HomeMy WebLinkAbout0571.000, ..
November IS, 1990
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo .... lto) CalifoTl'lia
THE S"'"\.JECT OF
• THiSREPORT
ISA
LCOUNCil H':,CRITY -------------~-----
P.ttentfon: Finance and PubTic Works CommitteE
LAND USE REVENUE A.~AllSIS . -REQUEST FOR PROPOSA.!.
Members of the Council:
R~port to Brfef:
On September 11, 1990. the Fi~ance and public Works Committee (F&PW), after
revfewing the staff report on Revenue Impact Analwsis tCMR:493:0 of giS/gO}.
directed staff to return to the Committee with a draft Request foy Proposal
(RfP) and estimated budget for obtaining limited professional services to;
1. Identify potential ~even~e opportunities in the City withfn the
context of existing City Planning policies and regulatfons. and
2. Determine what actions would he necessary in order to maximize
those revenue npportunities.
QP.jectlves: RFP Draft Scope of Work
Staff has drafted i 5COp~ of work in the attached RFP that would result in an
analYSis by a profess1onal land use economist describing ~h,ch sites. or areas
PaTo Alto (identified in later settion) offer potential cpportuhiti!s for
bl9her revenue yields and ~hat types of public and/or private actions. within
the cDntext Cif Camprehenshe PTan pol icies, wou1d be necessary in order to
realfze higher revenues. Tn addit10n, this study would ana1yze a limited
number of other targeted commerCial areas in nrder to identffy factors that
have llmHed the upgrading of th.ese areas and also evaluate potential effects
of the 6S,OOO-sQuare-foGt expansion cap on the Stanford ShoPPlng Center~
The prDposed scope has been moderately expanded ov~r the financ~ and Public
Works Committe~ directive in order to maximize the benef!ts to the C;ty of an
economic analysis. focl.Jsfng on a limited number of areas in Palo Altil. In
effect, the findi~9s of thi3 study would inform the City not only of sites and
areas where opportunities ~~ist for greater potential revenues but would i1~o
explain why other 5'ites and areas may offer less potential for upgrading ind
higher revenues to the City.
CMR:571:0
•
~Arus and Focus pf Analysts
Opportunity Sites
/
The principal element of this ec~nomic land U5e study would e~amin~ a
1 ;mi ted number of cOrmlerdal areas ir-Palo ATto inc"jding:
I. The IJrban Lane/Town and Country Village area, and
2. [1 Camino Real, south of Stal'lf{Jrd Avenue to the: los
AltosjMcuntaiD Yie~ city limits.
These areas were se1ected because portions of tnem have relativel, large
sites that currently appear to be underutililed. In addition, portions
of [1 Camin!l Real ~,ave large-or moderate-sized sites that art e1t"er
planned for or are currently undergoing redevelopment wnich would
illustrate the type of redevelopment tnat is occurring in these areas
and the extensive time frames that are often necessary before n~w
development reflects changes in public pol ic.1. As an exampTe, in these
[1 CaMfno locations. land use and development policy for portio~s of £1
Camino Real changed with approval of the Comprehensive Plan in 197& and
with approval of th~ then new zoning ordinance in 1979.
rn evaluating oPPJrttJnity sites t pr-ofessional corvnent would be soH<e1ted
on t~e potential effectiveness of the recently apprave1 (H) Hotel
Combining District (l.e.t overli~ lor-e)t both in terms of t~e FAR bonus
provision (0.6 to 1 versus 0.4 to 1 in tne underlying CS District) and
1~ terms of the sites where it is currently appl~ed (Ricke~rs Hyatt and
Dinah's). If the Hotel Combining District is determined to be
potentially effective, comment would be soljcit!d on sites ~ere it
co~ld be considered for future application.
In tne cl)Urse of such ar'1alY5is. staff belie .... es that information on
constraints for potential upgrading or development of specific sites or
areas would be equ~11y informative and beneficial to decisl0~ makers.
Such information would be requested in the scope of work not on1y for
the above areas fronting El Camino Real bwt also for two types of
commercial areas where physlcal improvements or upgrading to existing
pro;pertfes have not ('ccurred to iii significant degree ;n recent years.
They are 1) the three neighborhood shopping centers, i.e .• Edgewood
Pliza t Charleston Center and Alma Plaza, and 2J the Californja Avenue
BUSiness Oistrict.
The focus of t~is latter analysiS ~ould include an evai~it;on of ill
likely constraints or djsinc~ntiyes to propert1 upgrading including but
not limited to existing regulations, location, access and size of site.
