|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It’s a small lot — the property at 1400 El Camino Real in Menlo Park is about half an acre — but big enough for a 63-room, four-story hotel with underground parking, according to a local developer.
The Portola Valley-based Pollock Financial Group wants to turn the former Shell gas station site at Glenwood Avenue, which now has a scattering of shrubs and a whole bunch of dirt, into a boutique hotel on the outskirts of downtown Menlo Park.
The plan is to include a restaurant, bar and pool. The underground garage would accommodate an estimated 75 cars using “stack technology” – as a valet parks one car, a hydraulic lift carries it up to allow a second car to be parked underneath.
“In this location, what made the most sense as a win-win for the city, for us and the public is a hotel,” said Jeff Pollock, after commissioning an analysis by PFK Consultants. The company typically builds medical offices and commercial buildings.
The site is about a block north of 1300 El Camino, where Greenheart Land Company is proposing to build a 420,000-square-foot complex of offices, residential units and retail.
The Pollock Financial Group has been looking for the right location for a boutique hotel since 2006, Mr. Pollock said. With an estimated budget of $31.5 million for the entire project, the company is in the final stages of purchasing the property. If the proposal proceeds smoothly through the city’s planning process, he said, he hopes to start construction in early 2016 and finish within 12 to 14 months.
The company estimates the 33,750-square-foot hotel would deliver $8.5 million in transient occupancy tax revenue to the city of Menlo Park over the course of 10 years, plus revenue from property and sales taxes.
The company is aiming at the bonus level of density allowed under the downtown/El Camino Real specific plan, which means the city has the opportunity to negotiate public benefits in exchange for allowing the construction of a hotel that would be larger than allowed under the base-level development rules. One such benefit Mr. Pollock said the company is willing to provide is an improved right-hand turn lane from Glenwood Avenue onto El Camino Real. Mr. Pollock said he considers revenue from the hotel tax a public benefit as well.
“The (transient occupancy tax) won’t come in unless there’s a hotel built,” said Mr. Pollock. “If we cannot work creatively with the city, we may not be able to build the hotel. No one else has come forward with a hotel at that site. While we would like to do it, we have to come to some understanding with the city as to how we achieve it.”
He mentioned the benefits the company sees for Menlo Park: increased vibrancy for downtown, improving the vacant site, and a chance to evaluate how well the stacked parking might work in other parts of the city. Plus, Menlo Park gets an attractive building that’s easier on the eyes than a half-acre of dirt.
The hotel will match “LEED silver” levels of green design elements, he said.
The design of the hotel remains a work in progress. The company is working with architect Mark Hornberger of Hornberger + Worstell. His portfolio includes W Hotel in San Francisco and the Ritz-Carlton Highlands in Lake Tahoe.
Project representatives are taking a trip to Napa soon “to look at some examples of successful boutique hotels,” Mr. Pollock said. “At the risk of comparing ourselves to our neighbors, we like a lot of the design elements of the Epiphany (hotel) in Palo Alto.”
Although hotels are a departure from its norm, the Pollock Financial Group, which includes Jim Pollock and Lincoln Westcott, has completed other projects in Menlo Park, such as the office building at 312 Middlefield Road. The company has also sunk roots into the community, founding “Heart of Silicon Valley” in 2002 to raise money for charities by staging concerts in small venues.
The council is expected to hold a study session to talk about the proposed hotel on Tuesday, Feb. 24.
The hotel “is an interesting opportunity for Menlo Park and I am anxious to hear the feedback from the City Council,” said Jim Cogan, the city’s economic development manager. “If nothing else, it illustrates how the guidelines in the specific plan are encouraging the development community to bring forward projects that can enhance vibrancy and provide tax revenue.”
Mayor Cat Carlton also sounded intrigued. “I’m delighted to hear of plans for another boutique hotel on El Camino Real. Both increased property tax for the site and increased transient occupancy tax is a good thing for the financial stability of the city,” she said.
With this council anything and everything are ok for approval.
Actually, why not make it 6 or 10 stories and expand to over 100 rooms. After all we don’t have any traffic problems.
Then for sure, we can give all City Staff and especially our City Manager and his top brass big raises with the extra revenue this will bring.
And for good measure let us “fast track” this project; we don’t need any EIRs or toher studies to slow down its being developed.
Don’t know about the setbacks, height and occupancy parameters used to get to $8.5 million (I get 6.3). But this is the right idea for El Camino. Bring it on, Jeff
The ePiphany is a quite remarkable redevelopment – however it provides no on site parking.
Couldn’t agree more, Old Timer. I sure prefer a gas station, or car wash. Or maybe another dive-diner like Jason’s. But I was getting accustomed to the ‘Vacant Lot’ look which Menlo Park seems to be famous for. Perhaps a small privy with a little cute thatched roof in a grassy meadow to add to our ‘village’ character.
