved d.:velopment plan, with respect to
number of rooms and numl>er of parking space>, are consistent with !he Service
Commercial (CS) designation in !he Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and are
companDle with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the gene""
vicinity, Specmc..ny with respecl to parking, a parking survey conducted in the
Holiday Inn parking lot indicated that a 25 space reduction from Ibe required
spaces does not create a significant parking impact In addition, the number of
public permit pL'icing spaces was reduced from 30 to 29 spaces in order 10 malee
the public p&rking more usable far downtown empluyees, The Transportation
Division has concluded that !he parking demand does ll()( require Ibe additional
parking space,
8'ZO-93
PAGE 3
CONPmQNS
The following coDdi tions of the planned community zone change hI.ve been prepared by
staff in support of the prop<lsal:
!. The applicant shall provide 29 parking spaces to the City inslead of 30 spaces, as
public benefit pennit Pll"king. The existing parking agreement between the
developer and the City shall be amended to reflect this chaage.
2. To screen the e1ectri<:a1 switcb box which is located adjacent to the =ti:rn
property line, the developer shaIi install landscaping and/or screening
aIOUlld the box, subjec; to approval by the Architectural Review Board.
The applicant shall fIle an application fo< Architectural Review Board
approval of the switch box screening within thirty (30) days from the
effective date of the attached ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission =0IIII!leIId that the City Council find
that the propo<aI will not result in any signifkmt enviromnental impaCl'i and approve the
project subject to the findings and conditions listed above.
ROBERT SCHUBERT
Planner
Dnft Ordinance
Location Map
~~5;)>Jf€4-
NANCY LYTLE
Chief Planning Officiall
Zoning Administrator
PLmnin8 Commission Staff Report dated 6120193 (Commission Members Only)
Project Plans aDd Letter from Applkant (Commission Members Only)
Copier; Sen, To:
Architectural Review Board
Applicant
Property Owner
Carol Jansen, City Manager's Office
8-10-93
PAGE 4
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. __ _
(' . -;.-.;: .,,"
ORDINANCE OF TH'E COUNCI1 ... OF THE CITY OF PA!..O ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO ML'NIC
IPAL CODE: (THE ZONING MAP) BY A.'!ENDING THE
E.1{ISTING PLA..VNED COMMUNrTY ZON"e FOR THE PROPERTY
KNOWN Ai!. 625 EL CAMINO REAL I,HOLIDAY INNI
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
SBC'I'IQN 1. Sec'Cion 18.08. 04D of the Palo Alto Muni.cipal
Code, the -Zoning MBp~~ is hereby amended by amending the existing
"PC Planned Community" zoning designation of certain property known
as 625 Bl camino Real {the "su.lJject pr-operty·) to allcw for
retention of 343 existing guest rooms by not l'equiring conversion
of 40 guest rooms into 20 two-room suites as previously approved
and required, and to allow the total number of required parking
spaces to be reduced from 351 spaces to 246 spaces. The subject
property is shown on a map attache::i hereto as Exhibit "A"' and
incorporated herein by reference. The existing PC zoning
designation of the subject property was enact.e-d pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2637, adopted November 22, ~97~, and affir.med by a
referendwu vote on May 6, 1973. The ~C zoning designation was
ame.nded pursuant to ordinance No. 3463, adopted september 12, 2983,
and by Ordinance No. 3902, adopted October 2. 1989. The
development plan for the Bubject property was adopted pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2637, and was amended by Ordinance No. 3463 and by
Ordinance No. 3902.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is 60 situated, and the existing uses
proposed to continue Gn 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
modifications. The proposal is within an existing
Planned Canl!l''lUnity District and will not result in
objectionable environmental impacts. such as parking
or peak hour traffic ge4eration~
(b) The requested Illodifications to the approved
development plan will result in public benefits not
otherwise atta.inable by application of the regu)c.tions
of general districts or combining districts, as
follows:
1
,''"
(i} The:23 additional roams (this represents the
existing number of rooms, which under the
currently approved development plan would be
eliminated) generate significant revenue for
the City's General Fund. In 1992, the revenue
attributable to these 23 rooms was
approximately $28.000. as follows:
IIAI!
IIBIJ
( (C) l
In 1992 r t.he 23 rooms generated at
least $17.669 in transient occupancy
tax.
The hotel pays 5 percent of gross
room rentals as ground rent. The
ground rent attributable to the 23
roams in 1992 was $8,835.
The City receives sales tax revenues
and additional percentage ground
rent on food and beverage sales.
The sales tax revenue in 1992
attributable to food and beverage
sales was $514. The additional
ground rent on food and beverages in
1992 attributable to 23 rooms was
$888.
ai) The developer has offered t.o donate to the
City 1.3 unused ki tchenettes. which would be
useful in a low-iLcome/SRO development. The
value of each kitchenette is approximately
$1,900.
(iii) The additional 23 rooms have spillover
benefits to other busir..esses in the City as
the hotel guests patronize stores. otr.er
restaurants and businesses in tOYD.
(iv) The requested modifi cations to the approved
development plar.~ with respect to number of
rooms and nUmDer of parking spaces, are
consistent with the Service Commercial
designation in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and are compatible with existing and
potential uses on adj oining Sites or within
the general vicinity. Specifically with
respect to parking, a parking survey conducted
in the Holiday Inn parking lot indicated that
a 25 space redUction from the required Spaces
does not create a significant parkiLg impact.
2
t
!
In addition, the nQ~er of public permit
parking spa-=E's was reduced from 30 to 29
spaces in order t.o make the public parking
more usable for downtown employees. The
Transportation Division has concl'..lded that the
parking demand does not requir~ the additional
parking space.
S&CIION 3. Pursuant to section lS.68.120 of the Palo ~to
Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the further
amendment of the Development Plan approved by Ordinance No. 2637 1
and as amended by Ordinance No. 3463 and by Ordinance No. 3902 I by
approval of those certain plans r entitled "Palo Alto Holiday Inn
Expansion-, prepared by Carrasco & Associates r dated December 12.
199Q 1 and approved by the Architectural Review Board on July 22,
1993. A copy of said plans is oc file in the office of the Zoning
Administrator, and reference is hereby made to said plans
~oncerning the full particulars thereof. Said amendment to the
Development Plan is approved subject to the follo~ing ~onditions:
(a) Permitted Uses. No change.
(b) Conditional J.J§.n. No change.
Ic) Site Develowuent Regulations,. No change except as
specifically cr..anged by the amendment approved by this
ordinance.
