Hotel developer, neighbors must compromise, commissioners say

The neighbors made substantial compromises to reach agreement with Patel on the design which was submitted to the Planning Commission for its March 12, 2018 meeting.

The very idea that Patel can now walk away from his agreement with the neighbors on the earlier design and then put a totally different design forward without any neighborhood support and that the Planning Commission would then dare to say that we now have to compromise with this new much more intrusive design is a travesty.

I predict that unless the developer goes back to the previously acceptable to the neighbors underground parking plan ( which greatly reduces the above ground mass) that the granting of a public benefit bonus will be fought at the PC level, at the Council level and in the courts.

Without the public benefit bonus this project is dead.

And even if that battle not to grant a public benefit bonus is eventually lost (which I don't think it will be because using the TOT to justify a public bonus without looking at the cost is just the city taking a bribe at the cost of the neighbors) the delay will doom this project.

The Planning Commission's job is to represent the community not to be a shill for a developer.

Park Forest Plus

-Committed to a Just Settlement of the Hampton Inn Project-


Press Release


Date: 10/14/2018
From: Park Forest Plus, an Association of the Park Forest and Surrounding Neighborhoods
Re: The Hampton Inn Project at 1704 El Camino Real
Contacts: Peter Carpenter <peterfcarpenter@me.com>; Fred Rose <fred_rose@sbcglobal.net>; and Susan Neville <scneville@gmail.com>

****************

Determined neighbors of a prospective Hampton Inn have written the Menlo Park Planning Commission demanding a full public analysis of the hotel's pending Public Benefit Bonus. In a letter to the Commission, a neighborhood association expressed concern that the Bonus was being inappropriately applied solely in return for payment of the Transient Occupancy Tax, a fee levied on all hotels in Menlo Park and most other cities.

“Why is a hotel being granted a huge expansion in size for just paying its taxes,” said Peter Carpenter, a member of the Park Forest Plus neighborhood association; “We want an explanation from the Planning Commissioners, who appear on the verge of granting a multi-million dollar benefit to the developer without consideration of the impact on the neighbors." Park Forest Plus is a gathering of concerned citizens in over 100 affected homes and about 200 affected voters. The group recently submitted over 115 signatures to the Planning Commission and City Council opposing the project.

The group's current letter is a follow up to an official Planning Commission study session with Hampton Inn developer, Sagar Patel, and the community. At this session neighbors made it clear that the lengthy negotiating history between the community and the developer had broken down. An agreement they had reached was unilaterally scrapped by Mr. Patel and the Hampton Inn this May. During the study session, some commissioners seemed unaware of the negotiating background. When he broke the agreement, Mr. Patel said the cost of under-ground parking was too expensive. The revised plan now puts all of the parking above ground within the footprint of the building, thereby substantially increasing the above ground size of the development and jamming the structure closer against the adjacent neighborhood. Since the breached agreement, Park Forest Plus has opposed the hotel on grounds of the sudden imposition of narrow building setbacks, height, ground level parking, and other facets of the development; aspects that had previously been negotiated.

The proposed Hampton Inn is on a unique site, making it different from some of the other hotels built along the El Camino Real corridor. Planning Commission allowances of the Public Benefit Bonus have enabled developers to build hotels in the downtown area by increasing the Floor Area Ratio on relatively-small lots. In the Hampton Inn case, with the bonus the expanded building would include floor space bigger than the lot size, a jump beyond the .75 Floor Area Ratio normally allowed under the Downtown Specific Plan. The location calls for different treatment than other hotels along El Camino– first it is located in the “low density” northeastern district and second, it doesn't front on the thoroughfare but is tucked back 130 ft. into a residential community surrounded on three sides by single-family homes, condominiums and park like grounds.

The hotel's contribution to the city budget would be relatively small. Planning Commission staff calculates that the Hampton Inn contributions will total about $390,000, after netting out the estimated tax currently paid by the small Red Cottage Inn, which the Hampton Inn would be replacing. That amount equals 3.5% of the $11.18 million projected in Menlo Park's current fiscal 2018-2019 budget. “It's interesting that the Planning Commission appears willing to throw the neighborhood under the bus for a 3.5% addition to the Transit Occupancy Tax,” said Fred Rose, a member of Park Forest Plus.