We have some of the highest occupancy rates for hotels in the country, and there’s a huge shortage of rooms. I can think of far less appropriate uses for that lot.
Hotels don’t generate the same amount of traffic that retail or office does. They trickle in and trickle out on their own schedules, but a hotel will have less impact on traffic than other possible uses, but if people would rather see weeds growing in an empty lot, then I guess they’ll be unhappy regardless of what is proposed. This is a great location for a hotel, close to downtown, close to the train station, close to the new Greenheart development.
A small boutique hotel with underground parking is a great “development concept” for El Camino Real in Menlo Park. I look forward to learning more and tracking this projects progress on Re-Imagine Menlo Park as information becomes available. For those with big concerns about “traffic” I recommend you support making ECR three lanes its entire length. That simple move would reduce the daily average traffic per per lane by 50% – that’s HUGE!
“That simple move would reduce the daily average traffic per per lane by 50% ”
Please provide some citations to back this up, taking into account Induced Demand. http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
Building bigger roads just makes traffic WORSE.
You can read my analysis of The Future Of El Camino Real (traffic) at bit.ly/reimaginemenlopark-ecr.
Mr. Wells,
Over 45000 vehicles travel on ECR on an average day and 80% are simply passing thru Menlo Park.
I rather doubt that adding 2 lanes would increase overall traffic by 50% = 22500 vehicles.
So increased capacity would far exceed “induced demand” = additional lanes are a great idea!
Also consider that ECR is ALREADY 6 lanes south of Ravenswood.
Four stories built out to the narrow sidewalks is a bit high considering the wind produced by the building. Perhaps two with upper stories set back terrace style. Would also need strict enforcement of No Stopping on Glenwood from San Antonio to ECR and on ECR. What happens to the bus stop?
What about the EMS effects on the upper floor patrons from the new PG&E wiring from the substation.
“Also consider that ECR is ALREADY 6 lanes south of Ravenswood.”
But that is where the traffic is 47,000 cars per day. North of Ravenswood traffic is only 34,000 cars a day. Why would we want to increase the traffic to 47,000 cars per day there. Adding lanes is counterproductive and simply increases care to the disadvantage of everyone, except possibly those wanting to go faster on El Camino Real.
In the El Camino Corridor Study survey, the least desired change by respondents was was higher travel speeds on el camino real (only 17% positive) while the most desired change by drivers, cyclists, walkers, and transit riders was to “enhance pedestrian safety and crossings” of ECR. Adding more lanes is inconsistent with the survey results and will decrease pedestrian safety and crossings.
On the ‘benefits’ issue, the project has in its favor simply that hotels are perhaps the best revenue source for the city measured in dollars per square foot per year. That’s an ‘intrinsic’ benefit if anything is. In other words, given good building design and parking, there’s every reason for the city to want this project to be larger rather than smaller. You cannot say the same of a pure office building, which is on tap just a few blocks away on Alma, also expected to ask for additional build-out through public benefit negotiation. Hotel tax provides one of several useful metrics possible for the city to negotiate with other developers wanting a larger project.
“Perhaps two with upper stories set back terrace style. ”
The Specific Plan already requires that the upper floor be set back.
“E.3.4.3 Building Profile
The Specific Plan includes a standard for a building profile
at upper stories that requires a building to comply with
a 45-degree building profile above the maximum façade
height specifi ed for the zoning district. Figure E11
demonstrates the 45-degree building profile. The building
profile requires upper floors to be stepped back from the
façade of the building.
Standards
E.3.4.3.01 The 45-degree building profile shall be set at the
minimum setback line to allow for flexibility and variation in
building façade height within a district.”
Yes Peter, the building (from what I can spot on the tiny section drawings) does not comply with the DSP height requirements. I hope the Architects bother to read the DSP so the developer doesn’t waste their time getting this kicked into the long grass.
As it is a project that is in the DSP, it would receive its ascendancy without a Use Permit hearing. But then we’ve yet to see a project go through without one….
I like the idea of a boutique hotel on this site. It’s in walking distance of Santa Cruz Ave. and the MP CalTrain station to make it interesting for visitors.
Where will the water to support all the new development come from?
An interesting idea, with revenue and relatively modest traffic increases. The proposed plans, as shown, seem to be slab-sided building with NO setback of upper stories, much less the 45% Peter Speaks of. And the present bus stop seems problematic with access to parking only at that same location.
But it could work, if they get creative. I suspect that with the setbacks, there is no longer enough rooms to make the project pencil lout.
The height of the proposed hotel is 48ft, which is the max with Public Benefit
Bonus, with a facade height of 38″. (See Specific Plan Table E2. and hotel plans page 25 http://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/6550), so it looks like it does comply. Its hard to tell from the Specific Plan rules if the upper floor in this case needs to be 45-degrees from the front setback line, or from the floor that reaches the max facade height. In any case, the hotel plan has a little 45-degree line that implies they thought about it. The plans include 20′ setbacks from the El Camino property line, plus widened sidewalk on El Camino (but narrower on Glenwood to accommodate a new right turn lane. I think this is a fine use of that land, shouldn’t produce a lot of added traffic, although the residents on Glenwood will see more cars.