(d) Parking and LoadiqSn Requirements. The parking and
loading requirements governing the subject property
shall be in accordance with the Development Plan as
amended.
(e) Special_ Rl"lqui:r:e.onents. The following conditions are
made special requirements conditioning the approval
granted by this ordinance;
(i) The dev~loper shall be required to provide 29
parking spaces to the City instead of 30
spaces, as public benefit permit parking. The
existing parking agreement between the
developer and the City shall be amended to
reflect this change.
(ii) To screen the elec~rical switch box ~hich is
located adjacent to the eastern property line,
the developer shall install landscaping and/or
screening around the bOX, subject to approval
by the Architectural R~view Board~
3
(fj ~lqpment Schedule. No construction is required by
this amendment; however~ developer shall file an
application for Architectural Review Board approval of
the switch box screening required by paragraph (e) (ii)
witlLiIJ. thirty (30) days from the effective date of
this ordi:lance.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that this project
will have no significant environment~l effect.
SRCTIQN
commencement of
adoption.
INTRODUCED :
AYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS,
ATTEST:
City Clerk
5.
the
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
This ordinance shall be
thirty-first day after
City Manager
effective
the date
on
of
Senior Asst. City Attorney
4
Director of Planning and
Community Bnvjronment
the
it.s
•
' .•..
J ;'
, J ~.'
if
z
0 ~
< < "" u
"" U '" '" 0 "" '-' ...... ~
'"
UJ ," ~ ~ I-
II) ,-
ft;'''~:;,:,,,
,
I. .i
--------
o
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE:
TO:
PREPARED BY:
June 25, 1993
PALO ALTO PLAIIIIING COlIIISSION
Robert Sch"~ert
St4ffRepon
REPORT IN BRIEF: 625 £1 Camino Reil: ~ndment of Planned C~1m"nity (PC)
~istrict (PC-2637) it 625 E1 Camino Rel1 to allow the Holiday Inn to retain
343 existing guest rooms where 320 Ire presently approved, and 346 eXisting
parking spac~s where 348 spaces are normally required. No new construction or
devel~nt is ~rapDsed. The applicant reQuests approval to Tetain 343
eXisting guest rooms, thereby not converting 40 guest rooms into 2Q two-Toom
SUltts as previously planned and retij~ing tnree other exfsting guest rooms
which were not previously approved ~s guest rooms.
Env1rDf1MntaJ AHt!'u!pf!!nt: An Inithl Study reCOnmendlTlg adoption of a
negative declaration is attached.
10M Dhtrjet: fiii Nos.:
PC, Planned Community (PC-2637)
93-le-B, 93-ARB-76, 93-EIA-IB.
a2Pl [CATION INFORMATION
Appl1c .. t:
Type of Application:
[)ates:
Clement Chen
831 IIont90mery Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
(415) 392-B260
Amendment of PC Oi,trict
Application received ~/22193;
Application complete S/21/9);
Mandatory action d!adlfne ~
(legislative action)
PIpe,s.: The Planned Community Zone Change process includes l preliminary
review by the Planning Commission. Shou1d t~e Co.mission act favorably at
this initial review. the project pldns are fc~arded to the Arcbitectural
Review Board (ARB) for its recommendations. Tne development p1.n, as approved
by the ARB. is then returned to the Planning COImission for its final review
and r~oamendatio" before submittal to the {ity CD~ncil for final action.
Prior to .. king I fln.l approval recommendation to the City Council, the
Pl.nnlng Coomlsslon Is required to make specific deterolnatlons r.9ardin~ the
~rojKt and to approve an environmental determinatiOn, de~tlopment program
stat ... nt, dev.lopoent pl •• and d.velopment s,hedu'e that will become the
blsl' for the slte·specific regu'atlons to be applIed within the prcpas.d PC
Planned (..-unity zone dl.trlct. An estimated tlmelin. for prucessing the
application Is I. follows:
June 30, 1993
July 22, U93
August 25, 1993
Septe.ber 20, 1993
SITE INFQRMAT[QH
awr.r:
lnittal Pl.nning Commission review
ARB review
fi~al Planning Commission review
City Council re,iew
Pacific HDte' Development ~tnture
625 E1 C.~lno Real
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(415) 328·2800
Ass •••• r's Parcel Huaber: 120·32-06
CampTehenslve Plan Desl9natlon: Neighborhood Coomerci.'
ExistIng land Use: Hotel
Surrounding land Use:
Pirce' Size:
!R9JfCT INFORMATION
PrPi"t Hjstory:
Hov_r 22, un
lI,y 6, 1972
Sept_r 20, 1973
P:1I'CSR\PCSM25E
Harth: University Avenue Circle.
restaurant and transit center
East: PubliC parting lot, SP .ailroad
tracks
South: Restaurant and ;ndustrial
buildings
West: [1 :aming Real and Stanford
University
S.7 acres
City CounCil adopted Ordinanc. No. 2637 approving PC
Developoent Plan for 280-.oom hotel complex.
PC zone Iffinmed by referendum vate.
Hotel WiS opened.
6/25193
PaIge 2
s..ptecber 12, 1983
Nard, S, 1986
Apr!1 7, 1986
Septeober 2, 1986
Novecber 5, 1987
City Council adopted OoJinance No. 3463 amending the
PC Oi,trlct to include expanded lobby ire>, cocktail
lounge ~dditfon. adaini ~rit;ve offite expansion,
con"erSion of storage b, "ding to wedding reception
hall, expansion of 'lunc 'facilities and enclosure
for outdoor garbage irea. The floor arEa of tne
building addition totaled
2,120 square feet.
Planntng Commission recommended denial of an
application to add 64 guest rooms and a 4,000 square
foot restaurant. The (DemiSSion was concerned about
lncreaslng the floor area ratio (fAR) beyond 0.5;1, ••
required for tne surrounding Service Commercial uses~
and the finding of public benefit on the baSis of
revenues to the City.
City Council continued the PC zone change request
until after completion of the Downtown Study.
(lty Council conteptual1y i~proved the zone c~ange and
reffrred the application to the Architectural Review
Board and Planning Commission f~r design rey~ew and
recoaaendat1ons, to be returned to the Council for
ulti •• t. approval. The Council found that the hotel
generated less traffiC, particularly at peik de.and
periods I than ca.parable co..ercial uses. It was the
Council's opinion that the Tack of excess traffic
demond could allow for an increased FAR. In addition,
the added re""enues to the Ctty were considered to be
of public benefit to all citizens. The Council's
conceptual approval included the follOWing conditions:
l~ Deletion of the restlurant;
2. InclUSion of 30 puking spaces in the project as
shared p.rklng, which would be "sed as public
parking in the daytiMe and hotel p.rking during
evenings ind weekendsi and
3. Provisio~ of a financial c~ntributjon for
creation of a future bicycle path that would l •• d
from the Southern Pacific (SP) station to Palo
Alto High Scheol, the route of which would
eventually be deteroined by the Palo Alto
Bicycle Advisory Committee.
