Town Square

Post a New Topic

Judge rejects three-story North Whisman hotel, reversing council's approval

Original post made on May 14, 2020

A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled that a developer will have to scale back a three-story hotel approved by the city of Mountain View in 2017 because the project conflicts with zoning standards for the area.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, May 14, 2020, 1:19 PM

Comments (14)

18 people like this
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 14, 2020 at 3:30 pm

Very happy that a judge blocked this it’s Council bad action
I think our City Council is in the hands of Business and not in the hands of the voters
Be careful you know what happens when we vote

14 people like this
Posted by FrankSki
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 14, 2020 at 6:56 pm

I’m glad a judge blocked this, too. It was a total abuse of discretion. It’s very hard to know when their campaign promises do not match their true intentions. :(

8 people like this
Posted by Spicy
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 14, 2020 at 9:47 pm

“Curry favor”

Interesting choice of an obscure expression

10 people like this
Posted by Yes Yes
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 14, 2020 at 10:21 pm

This city council is totally corrupt and arrogant and they are acting with impunity. The city council members are criminals and need to be held accountable and recalled for irrational and irresponsible decisions like this. Flogging them in public won't be a bad decision either.

8 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of North Whisman
on May 15, 2020 at 3:31 am

It was a proposed HOLIDAY INN but who were and are the applicants? Is it too late to consider a TRUMP TOWER for that spot with the stories going down toward hel. instead of up?

15 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 15, 2020 at 11:14 am

The proposed Holiday Inn is next to a highway, dilapidated strip malls, and a two-stars-on-yelp motel in a 70's building which has never had a facelift (which happens to be owned by the only person vehemently protesting the Holiday Inn). A Holiday Inn will be a great improvement to the area.

4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 15, 2020 at 12:32 pm

What i find rediculous is that there are so many well established legal regulations that the City Council simply feels they can ignore. What happened to accountability of their actions?

If you want to make exceptions, CODIFY them so that court cases like this will not reverse you. Otherwise you are going to possibly have court challenges occurring on EVERY project.

I just wonder what results we would have if someone to a history of all plans approved in the last 15 years, and discover all of them did not comply in some way to the housing laws and regulations, but were allowed by the City Council.

This kind of arbitrary and capricious behavior is simply unconstitutional in the Federal and state Constitution

8 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of North Whisman
on May 15, 2020 at 4:28 pm

I see the case at the Superior Court, Santa Clara County, website: Case No. #18CV322114. Two parties brought the case represented by the same attorney: Petitioners "Country Inn, LLC" and "Chandrakant K. Shah."

I see no "Country Inn, LLC" on the California Secretary of State's website. Maybe neither petitioner had standing. Who really owns the "Country Inn" next door to the site?

8 people like this
Posted by Common sense
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 15, 2020 at 4:36 pm

To Spicy: FYI, "Currying favor" is a longtime standard idiom in English, often chosen by journalists, speechwriters, or lawyers. Perhaps if you read a little more widely it would not strike you as "obscure." ("Curry" in this use has meaning and origins unrelated to spices.)

4 people like this
Posted by BobbyT
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on May 15, 2020 at 5:43 pm

While I myself cannot in any way condone the purposeful failure of the Council to properly interpret the existing laws, I must also take the judge to take, for not placing something more than a written condemnation if the plaintiff'sv falsehoods. People like these who froth at the mouth, to get their way, also need to be checked. But yet again, money talks. And we know that unlike people, money knows no prejudice. It's accepted everywhere. Didn't the Council prove that, with the confessions they made to Holiday Inn?

6 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 15, 2020 at 5:55 pm

It is not Holiday Inn that applied to build a Holiday Inn at the site. It is people behind an LLC they named "Temple Hospitality, LLC." You can look up the case online and look up businesses at the CA Secretary of State's BUSINESS SEARCH website.

3 people like this
Posted by So...
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 15, 2020 at 8:20 pm

Does this ruling impact the land deal with MVLA school district? In that case, it was allowing developed to exceed certain square foot limitations in other areas of the city in exchange for a lot of $$$.

Isn’t this the same thing?

8 people like this
Posted by Which Council Members?
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 16, 2020 at 12:46 am

We had 3 city council members at the time of this approval who are currently not on the city council.


We have 2 previous city council members running again for council this year.

Did Siegel and Showalther vote for this hotel? When they where on council?

11 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 16, 2020 at 2:18 am

The article does not say which city councilmembers voted for the hotel project. You could check many of the documents in the case online and report here what is found. But even if all councilmembers in 2017 voted for the 3-story hotel near 101, city staff was advising that it squared with the zoning. The city council would ordinarily count on staff to tell the truth and get it right. Maybe the zoning was not so clear. The applicant looks like a small-time investor (2 guys) using an LLC formed in 2012. That could also be investigated IF ANYONE CARES. No real scandal is evident from the article.
The applicant may next present a revised plan OR the same plan with a request to change the zoning. Maybe the hotel will end up being even higher. At the moment, the applicant is lucky to not have a hotel with no paying guedts.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Get important election coverage sent straight to your inbox daily.

Vons drops Korean fried chicken on downtown Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 6,815 views

Is there a polite way to say "Too much plastic"?
By Sherry Listgarten | 31 comments | 4,065 views

What I will remember about Ruth Bader Ginsburg
By Diana Diamond | 5 comments | 1,987 views

Premarital and Couples: See "Buck" for Couple's Tips
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 782 views


Benefiting local non-profits

The 36th annual Moonlight Run and Walk is Friday evening, October 2, wherever you are! Proceeds go to the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund, benefiting local non-profits that serve families and children in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Join us under the light of the full Harvest Moon on a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon.

Register Today!