CMR:S71:0
RevOpp/g2
11/15/90
Page 2
•
, 0°
o o
Stanford Shopping (enter
In addi~iol'l, staff be11e'Jes that the Stanford Shopping center~ wh1ch
genel"ates apprc.ximately 2S ~erc.ent of the City's taxahl eo sales revenues.
shouid be examined in order to determine if the current growth cap of
C5,OOO additional squart feet~ imposed on the shopping center at the
conclusion of the Citywide land Use and Transportation Study. limits the
potential ~iabil ity of this regiona1 shopping center relative to both
its potential growth in sales and to its position among the major
r~gional shopping centers in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.
Study Steps and level of Oeh_il
This hnd IJse ri!'venue analysii essential1y would providi! a broad overwiew.
rather than a detailed type of response to the infon1ation a.nd recommendations
requested fer in this study's scope of work. The study requires the expert;se
of a p~fessjonal land ~se econrnmist.
Procedural steps of the study wouTd require the seTect!d e~onomist initially
to revie ... th! c.ity's Comprehensive Plan policfes and comerciaT district
regulations (e.g .• CS, eN, C( and (H) Combining District) for an understanding
of adopted policies and loning regulations. Tne economist then would revie~
the types and m&gn;tude of City revenYes from development-t!lated sources.
Then, t~e economist would examine the desfgnated (ommercial areas and sites to
identify IJ constraints, a"d 2) oppoftunities for upgrading that COUld expand
revenues fer the City. lastlYt the economist would submit to the City
findings on the land ~se analysis a~d recomrnendatfons for realizing e~panded
revenue opportunities.
[stfmated B~dg!t
Since the focus ~f this stud1 would provide an overview that responded to the
identified issues and potential opportunities, staff would not expect such
analysis to requ;r~ a s~9nificant expenditure of City funds. As a result,
staff believes th~t the cost of such a study should not exceed $25,000.
Recorrmendation
B~sed on the preceding discussion, staff recommends that the fina~ce and
Public Works Committee direct staff to initiate a constltant selection process
and return t~ the Committee with a se1ected consultant and a budget amendment
to proceed with the study.
lesctf.-Il YJu .itted,
'v/.~~""
[oiltz E Assistan~.n ng Official
eMll:S71 :0
RevOp~/9Z
1fmta:l fAju~>
rENNETH R. SCHREl8ER
Di rector of .Dl ann ir,g and
Community [nvironment
1I/IS/90
Page l
'® ) t/ /J.;;u~j:~
J,tlN£ Fll:KING ~ J)s~'ist.nt City ManaW
lj
Attachments: Scope of Work
Related CMRs: CMR;493:0, dated 9/6/90, "Revenue Impact ~naly."·
cc: P'1 annfng Camnission
Arcnitecturil Re~few Board
ChambEr of {or.rnerte
Stanford Univ~rsjt1 (Su Shaffer, Andy Dct1t Phil Williams)
Barron Bark Assocfation
Chestnut-Wilton Ho~ow~ers Assoc;atl~n
College Terrace Neighborhood Assoc1aticn
Greenacres rmprovement Ass~ciat1on
Hoover Park Neighborhood Association
lr.terdale Way Homeawners Association
leland Kanor ASSDciation
M;dtown West
Old Trace Neighbo,-hood
Pil0 Alto Hills Homeowners Association
Co.m,ttee f~r Gre~n foothills
Ventura Neighborhood Association, Dav'id Jeong
re~turl Ne1gnborhood Associatfon, Denny Petrosian
Walnut Gro~! Homeowners Association
Webster Court Homeowners Association
Charleston Meadows ,Neighborhood .~sso<:iation, Jane Sarrett
Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association. Jean Almsted
Downtown North NeiQhborhood AS$oci~tinn
Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association
Green Meadow Community Association
Greater Miranda Community Association
Southgate NeIghborhood
Stanford Mid·?eninsula Urban Coalition
West Bayshore Residents Association
Greenacres II
Jordon/Garland Neighborhood
~nta Lama Neighborhood Association
Southgate Nefg~borhood
University Park ASSDciatio~
University and Crescent Park Association
Pi10 Alto Housing Corporation
Steve Playe r
Oav;d Jury
Ja.mes Baer
Keenan land Company
OIR; 571 : 0
RevOpp/gz
11/15/90
Page 4
•
CITY OF PALO ALTO
SCOPE OF WORK
land Use R~venue Analysis
The City of Palo A1to desires 1) information identifying co~rcjal
sit!s offerfng additional revenue oppo~tur.ities ~;thin the conte~t of
Comprehensive Plan policies and 2) i~formation analyzing designate1
cD1Imerc;al areas in terms of Heir upgrading potential.
PurDOS'
The results of the st~dy ar~ expected to infor.re decision ~akers and
~er5 of tne community on 1) sites offering potential revenue
opportunitie~ to the City; 2} measures necessary to r~alize these
opportunities; 3) factors limiting upgrading in designate~ c~mmeTcial
Ireas; and 4J effect of 6S,OOO-square-foot growth C2p on the Stanford
Sho~ping Center. The commercially z~ned areas to be studied are
identified on attached Exhlbits. Opportunity areas intlude:
L Urban lane/Town and tountry Village Area; and
2. n Camino Real, south (If Stanford Avenue to the los
Altos/Mo~ntai~ View cit) limits.