T~e ARB recommended apprDval of the reVised proposal
that provided for a t.t.l addition of 44 rooas (64 new
ro~, and d~letton of 20 roo.s by combining 40
e~lst1~g roc~s ;nt~ two-room suitesJI deletion of tne
restaurant, elimination of a proposed undarground
parking structure I and reduced building mass.
8/25193
Page 3
,
I Jul y 26, 1989
September 18, 1989
Aprll 3, 1991
Aprll 24, 1991
february 13, 1992
Sit, Descrfptfon:
.....
" ~ ..
Planning Comm1ssion retoamen~ed approval of the
revised proposal.
City Council adopte~ Ordinance 3902 arnend,ng the PC
Olstrict to approve the ... ndod development plan witn
a totll of 320 guest·roo~s and 35J ~arktn9 spaces,
including 30 sp.c.s for public permit parking.
Transportation Oi~isfDn iccepted I ~;fied parking
improvement .'ich provided a higher quality public
parkfng Irea bYt red~ced the n~er of st.'1s, for I
revised tot 11 of 29 of the required 30 public pirking
Ipaces (see the attached .emorandum from Marvfn
o.erway to Hlncy Lytle d,ted April 3, 1991).
Tranp~rtatiQn Dfvf!ion accepted I modifled parking
improvement which eliminated two hotel parking spaces
near the north parking lot driveway because they
intefered with exiting from the parking lot.
8~11ding 4ddittan I~d revised parKing area were
opentd.
The axi5ting ~otel CDnSists of 343 guest rooms plus I restaurant, cocktail
l~unge, .eeting/banquet rooms ~nd adminfstrattve and support servfces. The
hotel ro~s Ire In an "L" s~~d, four-story building parallel to the Southern
PaCific Rillroid tracks and In .n addition conslstins of two-, three-and
four·.torJ units located north of the lobby and restaurant arel. The
re.aining hotel functions a~e housed ln I Single-story building ~ith basement
areas located near £1 Camino Rea14 Access to tne site is provided by one
driveway onto UnlYersity tircle and two driveways onto [1 Camino Real.
Prp1f(t DescrfRtfpn~
The applicant requests aaen~nt of the PC District to allow the hotel to
retain the .xl.ting n.-ber of guest rooas (343 rooms) and pirking spaces (346
spaces). The .xistlng PC District allows 320 guest roODS and requires 351
parking spaces. Th. revised parking layout was ace opted by the City
Transportation 01visfon in order to 1~rove the ~ubTic accessibility and u~e
of the porking, olthough they acknowledge th.t, should the Council not approve
this aaendoent, a .estriping would be required (see the attached -.mora.dum
froa Karvin Overway to Nancy Lytle dated April 3, ]991 and the attached letter
from Carl Stoffel to Clement Chen dated Apri1 24, 1991}.
Prior to tonstructfon Df the room addition, the Ippl1cant received approval
fro. staff to retain the 20 9uest rooms during construction of the new roo.s
In order to .. intain at leost 276 operating 9uest rooms. The applicant al.o
prepared plans for eli.inatlon of the 20 existing guest roDCS and purch,sed 18
kitchenette. to be installed In the suites (two targeted ro .. s already
contained kitchenette.).
c-·-_____ ··
6125193 ,... ..
o
After the new rOOlfiS were opened, t~e app11cant analyzed the dl!llland for two
roo. suites cORpared to regular guest rooms and concluded that the actuaT
d .. and fs substantially smaller tha, expected. Thus, the hotel would achieve
greater revenues {and t~us great~r occupancy tax and lease re~en~es far the
City) by retaining the 40 gue~t r~oms compared to converting them to 20 two~
reo. suites. The app1ic.nt notified staff of his desire and requested time to
test the Dccupancy ~ates and need for the units as well as parking
requireweP'tts.
The applicant has also clarified that the existing bUl1dtng contained 279
rentable rooms ratner than 276 as indicated in the 1989 application. The
three additional guest rooms came from tne foliowing sources:
1. Two guest rooms were created in 1989 when t~e upper roo~ of two bi
level suites were separated from the lower ro~s by covering up an
1nterna"r window. When this was done, the two bi-level sllitts became
fo~r rooms that could be separately rented.
2. One guest room was broug~t back into service in J991 when tne hotel's
Personnel Office ~ved out of a guest ro~ and into new offlces in the
basemer.t of the addition.
AHAbYS1S/1Ssurs
Traffic
Approval of the project would have no n~ traffic impact because there will be
no change froM the presently existing conditions. However. by not converting
40 guest ro~ into 20 two-room suites IS previously required, the project
generate. addItional traffic compared to the previously approved project (320
room.). Also, the hotel ha, added thr.e additional rooms .mlch brings the
total number of existing rooms to 343.
An approximation of the incre.ental impact of the requested 23 additi~nal
rooms can be found in the September 30, 1987 letter (attached) frca OKS
Associate.. OKS Assocfates esti .. ted that the differential of 20 roam and a
restaurant (which is not req~ested in this application) would have an iMpact
of 12 ~ peak ho"r trips and 11 PM pe.t hour trips. The drffer.nti.l of 20
TODaS and i restaurant is estimated to Increase the vic ratio at tMree
1nt~rsectfQn$ by 0.01, with no change in lne service levels Sl~ce the OKS
analysis inc;udes the lmpact of a proposed restaurant whereas no r~staurant is
currently requested, the traffic i~act of tht additional rooms is lower than
these estl .. tes. Ba.ed upon the traffiC study prepared by PRe Engineering
dated February 1986, the letter from DKS A,sociates dated September 30, 19S7,
the 1992 level of service conditiens for Embarcadero/El Camino Real and the
latest }~vel of service condttions for U~iversitY/Pal~tl Camino Real, the
Transportation Division has concluded that the project (23 addition.l rooms)
would not ~ave I slgnificant traffic impatt.
P:IPCSI\'\PCSA62SE 6/25/93
Page 5
" ~-:
" 'i
r: _
-..