The initial Hampton Inn hotel design had underground parking that helped keep the building a reasonable size that worked for the small flag lot currently occupied by the Red Cottage Inn. The neighbors, worked closely with the developer for 18 months and came to a successful agreement with compromise on both sides.

A revised design surfaced after the agreement was reached that eliminated underground parking with cost being stated as the major driver for the change. The revised design has all above-ground parking, much of it being contained within the first floor of the structure. This resulted in the overall building size being much larger. 30% larger. And, 80% larger than the size allowed by the approved Downtown Specific Plan for this "low density" zoned area. The currently contemplated design basically wedges a very large, three story hotel back into our residential neighborhood with more than 100 homes (and 200 voters). You can imagine this is not acceptable. For a development of this size, we should expect underground parking in order to best utilize the space and not wedge in a massive building on such a tiny lot. It will have a significantly negative impact on our quite family neighborhood.

We must reach a creative solution with the developer and planning commission that is a win-win for all involved.

"Ultimately, though, people who have problems with the new Hampton Inn proposed at 1704 El Camino Real should be prepared to compromise," commission chair Susan Goodhue indicated. "In these situations, people don't get everything they want. There have to be compromises," and they can't all be the developer's," Goodhue said.

With the above ground parking resulting in an additional (third) story - a much larger scale/bigger impact design and the reneging of the prior agreements made by the developer with the homeowners, what does the Planning Commission expect the residential neighbors to compromise on, especially if the developer says he's in "a financial bind" and can't afford underground parking. The current plan/design's impact will not be ameliorated by some additional trees or landscaping.

All sides in this situation need to compromise/collaborate... and that includes the City. The Planning Commission can't push off all compromise to the neighboring homeowners. All parties, including The Planning Commission, have a lot at stake on this project and need to work together. Given that underground parking is the key to a smaller footprint/impact hotel acceptable to both developer and residents alike, the City could provide incentives to the developer to build underground parking. There are a number of possible ways this might be done.

This project is only going to get more complicated, prolonged and problematic if the Planning Commission doesn't listen to and collaborate with the resident neighbors, as well as the developer, and come to the table to help make things work between all parties.

This whole thing stinks, and if the Planning Commission remains spineless then it's just another rollover for crap development on El Camino at the expense of residents. Planning Commissioner Drew Combs who was part of this discussion will be Councillor Combs when this comes for approval of Public Benefit and final granting of permission at Council. It's Comb's responsibility to stand up for residents (as his platform suggests) so hold him to pushing back!

It did seem like Mr Combs had more a more nuanced understanding of what the neighborhood concerns were and was the only commissioner to name that this project, if approved, might well be appealed and taken to the Council for a review.

Below is a follow up letter submitted to the Planning Commission by members of Park Forest Plus, a group representing the broader neighborhood opposition to the recent design changes.
----
October 14, 2018

Dear Members of the Planning Commission

We would like to thank you for hearing the views of the Park Forest Neighborhood residents that attended the October 8, 2018 study session regarding the proposed 1704 El Camino Hampton Inn project. We represent a significant block of concerned Menlo Park citizens opposing the development consisting of over 100 affected homes, over 115 signed petitions submitted to the City Council opposing the project and 25 home owners that were present for the study session.

As stated in the meeting, we are not fundamentally opposed to development on the proposed site. We worked closely with Mr. Sagar Patel, the developer, for nearly 18 months in good faith, making many concessions, and agreed to a plan that was acceptable to all parties. In late May, a new set of plans were submitted to the commission that were massively different than the previously agreed-to plans. The building structure was substantially larger, solely due to the removal of the underground garage. A new parking garage was included as part of the first floor structure of the building, causing the size of the overall building to be substantially increased. This larger structure resulted in an overall building size that exceeds the base FAR allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan and requires a public benefit bonus exception. This is before even considering the additional expansion of the structure and FAR implications added by the first level parking. The developer has stated that underground parking needed to be eliminated as it is too expensive to make the project economically viable. We note that there is another new hotel, the Park James, that is smaller (61 rooms vs 68 rooms), that recently opened and includes under-ground parking and most other projects planned for the ECR corridor will also include underground parking.

