|
|
|
Uploaded: Wednesday, March 6, 2013, 10:35 AM
Glenwood hotel wins Menlo Park Planning Commission recommendation
Commission suggests swapping revenue for public parking spaces for 5 years
|
|
by Sandy Brundage
Almanac Staff
"What is it that's of value here?" asked Menlo Park Planning Commissioner John Kadvany during a review of a proposed hotel on Glenwood Avenue on March 4. The commission agreed 6-1 that the anticipated revenue stream from guests justified granting 39 public parking spaces to the hotel -- for five years.
Sand Hill Property Co. is under contract to buy Casa de Peninsula, a 125-unit senior residential property at 555 Glenwood Ave., and convert it to a 138-room hotel, according to Sand Hill Property representative Reed Moulds.
Branded as a Marriott Residence Inn, the hotel would provide extended-stay accommodations, with about one-quarter of the guests projected to stay more than a month. Analyses by the city and the applicant estimate the hotel would add an estimated $669,000 to Menlo Park's annual revenue, with approximately $616,000 to $656,000 contributed by the 12 percent transient occupancy tax approved by voters in November.
Should the tax revenue fall short – defined in the staff report as not providing the city with "a minimum amount of 50 percent of total room occupancy operating revenue for two consecutive years" – Menlo Park can require the hotel to pay the difference or provide another public benefit, decrease the size of the project, or revert the site to a senior living facility, under the terms of the proposed contract.
The city's new downtown specific plan requires 173 off-street parking spaces for a hotel of this size. However, the applicant proposes 113 spaces – 74 on site and 39 spaces on Garwood Way currently used by the senior home, but within the public right-of-way.
Hotel representatives told the Planning Commission that they will discuss whether nearby a new development proposed for 1300 El Camino Real might have space to lease for parking when that project gets closer to fruition.
While Mr. Kadvany and colleague Katie Ferrick viewed the Garwood Way spaces as an exchange for the tax revenue, Commissioner Vincent Bressler disagreed.
"Why would Menlo Park give away land to make this happen?" he said during the meeting, and noted that he'd like to see sufficient parking built into the project. Or, he said, charging for the hotel's use of the Garwood Way spaces could generate revenue to be used for building the parking garages the specific plan envisioned.
"Where are we going to get that revenue? ... The logical place is to charge for parking on Garwood Way ... obviously it's worth something."
The commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the hotel should be charged market rate for using the parking spaces on Garwood Way after five years if it hasn't found space elsewhere.
Commissioner John Onken told the Almanac his dissenting vote was based on believing that the parking should conform to the new downtown specific plan requirements. "As much as I'd like to see the hotel there and additional income for the city, I don't think the parking works and am keen to work to our specific plan in that respect."
The project will now go before the City Council for approval.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:21 am
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online This is both a horrible decision and a horrible precedent.
Why don't all the other businesses in Menlo Park now demand that, in return for the revenue they each create, they be given exclusive rights to a certain number of PUBLIC parking spaces?
|
|
Posted by Here's the secret, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 12:21 pm If you're a property owner/developer, big or small, all you need to do is murmur "well, I guess I won't be able to afford the project" and the council and commission will apologize profusely and give you whatever you want.
Note that this largesse does not extend to homeowners, who will be instructed to redo their plans until they conform to city code.
It's all about serving the moneyed interests. Residents are just part of the collateral damage.
|
|
Posted by John Kadvany, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 2:53 pm Peter -
The revenue is entirely from the hotel 'TOT', 12% transit occupancy tax charged on top of any room stay of 30 days or less, so there's no way you could get that from, say, a restaurant or carpet store. Sales tax revenue for a business doesn't approach anything like the estimated $600,000 per year. So there's not much of a precedent as the conditions are so unique. MP gets that revenue in trade for exclusive use of mostly unused parking spaces, and in five years, the proposal was that the extra parking spaces be obtained from, e.g., what may be built at 1300 ECR next door, or some kind of 'market rate' charged. This was Vince Bressler's and Ben Eiref's idea and it was approved 6-1 also as a separate recommendation.
|
|
Posted by Downtowner, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 3:00 pm The Planning Commission will apparently OK anything based on potential revenue. Can't they work for the best interests of the existing community? Besides allowing the parking use, did they consider the traffic impact for the already badly congested access streets to Hillview, St. Joseph's, SHP & Menlo Schools?