Parking
The approved room .ddition required 351 parking spaces, of which 321 were
exclusively for hotel use and 30 were for publlc po""it parking during the
dlytl .. , Konda, -Friday. OUring construction of tho addition, the
Transportat1on Oivision aCtepted a revised liYDut which chinged J2 compict
pe~it parking spaces into 11 standard plrk1ng spaces (a net reduct fen of one
$pace)~ and eliminated two pirk1ng spaces to improve traffic (irculltton.
These ch,ngos eliminated a total of three parking spaces, for. revised total
of 348 space.. In addition, the design for elettrlc.l service to the hot.l
was ch,ngad which resulted In the lnst.ll,tlon of a large transformer In th.
parking lot, eliminating two parking spaces. This change was m.de without
benefit of review by t~e Planning O;ViSiQr., TransportatiQn Diyision or th!
Architectur.l Review Board.
With tkese c~ang8S, the Existing ~,otel contilins the following parkfng:
Stiilndard spaces
tomp!le t sp aces
Handicap spices
Tot.l
179 (181 required)
161 (161 required)
~ 16 r-tgujred)
34& (348 required)
The tot.l plrkin9 includes 29 sp.oes that are s.t aside for City penolt
parking from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, Konday -Friday. In addition, t~e tot.l
1ncludts seven short-term spaces at the entry cirtle.
The ippl1tant fs requesting approval to retain the existing number of parking
spaces (346 compared to 348 required sp.ces). In addition, if the 23
additional guest rooms are approved, the Code requires 23 additional parking
spaces IIMch would bring tile total number of required parking space. to 371
spaces. Thus, the applicant is requesting apprDval of 25 fewer parking spaces
than requlTed by ordinance. This number os spices is within the threshold Qf
parking which can be adjusted by the Director of Planning and Community
Envlromoent ~y Sectlon·1!.83.12220(c).
To det ... lne the parking Impacts, twice dally parking surveys (at 6:00 om and
8:00 p.) were conducted in the Holiday Inn parking lot betweEn Jan,ary 1. 1992
and December 31, 1992. During 1992, the hotel had 99 days _ith more than 320
occupied rooms, including 48 full-haYs! days. However, there were only t~
days during 199Z in w~ich there ~ere less thin 50 vacant parking spaces during
the survey ti .. , --February 27, 1992 and Hay 2. 1992. On february 27. 1992
there were 32 vacant spaces at 6:00 am and 40 v.cant spaces at 8:00 pm. The
onl, day during the survey period In which the plrking lot was completely full ",S on MOy 2, 1992 when the Slack and White B.il was held at the hotel. Thus,
based UPOil tne piillrk~ng surveys, there wDu~d not bt I significant plrking
impact (i.e., t~e requested number of parking spaces is ildeq~ate to serve t~e
requested nu.oer of guest rooms}. In addition! it is not possible to add
parking spaces wlt~out reMOving existing landscaped ilrea in the parking lot.
6125193
Page 6
TrlDSfO'rwI o
The destgn for electrical 5ervic~ to the hotel was changed whicn res~lted in
the instal1ation of a large transformer in the parking lot ~n the eastern side
of the site, adjacent to the SP parking lot. The transformer is located on a
concrete pad and is surrounded by tnree fODt high ~tal pipes (for protection
from cars). The height of the transforner is approximately .lght feet. To
screen the transformer, it ;s recommended that a condition of approval reQulre
new landscaping a~d/or screening around t~e transformer, subject to approval
by the Architectural Review Board.
COMPREHENSIVE PlAN COMPLIANCE
The uses and site develcpment regulations within the PC Planned Co~nity
Olstrict mu.t be d~t.tmlned to be consistent with the Comprehensi'. Pl,n. The
additional hotel .se that would be permitted by this amendment Is the
currently permitted use of the subject property in confo~ance w~t~ the
Servtce CCUl'Berclal designation of the CmDprehens ive Plan.
. eyet i' BE~ EF [T
Approval cf tne requested PC zone chinge would require that puhlic benefit
findings be .ade. Below are the recommended public benefit findings.
1. The 23 additional rOOlls will result in a reve~ue increases to the City's
'ener.1 Fund (approximately 527,907 in 1992), a. follows:
i. The City .11' continue to receive additional occupar.cy tlX
revenues. In 1992. tke additional roo~s generated it least
S]7 t 669 in transient occupancy ti~.
b. The City will continue to receive additional ground rent revenues.
The hotel pays 5~ of gross room rentals is grou~d rent, so t~e
additional gro~nd rent attributable to the additional 23 rooms in
1992 .as 18,835.
c. The City will continue to receive additional sales tax revenues
Ind percentage ground rent on food and beverage sales. Tne 23
additfonal rooms also generate food and beverage revenues, whic~
generate sale~ tax revenues and ~ercentage ground rent. Applying
the overi11 1992 ratiO of food and beverage revenues to the
incremental foam re'lfenues yields an estimate1 S43,644 of
additfonal food revenue and S7,7'5 of additjonal be~erage reve~ue.
The additiona1, sales tax revenue (1% for the City) in 1992 was
$514. T~e additional grcund rent on food ~r.d be~erages in 1992
was $888.
2. The applicant proposes to donate 13 k'itch<!nettes to the City. Hlese
units would be useful in I Tow-inc.ome/SRO d~velopment. The tJnits cost
tne applicant $1,900 each ($24,;00 total) and are unused.
3. Th! additional 23 rooMS have spillover ben!fits to other bUSinesses in
the City as the hotel guests patronize stores. other resta~rants and
businesses in town.
612S193
..... 7
•
R£CPMNpAJtOM
Staff rec~nds that the Plannin9 Conoi"ion conceptually .pprove the
proposed aoenaoent to the Planned Community District, and forward lh.
IPP11eation to the Architecturol Re.! •• Board for r.vle~,
flNpINGS AHp CQHpITIONS
A final envlrG~ntal determlnatiDn, Ind recommended findings and conditions
will be provided for the CDOnis,ion at fln.l revlow of tn. application,
Att"hMnts:
Loco! Ion Map
Ell.