We believe that returning to underground parking is the only way to reduce the size of the structure and create a win-win, not only for the neighbors in the greater Park Forest area (which there are approximately 100 homes and approximately 200 voters opposed to the current plan), but also the developer, hotel guests and the city. Underground parking is the optimal use of land and would enable a smaller structure to be built, and create a more park-like setting surrounding the hotel.

We propose that the developer return to the agreement we previously reached that results in a smaller building that is in line with the Downtown Specific Plan. If underground parking is not economically feasible our default position is that the building must be reduced in size to conform with the 0.75 FAR.
Some follow up items brought forth at the planning commission that we ask the planning committee and staff to respond to are as follows:

1. Conduct and make publically available a full public benefit bonus (PBB) impact analysis. This should not only consider the additional tax revenue the city would receive (TOT), but at a very minimum, an analysis of the negative impact on surrounding property values that accrue from having such a large nearby structure that occupies a very small lot. The negative impacts of traffic, noise, congestion and a huge commercial intrusion in a residential setting have impacts beyond this neighborhood – they should also be considered. The PBB cannot be solely based on the rationale stated “that it brings in more money to the city”. We believe the long term negative impacts of this development will offset the TOT gains. Note, the current plan proposed by the developer significantly exceeds the allowed FAR from the Downtown Specific Plan and is relying on a public benefit bonus to justify the deviation. It is our understanding that the study session should have incorporated the appropriate fiscal/economic review (with work overseen by City staff), which should broadly quantify the benefits/costs of the bonus FAR/density/height and the proposed public benefit. We have not seen this full analysis.

2. Provide a formal response as to the acceptance of the developer’s proposed FAR calculation and why this does not include the first floor garage, which is part of the building structure. The current FAR, which already exceeds the base FAR that is allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan zoning without the public benefit bonus, does not include the first story parking garage. The purpose of the FAR is to ensure the size of the structure falls within a range that is reasonable to the surrounding developments. The FAR calculation is not an accurate reflection of the proportion of mass to site because FAR does not include ground floor parking located within the footprint of the building. A better calculation is to compare the total size of visual above ground mass between the March and current plans. This building is too large for the site.

3. Explore creative ways the city can incentivize the developer to make underground parking available (fewer spaces required in the modern age of Uber, etc).

We look forward to further discussions and coming to a reasonable resolution similar to the one we struck previously that is a win-win for all constituents.
Sincerely,

Park Forest Plus

A possible compromise is to use the parking of neighboring properties, such as the Pacific Union building, instead of building all parking on hotel property. Daytime businesses don't need the parking at night. And hotel guests primarily use parking during the night.

Carpenter above wrote:

"The Planning Commission's job is to represent the community not to be a shill for a developer."

What a naive and certainly totally not reflective of the PC's historical decisions.

If not for Rich Cline and his devotion to bigger and denser over his 12 years, none of the crap MP is not facing would have been and about to be taking place.

With all the kowtowing to developers and commercial real estate owners in MP one begins to wonder at what seems to be not only a lack of competence but also backbone within the planning office when dealing dealing with them. Municipal governments and appointed and elected officials have had a history of unaccountability throughout the world and it seems that those folks in MP are no different.That includes caving in to receive backing for election support.

Posted for a neighbor - his letter to the City Council:


Introduction: the new Red Cottage or Hampton Inn project has now been in the works for more than 3 years. Unfortunately, it has recently deteriorated materially and no longer deserves approval or the finding of a public benefit. The project needs to go back to the drawing boards in light of what has occurred.

This writer has lived in the Park Forest townhouses for more than 20 years and in the MP area for almost 50 years; I have also had a law practice in Redwoodd City for 50 years THE ORIGINAL IDEA:
The developer is Sagar Patel. More than 3 years ago, he proposed erecting a Hampton Inn at 1704 ECR. The original concept was a giant, massive, bulky "sqared off" buildiding painted grey, red, and white (like other Hapmpton Inns) and towering more than 40' high.
The Park Forest townhome residents (more than 100 townhomes) and others in the Buckthorn neighborhood strongly objected; this massive new commercial building INTRUDED INTO their purely residential neighborhood and was unsightly and depressed property values, not to mention loss of privacy and quietude.
An intensive period of negotiations commenced more than 2.5 years ago with Mr. Patel. Much time and effort was invested, and good faith was shown by both sides. An agreement was reached which called for the project to be less massive in scope and less intrusive, with important areas pushed back away from the townhomes and toward ECR. A complete underground parking garage was in the plans, and we agreed.
Several months ago this plan (the one we all agreed on) was put before a study session of the Planning Commission (PC); the main aspect that they wanted to see changed was the design-to make the project more in the "Santa Barbara" style.