Note, however, that the developers have asked the city to give up some of the revenue (1M) for the first 6 years so they can pay off the investors first. So, city occupancy tax estimate goes down to $7.5M, which is still better than putting an office building there.
@BethMartin – Where/who says the project asks for a $1M offset or whatever to pay investors? I didn’t see that in the article. Sounds unlikely and perhaps not even legally possible, and a total non-starter at the least.
George, there is less traffic at the North End because so much traffic on the south end enters and exits ECR at Ravenswood AND because Sand Hill to Alma (Palo Alto) traffic travels on ECR twice because of the lack of a direct connection. Adding northbound lanes would make little difference to drivers who are coming from/going to Middlefield Avenue. By the way, if you reduce overall traffic on ECR it will simply go elsewhere including Menlo Park neighborhoods. I think in general discussions about traffic are better suited to articles about the ECR Corridor Study.
This strikes me as exactly the kind of project that Menlo Park should welcome in its central core. Provides substantial tax revenue. Brings foot traffic and vitality to the central core. Near Caltrain. Supports local commerce.
Menlo Park curmudgeons who dwell on the a romantic vision of the pre-Silicon Valley era are turning Menlo Park into the least vital town on the Central Peninsula. Where else do you find the endless string of vacant lots you find in Menlo Park? Without density, the downward spiral will continue.
I have lived in Menlo Park for 60 years and seen it grow to what it is today. Yes, ECR is busy at night, but the lack of access routes to 101 and 280 are the major cause. This project proposal is fantastic for Menlo Park. It add much needed hotel space to the city rather than having out of town family and friends go to Palo Alto hotels. Has anyone seen the boutique hotel build in Los Altos on a much smaller piece of land at the corner of San Antonio and Main st> A prime example of what can be done. To all you “non growth” people, wake up and build. Put your traffic woes behind you because I am willing to bet you never even drive in Menlo Park. If you want tax revenues, you must build viable tax generating space.
This will be a great project for Menlo Park! If nothing else, it’s going to have a bar, and Menlo Park could really use one. 🙂
Seriously, though, hotels bring in a lot of tax revenue with less traffic than most other uses, and this one will also contribute foot traffic to help support retail and restaurants downtown. That’s a good thing.
Speaking of Bars, anyone know what’s happening with the reopening of the BBC? Haven’t seen or heard anything since they announced they were going to reopen.
http://www.almanacnews.com/blogs/p/2015/02/21/finally-a-hotel-for-1400-el-camino-real–buttheres-a-catch
At last, another bar! This is fabulous for Menlo Park. Traffic comes down our little street all the time but to me, it just sounds like tax dollars pouring in…
If anyone still wants a small town feel, you need to move to Montana. Sorry but that horse is out of the barn.
A small boutique hotel is a great addition if they adhere to the current guidelines with regard to traffic mitigation and the myriad of other regulations.
Why just Silver LEED???? Why agree to settle for less than Platinum?
“Why agree to settle for less than Platinum?”
Because the zoning ordinance does not require Platinum and you can’t just change the rules to suit your whimsy.
This is a great project for menlo park. Butique hotels like this was contemplated in the specific plan. It is great to see the process work and starting to yield results. I am not sure about the TOT rebate but I have confidence the city council will review this and only approve this exception if it benefits our city and our citizens.
I have only 2 requests of the developers as they bring a 4-star boutique hotel to our town.
1. Make it beautiful. This structure will serve as the northern gateway to our city’s this is an opportunity to create a landmark you can put on postcards. Don’t compromise on design and aesthetics.
2. Follow the lead of Trellis and the new BBC restaurant – open up the roof! This is wasted space that can be utilized to create unique venues that will set our town apart. I am not sure if this pencils out or even complies with current specific plan- but is the kind of thing that we should make exceptions for so that it is encouraged. A true public benefit if the public is able to enjoy it. I would give up 10% of the TOT to see a full service bar and restaurant on the roof with gas heaters!
The alternative to this great idea is an abandoned dirt lot surrounded by a “rent a fence” for years on end.
At first i thought ‘Skip Hilton’ was a suggestion to avoid large hotel chains for this project, but I realize my error. Agreed with rooftop activity, if it doesn’t sneak too far into residential areas.
To generate that amount of TOT tax revenue, they’d have to have full occupancy for 10 years at >$300 per night. I doubt that will happen, especially now that the Marriot Residence Inn just opened @ 555 Glenwood (a block from this proposed new hotel).
Does anyone else have concerns that Pollack has NO experience with hotels? Good grief! Let’s get professionals, not folks wanting to experiment.
How’s that underground parking going to work when they trench for the high speed train a block from the hotel?