S.~telber 30, 19B7 letter from OKS Associate,
April 3, 1991 ""-Ora.dum 'roo Marvin O.erway
April 24, 199! le,ter frOil Corl Stoffel
Project Pllns and letter frao Appllc.nt .it~ Attachments (Commission Members
only)
Cgp1 n Sent To:
Architectural Rh';'" Board
Applicant
Property OWner
Carol Jansen, City ManagtT'S Off;ce
6125193
Ploe fJ
•
. '! -
1
! z
0 ~
-<
~ " « ~ u
0 :<
" -' ~ c,
LLI .,
~ ~
V')
, ,'.;,~ -~'li~'~<' -,
---
7
·,.,.L.i .... ·
: '-, .' -.
r
\
t
Environmental Documents -City of Palo Alto
ENYIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Project OescTlption/Tit1e: Holiday Tnn -Amendment of Planned tommu~O
District at 625 n (amir>o Rea1 to allo\fi the Holiday Inn to retain 343 e:dsting
guest rooms wb..ru"e 320 are p"esently approved and 346 existing parking spao~s
where 348 spaces are norma.lly rE'guired. ~{o new constrllcti.on is proposed. "T"he
applicant requests approval to retain 343 existing guest ~"ocms by n(')t
converting 40 ouest rooms into 20 two-room suites. <lS previollsh.--planned and
retainiflg three other existing guest rooms. which were not previously acprove.q
IS guest rooms.
Location/Address: 625 El Camino Real. Palo Alto. CA 94306
Sponsoring .Agencylflppl icant ~ .kJ emer.t Chen
Address and Telephone of Appl kant: 831 Montagmery Street., San Franc1 seo."
CA 94133 1415) ,28-2800
Application for: lone C~ .. a!!ng,.e"-__________________ _
Zoning at Project Location; PC Fee Receipt No.: 93-210
NOTICE OF DET'RMIN~TION
Based upon review of the project files. the undersigned member of the Planning
Oepartment has concluded;
~~gative oeclarotion: The project has no significant enVironmental
impact. No Environmental fmpact Report is ~equired. Th~ rea~ons for a
'Iegat i ve D-e-c 1 arat i on are:
in the e.ttached ird.tial stydy. A record of proiect actioni!
available foT' review at the Palo Alta Planning Depj~.r.tment, locat!;l·d
Dn the 5th floor of Cih Hall. 250 Hamilton .~venue. Palo Alto .. -I~ __ _
9430.1.
The project may have a significant E~vironmental impact. An
Environmental :mpact R;2port wi 11 be prepared.
Planning Department OffiCial: 1?~ ~
Planning Director: .A6,"~-£-Scj.~k Date: 6&1'13
The project nas been approved.
The project has been denied.
Date:
Date:
File No.: 93·EIA-18
...
o
EN~IROIIMENTAl DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO
INITIAt STUDY. U
I. Project Title/Address: Holid~y Inn -615 [1 Camino Re.,-
11. Project De-scr;ption: Hal irj,1"o1 lnn -.e.mendmerlt of Planned CO~..YD..i1.:L...1E£.l
Qiitrict at 625 El Ceminc Real to allow the Holiday rnn to retain ~43
e~isting guest rooms whe~e 320 pre pre~ently approved and 3~6 existins'
parking spa,ss where 348 spaces are nQrmally regu1re~. No ne~
CQrlstru:diof1 is propostd. The applicant requests. approval t:t retain 343_
existing guest rooms by not converting 4~uest rooms into 20 two~roo~
suites as previously planned and retajning three other existing Q.~_tl
rooms which were not pr2vlcusly appr'J\,:ed as ouest rooms.
III. Environmental Settin9~ The 6.7 acre site js occupied by a 343-room
notel wit~ a restaura~t, cocktail lounae. meeting roams. administration
and supporUervi;:es. J.h.e hotel employees 188 persons, __ indllding lSi.
full-time E"rngloy~€s and 29 part-time emp1cyees. There are sh ex_iili..ns
structures on the site with a t2..!al of 198,046 square feet of flQor area
(.&8:1 floor area ratio), Access to theJbotel is provid~d bv two
dri\leways o_nto Unive'l"ii ty Avenue and or.e drivewaY ont.Q...J,!nive-rsity
Circle.
IV. Environmental lmj:)act Checklist (Explanation of a1l "yes" answers are in
Se<tlon V)
I. Eart~, Will the proposal result In:
a. Unstable earth conditions or cnanges
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements~ compac
tion or overeovering of the soil
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief featUres?
d. The destruction~ covering ~r modi
fication of any unique geol~~ic or
physical fEatures?
e. Any increase in wind or water er~sion
of soils~ either ora or Dff the site?
f. Exposure of people or property to
geolo9;c hazards such as earthquaks1,
landslides. mudslides. ground failure
or similar haza~ds?
YES
• Adapted from AppendiX I, California Guidelines f~r Implementation of
CEQA, December 14, 1976 .
•• Updated Hay 1982, June 1983
_1_
_x_
9. Cl'langes in slltat'Otl, depo5.ition, or
eros,on which m.y modify the eha~nel
of • river or the bed of a bay O~
inl.tl
2. AlI. Will the proposa1 resu1t in:
a. Substantfal air emlssions or de·
terioration of ambient air ~ui11ty?
b. Tne creatlor. of objectionable odors?
c. A1ttrati~n of air movement, moj~turf
temperatore. or any than9~ in eli·
~ate~ either lotall1 or regionil1
3. ~. Will the proposal result in:
I. Changes \" absorpt'on rates t drainage
patterns. or the rate and amount of
surface water ~noff?
b. A1terations to the tourse Qr flo~ of
floDd waters?
c. Discharge into surfate witers. or in
any alteration of turface water
q~alitYJ including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen Or
turbidlty1
d. Alteration of the direction or rite
of flow of ground waters.?
e. Ex~osure of people or property t~
water related hizards 5uth ,~ fiood~
fng or tidal wav~?
f. Change In the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
add~tions or withdrawals, or through
interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or exta.vlIti ons?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity ~f lpecie$. ar
~umber of any species of plants (in~
,'udlng trees. shrubs, grass, crops,
~i,roflora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
..L
-)-
_x_
J..
J..
J..
_x_
_x_
·,. "
. " .~.:;
"-:..~'. ~.,~-"'
uniQu!, Tar! or !ndaogered specles
of plants?
c. Introducti~n of ne~ sp~ci~s of
plants into an a,ea, or in a barr-ier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. R~duction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
5. Animal life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles~
fish and shellfish! benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
h. Reducticn of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered spec~es
of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
i barrier to the migration or move
ment of animals?
d. Deterioration in existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
7.
8.
i. Increases in eXistlng noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to SEvere noise
1evel s1
i..ishl and Glare. Will the proposal
produce new light glare?
!..in4.....Use. Wil1 the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
9. £n.ergy/Natural Resources. 'Will the
proposal result in:
i. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy:
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or
require t~e d~velopment of new
NO
_1_
1
_1_
_1_
_L
_1_
.. -.-
10.