Few Glenwood Inn residents could drive but the Marriott guests will be out on the streets.
|
|
Posted by whatever, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 3:29 pm Whenever the city feels like giving city land and or rights away to a developer it should be put to a city wide vote since in a sense we the public are the owners of the land and rights. And require that the developer pay the full cost of the special vote.
In any case each space in this case should be leased on an annual basis at the rate of the current overtime parking penalty $45 multiplied by 365 days a year. So let's see that comes to about $640,00 annually. That doubles the city's projected annual revenue from the project. Seems fair to me.
Oh, and remember SHP, owned by the Pau family, recently made a major faux pas by demolishing one of two historical buildings it agreed to keep at their development of the old Edgewood Plaza in Palo Alto.
|
|
Posted by whatever, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 4:01 pm A missing -0- makes a big difference. Charging for the parking spots as stated above would generate for the city an additional $640,000 annually.
|
|
Posted by um, what is the problem?, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 5:03 pm if you drive by that parking area, there are signs all over the place saying it's CURRENTLY for the exclusive use of the senior community. so the city or public is not even getting any use out of it today, much less making money on it. so the planning commission structures a deal where the city gets $600,000+ of hotel tax a year AND market rent for the stalls that are already being used by the property, and you are complaining?
you should be thanking the city when they get things right.
|
|
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 5:14 pm whatever:
if we followed your suggestion and put every land use question to a vote you can expect development to drop to zero. Do you like the way El Camino looks now? Implement your suggestion and you can expect it to remain that way forever.
|
|
Posted by Frugal, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 9:49 pm Another reason why the El Camino/Santa Cruz Specific Plan was a big mistake. Stop this insanity.
And what about giving up Senior Housing? Given this decision, how can Menlo Park ask that Arriaga/Stanford provide senior housing on the other end of El Camino?
Admittedly the Glenwood Inn was very poorly managed. And now our planning commission has effectively bailed them out.
Money talks.
|
|
Posted by whatever, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:58 pm Menlo Voter
I didn't say put ever land use question to a vote. I said a vote when the city proposes giving city owned land to a developer, big difference.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2013 at 12:36 am
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online "here's no way you could get that from, say, a restaurant or carpet store. Sales tax revenue for a business doesn't approach anything like the estimated $600,000 per yea"
Think Draegers and Trader Joe's - both of which could easily lay claim to the exiting public parking adjacent to their buildings using this new standard.
This decision saved the San Hill developers millions in not having to actually build the required parking on land that it owned - which is the rule for everyone else in the city when it comes to required parking.
A horrible decision and a horrible precedent. It is giving away public land for revenues that the city would get anyway!!
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2013 at 1:32 am
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online "so the planning commission structures a deal where the city gets $600,000+ of hotel tax a year AND market rent for the stalls that are already being used by the property, and you are complaining?"
Yes because the commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the hotel should be charged market rate for using the parking spaces on Garwood Way AFTER five years if it hasn't found space elsewhere. So they get the land for free for at least five years and probably longer if they ask nicely at the end of four years and/or threaten to leave.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2013 at 3:04 am
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online IF the council approves this I hope that some MP citizen sues for violation of the California Constitution:
SEC. 6. The Legislature shall have no power to give or to lend, or
to authorize the giving or lending, of the credit of the State, or of
any county, city and county, city, township or other political
corporation or subdivision of the State now existing, or that may be
hereafter established, in aid of or to any person, association, or
corporation, whether municipal or otherwise, or to pledge the credit
thereof, in any manner whatever, for the payment of the liabilities
of any individual, association, municipal or other corporation
whatever; nor shall it have power to make any gift or authorize the
making of any gift, of any public money or thing of value to any
individual, municipal or other corporation whatever....
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