THE FIRST NEGATIVE DEVELOPMENT:
But then things turned negative; Mr. Patel indicated that he could no longer afford an underground parking garage (parking was proposed to be surface only) and he abandoned the agreement that had been reached (he did suggest some modifications, but they have been unacceptable to the homeowners).
Another study session of the PC was held in early October of this year. No important substantive changes were proposed.
It is unfair to criticize the homeowners ; they spent more than two years in countless meetings whch DID RESULT in an agreement with Mr. Patel. There is no reason to believe that that agreement would not have been accepted by the City. It is what the city likes to see (cooperation).
Rather, it was Mr. Patel, allegedly for economic reasons, who made a HUGE ALTERATION in the project, abandoning what has become sacred to Menlo Park, namely, underground parking for such projects. I ask the city to examine its files: is it not true that in recent years, underground parking has become the Bible for such projects and is essential to city planning? Witness Park James Hotel at Glenwood and ECR with its extensive and deep underground garage.

The abandonment of underground parking is therefore THE ESSENTIAL factor that has occurred with this project to make it DETERIORATE materially since its conception. The City seems to be ignoring this. Why should 1704 ECR be treated differently from other commercial ECR corridor developments? How is this considtent with the city's general planning processes?

THE EFFECT

City officials should now send this project back to the drawing boards. When the project was originally before a study session (more than a year ago), it DID HAVE underground parking; maybe (not certain at all given the legal requirements) at that time, a "public benefit bonus" would have been merited. But now!? Things have gone sour and important public concerns no longer are being pursued; no possible public benefit exists, and this enire issue needs to be explored in depth (it has not been analyzed thus far). Another surprising (and negative) development that has occurred is this: with the abandonment of the underground parking garage, the MASSIVENESS IN SCALE of the project has returned, with estimates that without the garage the building is approximately 28% larger in scope. The reduction in massiveness was the principal reason for the original homeowers' concern.
Maybe the developer needs to take a little less profit in order for the underground parking garage to continue; is this being explored? Maybe a different concept needs to be considered, for example: a more expensive "boutique" type hotel, withi more expensive per night rooms, but with fewer rooms and less massiveness in size, while still proviiind the developer with adequate financial return.
CONCUSION:
It would be premature and illegal to allow this project to proceed as currently proposed. The homeowners, as always, will entertain reasonable plans (and spent two years doing so with success), but we and the City are getting no where with the present project. Most projects improve with city input; not so with this one. It is time to take a hard look.
Michael J. Brady, esq

The issue remains that no one wants change here and it is here to stay. We need development, thoughtful development, but development. This town is now outdated because no one wants any change. It is too late for that, we have so many people who want to keep things as they have always been. But we have major companies now and things need to be updated for the job market. I wish this was on Santa Cruz Avenue so that we can see new things and not the same old buildings with nothing in them. I grew up here and yes, it is sad we cannot keep the old vibe, but we cannot benefit from what is becoming the most expensive real estate in the US and soon in the world and complain when things change.

Menlo Native:

You are absolutely right that change is here to stay, and development is needed in Menlo Park. But what kind of development, how much development and where should the development take place? Thoughtful is indeed the operative word. The resident neighbors and property owners of Park Forest don’t deny that the hotel’s developer should have the opportunity to develop his property. The concern is to what extent.

Commercial development foisted into residential neighborhoods is only part of the problem in this case. The latest plan by the developer is nearly one third larger than the previously agreed to plan and, as such, overly intrudes on privacy and visual site lines and materially affects the quality of residential living in the neighborhood. This is what is being objected to by the hotel’s neighbors.

Moreover, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – the relationship between the useable floor area in a building and the area of the lot the building is located on – is limited to .75. The current plan is well beyond this requirement. The City would have to give the developer a Public Benefit Bonus (PBB) to allow him to go beyond the 0.75 regulation. The granting of a PBB needs to comply with a number of conditions and is not an automatic grant. The fact that more tax dollars would come to the City with the development is only one factor. Impact on the neighborhood and its neighbors needs to be considered as well. If the PBB is not granted, this will limit the size, scope and impact of the project as the standard FAR will be used. This may affect whether the developer could even do the project as his franchisor likely has a minimum guestroom requirement, among other space and room size requirements.