5D~rce5 or energy?
C. Increase in the rite cf use of any
na~ur.l re,~urce51
d. Substantial depletion of I~Y nonre
newable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Does the propos.'
in~olye a risk of an explosiGn or the
release of haz4rdous substances (In
cluding, but not limited to. 0;1.
pesticides, chemicals or radiationJ in
the event of an accident or upset?
11. Populatign/Houslng_
a. Will t~e proposil alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of in area?
b. Will the propos.l .ffect "isting
ho~sing. or create a demand for
additional housing?
12. Transportation/Cltculatlon. Will the
proposal result in~
i. Generation of SUbstantial additiDnal
~ehiculBr mQv~nt~
b. Effects on ~xisting parking facili-
ill
ties, or demand far new parkin9? _X_
c. A1terati~ns to present pBtterns of
circulation ~r movement of people
and/or goods?
d. Increase in traffic haZirds to mGtor
venicles, bicyclists or peo!strians?
13. Public S!rvices. Will t~e proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new
or altered 9~vernmental services in any of
the following areas:
i. Fire protection?
b. PDlice protection?
c. Schools?
_x_
_x_
_x_
_x_
_x_
L.
_X_
,
'j
", ,.
o
d. Parlcs: or other recreatioflal
facil Hies?
"
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Otner go~ernmental services?
14. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems. nr substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
•• Power or natural g'l.s?
b. CO!Mlunicatlons systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tank?
•• Storm water draiMge?
f. Solid waste and disposai?
15. Hum~~. Wl11 the proposal result
in;
a. Creation of any health hazard Qr
p~tenttal nealth hazird (excluding
ment.l health)?
b. [xp~sure of peop1e to potential
heaith h.!lards?
16. Aesthttics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruct~on of any scenic vista
Dr view open to the public, ~r will the
prcpasal resu1t in tne cr~ation of an
aesthetically offensive sit~ open to
pubic 'View?
17. Recreatlcn. wjl1 the proposal result
in an impact upon the qualfty or quantity
of eXisting recreational opportunitfes?
18. Cultural Resources.
a. WiTl the proposal result in the
aitcration of/or t~e destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b. Will th-e proposal result in ad~
_x_
_x_
verse physi,al ~r aesthetic effects
to a prehjst~ric or histo~ic
buirding, structu.e, or object?
c. Does the proposal have th~ pot~ntial
tG CllJSe a physical cnange '",hieh
would affect unique cultural values?
d. wn 1 the proposal restrict exist; ng
religious or sacred u~es witnin the
potential impact area?
19. Mandatory findln9s of Sjgnificance.
a. Does the projett ha¥e the pcte~tia' 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 le .... els, threa.ten to
eliminate a p1ant or anim~l community~
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered ~lant or
animal or eliminate important example~
of the major periods of California
~istory or prenistory?
b. D-oes the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the di s
advantag~ of tong-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term Imp.,t on the
environment is one which occurs in i
relatively brief t definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will
endure weJl into the future.)
c. D~es the project have impacts which
are ~ndividually lfm1ted, but
cumulatively considerable? (A prD
ject may impact on two or more
separate resources wher! the impact
on each reSDurce is relat\vely
small, but where thf effect of the
total of tl"ltlse impads on the
environment is significant.,
d. Does the project have en .... ironmental
effects wnich will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings~
either dire~tly or indirect1j1
V. [xplarlation of "'yes"' answers in environmental checklist.
See attached.
. -
_x_
_1_
_x_
12.!. Trafflt By not converting 40 guest rooms into 20 two-room suites as
previously required, the project wouid generate additional traffic compared to
the pre .... io:Jsly appro .... ed project \320 rooms). Also, the .~otel has added thre~
additional rocms which brings the t~tal number of existing roomS to 343,
Based upon the traffic study prepared by PRe Engineering dated February 1986,
the 1 etter from OKS As soc i a tu dated Septembe r 30 , J 987, the ! 992 1 eve 1 0 f
service conditions for Embarciidero/El Camino Real and the latest level of
service conditions for Unhersity/Palmjt.l Camino Real, the project (23
additional rooms) ~ould not have a significant traffic impact.
12.b. Parkina The applicant is requesting approval to re~ain the e~isti~9
number of parking spaces (t<~e hotel has 346 total eXlsUng park.ing space.5.
includiog 317 unrestricted spaces and 29 permit parking spaces which are
.available to tile public? by peMdt from the City. during daytime weekdays).
The hotel is presently required to prc¥ide 348 total parki~g spaces. If the
23 additional guest rooms are approved, the Code requires 23 additional
parking spaces which would bring the total number of required parking spaces
to 371 spaces. Thus, the applicant is requ~sting approval of 25 fewer parking
spac!s than would be required by Code).
To determine the parkin~ impacts, twice daily parking surveys (at 6:00 am and
8:00 plft) were conducted in the Holiday Inn parking lot between January I, 1992
and December 31 t 1992. During ]992. tne hotel had 99 days \Iw'ith more than 320
occupied rooms, including 48 full-house days. However, there were only two
days (IJrlng 1992 in which there were less than 50 'lIacant parki ng spaces during
the survey times --February 27, 1992 and May 2, J992. On February 27. 1992
there were 32 vacant spaces at 6:00 a~ and 40 vacant $paces at 8:00 pm. The
only day during the s~r¥ey peri~d in whlcn the parking lot was completely full
"","as on May 2, 1992 when the Black and White Ball was held at the hot.!l. Thus,
based upon the parking surveys, there would not oe a significant parking
impact 'i.~., the requested number of parking SD~ces is adeQuat~ to serve t~e
requested number of gve~t rooms).
.---' ~ v
DKS Associates
7&90 Z<l_'1kt RaJ"}
s..",JO]
5.:m ~_ CA 951J-I
f.J08J~jJ ~90
September 30, 1987
City ot Palo Alto
'l'ransp<:>r'..atim Departl!lent
250 lIamiltcn Avenue
Palo Alto; C3li!orr~a 9~301
Attn: Mr, MaIvin CNezvay
''nnsportaticn D!rect=
RECEIVED
OCT 05 1987
C:f/)
-;C~
s.(/
Ji ,"
RetY'111 fr '~I')
-" ~,r:
Subject: Adde.rrlurn to Palo Altc Holiday Inn. Traff!r; Drpac.t stuiy f'861J4Xl
Dear Mr. Overway:
'!he following trarfic data is p=v1ded as an adderoum to the Traffic stWy
pre:pa.red. in :F.ebruar.t, 1986 :for the Palo AI to Holiday Inn Expansion in the
City of Palo Alto, We urdexstarrl that the pn:>ject "?X'SOr has S\JtBitt.d a
revised e><pansloo prq>oGal that reduces the net l'l\ll11lJer of """ =s ora
creates addltiooal on--grade po.rldrq ~ .. proposed nstripin;J
program. '!his letter serves to up:!ate infoDllatian on the pn:>ject trip
generation, traffic bpacts, pe:rki.n; demards, ard project mitigations in
vJ.a.. of the lIXXlifications that are """ prq;>osei.
Trip Ge.rye:ratian
'!he revised prcpoo;.ll wet.lld result in a ret iN:rease of ~4 keyad guest
.rc:ans, for a total of 320 units (276 exi..stin; , 44 ne:t new roc:ms). Dle
net .i.rcre.ase in 'tOtal daily trips v.:ul.d be 356 ve..'lUcles Oller the exist.i.rq
oarditions. 'Ib.e revised project 'MO...1ld result in .a dec::t"ea.se or total dally
tripe (162 ["-leX net daily trips than the origillal proposal) aN peak h=
volumes when ~ to the origillal sul:mission, '!he ad:!ed peak hour
vol t.:m'eS, ur.der the original ar.d. .revised 6Ul:nissions, "WQ.lld be as follows:
AM Peak Heur Trips J>.dded,:
Original ~
17
.!1
36
u
JJ
24
-6
-=-~
-12
--------, ~~-----'
--\
Mr. Huvin ov""""'y
city ot hl,o Alto
september 3D, lS&7
P<lqe 2
TrJIWe !l!pacts
19
12
J(
'.
/
13
12
23
'!be 1lzpacts of the original and revl$ed pxq>:>Sa1s an tratt!e ooniitiO!\S
era evaluatod 1'or the &alIe t"..o soenaric.s preser.tod in the initial traffic
study: the year 1987 am the yeor 1990. '!he re./ trips q<neratod by both
the original iU>:I revised project ...... added to these Pase scenarios to
detenW>e the JlIpacts en local intusectiun «nllticns. 'Ibe intexsectian
service levels for the baseline and "with project" 6OE:nilrlos axe presentEd
in Table 1-
'!be 5eJ:Vice levels ...... l.necI UI'ld>arqed tor all foor in~ vith the
ad1itic:n of project traffic ur>:ler both the orlsinal and revisEd
prq:osals. Kir.c>r jn:zeases in vic ratio (+<l.Ol) <Her the basel.ine
cxn1itions """-lld result at six intan;ections for t..", original prqxlSOl.
'!he revl$ed proposal wwl4 resl>lt in increases in vic ntio at three
inteD;ac:tlms,
J»sed Q) the &doc1:e3 starrlards at the City of Palo Alto. ;,.., analysis of
tile RD'!oe levels s.."loJn en Table 1 irdicates that rp significant t..~f!ie
llmact.s loIO.l!d cro'r <I!It the intersections analYZEd due to th2 reYise.1
ptnr95",l for the Holiday Inn P.pgp Addition. 'Ihe service levcls 'WCUl.d not
~ at &rrJ or t..'1e locations, &n:1 r.::ne ot the ,1.nte:."sect1ons at JOerJice
level 0 or greater ~d e>perien:;e arTj increase in vic ntio due to the
project.
'Ibe iIddi tian of H net gIleSt ~ to the P<llc Al to Holiday Inn ""-Jld
resu1 tin .. total Of J20 rt><DS in the facUi ty. Based on the City of Polo
Alto COde requirement of 1 parldrq stall per ro<:lII, the total parltiJ>g
requirement. for the hotel ~ be 32C parkiIJ; spaoes. '!he revised
proposal tor the Palo III to lialiday 1m ExpanSion calls for 351 parkin;
.... ces in the on-site orurface lot based en .. restriping Of the at-gnde
pari<ing' are.>. 'Ibe hotel also has approximately 9 short-term _00$ at the
entry drive an:! driveway c1=1e. 'nle current parl<!rq ""Wly ~d allow
tor the provisiCZl of 30 city Pemit Pa:rl<irq spaces in addition to the 320
required -=. 'Ibe =v1sed proj oct ...:nld th'1S provide adeqUate aJ-$i te
~ to ..... t peal< parkiIJ; d_.
.,
.'." .
o
Me. Marv.in CNerway
city of Falo Alto
~~ 30, 1987
Fage 4
Mitigations
" /"
'!he oddition of project traffic to local intErsections in the study ..........
\ooO.lld not result in arry significant traffic .in:pacts. .As a result, ro
o!!-siu. """ffic mitigations are~. '!he curr.mt _>1<iN;J supply
at the hotel is adequate to moet the code roquirem2nts a."d provide an
adlltional )0 sWls far City Fennit Parking Spaoes.
'!he SU\Restlon presented in the original report for il'pr=iN;J access to
the site by prtNidi.-.:J additional guidance .igreg. at the project driv"",,,ys
is still~. '!his inprov~ has be<:n incorporated by city
staff in the project ccnlitions p.. ... p>.red for t:. ..... Plan.~ COmIissicn and
the City Ccuncll.
'!he t.-aUlc data tor the rev1:;e.l ~ for the ihlo Alto Holiday Inn
E>cpansioo establishes a basis for the oon:::lusion that no signifioant
<:rUfie impacts WUJld occur trcn the eJ<paI1S1an for the int:e-sections that
......xe evaluated. '!be revised prq;osaJ. to ndUce the ~ of net new
XtXmS by 20 units tra> the original ~l reduces the net daily oro.
peak hour trips that \oOlld be generated. '!be ~ian in net """ roans
unler the NVised ptq>OSal "<>lld t»eretore have lesser ilIpacts than those
generated by the original hote.l expansion proposal. As the re-.rised
prq>csal wwld have no signiticant ~ct on local traffic q:>eratians. 00
ott-site txaffic mitigaticn ore.asxres are re:x:mte.>"):ied for this project.
'lbe traffic data sha.;s that the re-.r1sed project proposal results in
reductions fr. vP.hicle trips an:1 ~ ~, -.men c:anpa.rOO vith the
original prcpoo;al. '!his is attril.utoble to the reJuction in the tot..l
JlIlWler of new hotel roans prq>OSeCl tor the project.
If you. have any furt.her questicns ~ the trar.s:portation i.:npact.s of
the revisea Holiday Inn Ro::m Addition, please feel tree to call :me, or in
Jny abseD;e, Rt:::hert Cr~ of o..rr office, a.t (-408) 433-3990.