The big issue here is underground parking or lack thereof. When the developer incorporated underground parking into his plans, he and his neighbors reached an agreement to a mutually acceptable design-size. And the resident neighbors could support his plan and the grant of the PBB with the City. Without the underground parking, the new plans add an additional story and creates too many more problems than the previously agreed two-story plan and structure…and this is where the resident push back against the plan and PBB is coming from – not the basic development itself. Some development is good and appropriate. And in Menlo Park’s case, it is needed. But it depends on how much and where. Too much (above ground) commercial development in a residential neighborhood is the root of the problem is here.

Under the Downtown Specific Plan this area, which is the farthest from downtown of any zone, is the only one designated as Low Density in the entire DSP.

There is nothing Low Density about the proposed project.

The Municipal Code Section 16.68.020 requires:

"(1) That the general appearance of the structures is in keeping with character of the neighborhood;

(2) That the development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the city;

(3) That the development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood;"

This project meets NONE of these standards.

How exactly does a cheap hotel that is almost a mile from Santa Cruz Ave contribute to "Downtown Vibrancy"?

How are cars from the proposed hotel going to safely make a left turn onto El Camino Real during rush hours in order to get to downtown Menlo Park for that "vibrancy"?

"How are cars from the proposed hotel going to safely make a left turn onto El Camino Real during rush hours in order to get to downtown Menlo Park for that "vibrancy"?"

They can't now and won't be able to later unless major changes are made there. As of now a right turn and a u-turn are required to get to downtown from the Red Cottage.

The new hotel at the corner of ECR and Valparaiso has the same issue.

If high-density, out-of-character buildings DESTROY the precious, precious property values around them, you'd see that with the Park Forest properties themselves! They're three-story boxes jammed in with no side setbacks, and a generally terrible aesthetic (they look like you asked a child to design a bunch of townhouses). Their parking is at grade (oh the HORROR) and is even worse than the proposed hotel design in that every single townhouse has its own garage, which means the pedestrian environment kind of sucks. So are the one-story bungalows across Buckthorn run-down crackhouses as a result? NO- they're as valuable as any other property in the area, with any price differential based on their building size.

Honestly, the default mode of any planning commission is to kowtow to a group of motivated neighbors, and any aspiring politician is likely to pander away. The fact that the Menlo Park commission (including Drew Combs, running for office) didn't immediately buy into Susan/Scott/Peter et al's arguments should tell you how lame their arguments are.

The Park Forest neighbors would be delighted if our unique European village design and life style was replicated on the Red Cottage site.

How is this DSP rule going to be enforced for the Hampton Inn:

"I. Hotels and Motels. Establishments offering lodging to
transient patrons. These establishments may provide
additional services, such as conference and meeting
rooms, restaurants, bars, spas, or recreation facilities
available to guests or to the general public. This
classification includes motor lodges, motels, hostels,
extended-stay hotels, and tourist courts, but does not
include rooming hotels, boarding houses, or residential
hotels designed or intended to be used for sleeping for
a period of 30 consecutive days or longer."

The Downtown Specific Plan states:

"The overall intent of the El Camino Real/Downtown Specifi c
Plan is to preserve and enhance community life, character
and vitality through public space improvements, mixed
use infill projects sensitive to the small-town character of
Menlo Park and improved connectivity."

The current 1704 ECR project plan is hardly " sensitive to the small-town character of
Menlo Park."

"The Specific Plan’s guiding principles are:
 Enhance Public Space;
 Generate Vibrancy;
 Sustain Menlo Park’s Village Character;
 Enhance Connectivity; and
 Promote Healthy Living and Sustainability."

The current 1704 ECR project plan fulfills NONE of these principles.

In any other country taking cash in exchange for giving a developer additional building rights would be properly be called a bribe.

Taking cash that is simply dumped into the city's coffers for a public benefit bonus should be illegal.

We need a ballot measure that requires that a public benefit bonus be given only in return for physical improvements/enhancements to a project to which the public has free access.