Sincerely,
0:: Jdu1 D. Neo..trro:m
carl Stoffel
•
\ . /
\
.-~..:: .
!Ir. KorvW CNer.n>¥
city ot Palo lilt<>
~30, 19B7
Paqe 3
'faDle 1
,
/
.lNJl:J'tSEr ,IQf tz'I1EtS OF Sf.lNICE
CQaporiscn -Revised I original :!>roject
1981 Sggyrrio
lJj Peale I!rur!
(ll
El~ DIE 0.91 DjE 0.91
OlE 0.91 DjE o.n
El Camin:>/Palm A O.H A 0.44
(~nzrpsJ A 0.44 A 0.45
El CaminojOniversity A 0.54 A c). 54
<=-raops) A 0.54 A 0.55
El Camin:>/Stionford c;ID O.Bl ~0.81
Sh<:Wing Center c;ID 0.81 ~0.B1
l!1 Peak !!oor:
Elcamino~ F 1.07 F 1.0'l
F 1.07 F 1.09
El CalIIin:>,IP<.llr. I¥C 0.70 I¥C 0.71
(so..~ ri!lTp$) SIC 0.70 B/C 0.71
n ca.~,lUniven;ity I¥C 0.69 I¥C 0.70
(norl:hbo.JrD nzrps) BjC 0.69 B/e 0.70
El camiro/SUnford E 0.94 E 0.94
Shopping Center E 0.94 E 0.94
Note:
.' ..
." .....
1990 Scenario
I2l KIA H/A
}l/A WA
Jf/A Up.
NjA N/A
Jf/A KIA
Jf/A N/A
K/A RIA
N/A N/A
E .0.96 E 0.96
E 0.96 E 0.96
0 0.84 0 0.84
0 0.84 D 0,84
C 0.73 C 0.74
C 0.73 C 0.74
c;ID 0.79 ~O.79
C/O 0.79 Cj'D 0.79
{l) 'lhe 6eNioe levels o.re lis:t:ed for eadl in~CI\ in the t"ollO..lirr;J
order: tile _ rc>or js for tile zevioad propcsal am the lower rOot is
for the ori9inal prcpoo;a.l.
,"
(2) AM peak ho.lr project.ia>s a= oot available. tor the 1990 ..,.""...10 with..
the Willc:v lloed. Extensia), as noted .in the orig!..:niU report, as they ...-ere
nat pr-c<Llced tar the WlllOW' Rood EXtension llEIR •
. '-<
\
1
I
o
:/'
CITY OF PALO ALTO
>lEKOv.NJ)tnI
'i",-'L~
~" -",rA
15 f--f\ f2. \S - (
TO: NANCY LYTLE ~~ril
MARVIN L. OVERWA~~~
HOLIDAY INN EXPANSION
3, 1991
FROM:
SUBJECT:
• • * • * • * * • * * * * • • • ~ • • * * * ~ • * * * * * * • * *
We have had some disc~ssions with Clement Chen III regarding the
parking spaces they are suppose to :make avail03ble to the City as
part of the approval of their e:xpansion~ His attached letter,
accurately represents our discussions.
We are not sure anyone is going to use these spaces, but we have a
plan to give it our best effort a In orde.r to increase the
probability that someone(s) might use them 'We 'Would like them
located as conveniently to the University underpass connection to
the downtown business district as possible, therefore the location
he has noted is cur preference~
The number of parking spaces they agreed to supply was 30 total.
However, instead of 22 compact ar.d 8 standard stalls, we 'Would
prefer less compact and more standara stalls. By restriping one
section as noted on his plan we would end up 'With a total of lO
compact and 19 standard stalls for a total of 29 spaces4 I ~ould
prefer this arrangement, particularly when ~e don't expect that
they will all be useda
As an alternative, he could do the same restripinq and in addition,
qive us one more space. He tells me he has just enough to meet his
legal requirement and, therefore, cannot do so. He could give us
larger spaces elsewhere on his property, but cthp.r locations ",,'ould
be of little or no use to the City and 'We 'Want them in this
particular corner. He could redesign his entira parking lot to
shift sizes around, but to me, that level of effort and expense
seems excessive for so~ething wittJ such marginal use and benefit~
I would like to approve his proposal to restripe 12 compact spaces
for 1~ standard spaces anQ accept 29 total spaces as meeting his
req:.lirernents PO spaces) specified in the PC unless you have some
con.cern about doing so. If the matter ever became a major issue
the ~l standard spaces could again be restriped as 12 compact
spaces at minimal expense. However, at such future time; it might
be at the city'S expense.
Please let me know whether or not you see a problem.
CC: Ken Schreiber
o
Transportation Division
P.o. Box 10250
94303-0862
April 24, 1991
Mr. Cle~ent Chen
Clement Chen and Associates
820 Montqomery Street
San Francisco~ CA 9413)
Dear Mr. Chen:
250 Hamilton Avenue
Sixth F!oor
(415) 329-2552
This is to confirm our. telephone disr:l1'5sion today that you
will not be required to install the two new compact parking
spaces near the north parking lot driveway, as shown on
Sheet AI.l. Though it is not obvious fron the drawin9~ I
felt that these two spaces ~ould interfere too ~uch with
exitinq f£om the parking lot. V~r.ginia Warheit of the
Planning Division aqreed that these two spacez did not need
to be provided to meet your parking requirement.
However, it is still necessary to provide 29 spaces to the
city to fulfill the terms of the condltion of project ap
proval regarding the provision of permit parking. As we
discusse~ on the tel~phone, you agreed that the two spaces
would be t3ken from the row adjacent to University Circle,
so that ~o compact spaces would b~ provided for the city, as
opposed to th~ 8 shown on She~t Al.l~ The attached drawings
indicate how the signing of these spaces should be accorn-
pl ish.ed~
Additionally, in a telephone conversation between us on
April 17, 1991, you stated that you were planning to install
th.e driveway signs shown on Sheet 13~. N'Dte that the at
tached drewings referred to in the previous paragraph call
for alterations in Sheet 13A in the ~ay the City stalls are
siqnl!!d~
Sincerely,
C~ 1rft.-1f'~
cARL STOFFEL
Transportatio~ Engineer
cs
Attachments
cc: Virgini~ Warheit
""r I I,.
-------~
. ...:.-------
t IJ
! ___ --:k= =--:-""_-.-::.""'_ -'::>;:'-="-1-:-( ",-)o--~)I lr-,----"':>-I..-(-Ey-i--