C~rcial areas to be evaluated for factors limiting upgrading include:
1. The three neighborhood shopping centers, i.e .• Edgewood
P1~za, Charleston Center and Alma Plaza;
2. The California Business District; and
3. The Urban lane/Tcwn !nd Cvuntry Are! and El Camino Real
south of Stanford Avenue.
The Stanford Snopping Center will be evaluated in terms of potential
~ffects of the 65,OOO-square-foot !xpansion cap.
The professional land use etonomist will be working primarily with City
staff from the Plilnnhlg and Finance Departments. ilork elements will
include:
I. A review of all Comprehensi~e Plan goals, policies and programs
affe~ting the designated commercial areas in the study;
2~ A rey;~ of ill zoning regulations iffecting these areas;
RevOpp2/gz Page
3~ A review of C1 ty revenues from sales ti)(~ property tal( and other
revenyes generated by the commercial areas in the studJ+
4. A review of the physical setting and site location of commer,1al
areas and Sites designated iil the studYi
5. MeetiDQ with City staff) as needed, to obtai~ n~cessary background
informa.tion;
6. Meeting .lth elected and appointed officials to discuss background
for current City policies affecting designated properties;
7. Meeting with selected members of the business cOII'!I'TI'Jntty and
property and business owners \Jfithin the desfgnated study areas to
discuss recent and exp£~ted future market treods;
e. Preparation by professfonal land use economist of a prelimfnary
d~aft of findings and recommendations. Draft wlll be re~f~ed by
Cit! stoff;
9. Prep~ratfon by professional economist of a final draft
fncorporating c~~ents of City staff. Final draft will be
submitted to the Finance and Public Works Committee for review and
comme nt; and
10. Preparation by economist of the final document, including site
location grap~ics, to be submitted fer City ~ouncil review and
acti{ln.
Sche<lu!e
It is anticipated that preparation of tnis land ~se revenue analysis,
including all CHy reviews, will require approx1I1'latel,)' six (6} months
from date of contract.
Tne anticipated budget for all .sp~cts of consuitant services i$
.stimat~d to be no more than $25,000.
subBltta! Reg"l~eoents
Interested consultants ~hould provide the following information ",illch 'Sh()ulcf
be in an S-I/2w x ll~ format and bound together:
1. A statement of services, which 1nc1udes an outline Df the meth~ to be
used in preparin9 the proposea Gufdel,.,es and I r-ecoimler.dation on publ it
outreach.
1. Consultant fee and method of computation.
ReVOpp2/gz Page 2
o
3. A brief description of backgro~nd and capab1lities Df the cons~ltant and
i statement of direct relevant experience with similar projects.
4. Samples of relevant projects.
s. The na~s and bri~f resumes of profe~s10n~15 wh~ will be assigned to the
project.
Con$y)ta~t S,Tection
A Cons{Jltant Selection COFM1ittee conshting of CHy staff members, one
Plinning Co~;ssio~er, one re~r!se~tatfve from the Chamber of Commerce ~nd one
rep~esentatiye 'rom the comrnun;t~l will review proposals and interYiew the
MOst qualified consultant based on the fOllowing criter;a:
1. Demanstrated expertise in the field ~f land use economic analysts;
2. Ability to work effecti~ely w;t~ staff and public officials;
3. The approach and methodology proposed; and
4. Cost ~f consu;tant strvices.
Consultant [nfonRation
Cgmpensation: Payments shall be made UpDD receipt of invoice fer work
p2rforaed~ The frequency and amount of payment will be subject to a
negotiated contract between the City and the consultant.
Insurance: The se'ect~~ consultant s~all submit to the C1ty~ using furnisned
insurance fonms, a certificate of insurance for the contract time and amounts
spe<ified.
RevOpp2/gz Page 1
•
~ GRAPHIC ATTACHMENT DATE: 11-13-. SCALE: ..
TO STAFF RE?ORT F1LE NO.
• • r-P-~-O-J-E-CT--:---LA--.D--U-S-E~R~E~Y~E~.-t~~~'M-.-'-C-T--A-.-'-LY-S-I-'-S-T-U-D-Y-'-'-E-'~S====!
«
NORTH
.;0;; •.
I
;""",1 >~';,!::~~'ij
,
~
,
i
I
m
)(
:I -m
• m •
'---------,----"" •• --. -'"-,*-'--'-~-----"""'-" -~-'--",-~,. ',.
---------__ , _____ ~. ____ .. ,_ .. _'_'_ ..... ~_J....._.: _,
" ~," ,rr#f:t:
\(,:.
'\
NORTH
j
i
t
,:J)_~;~ ';';i:i-,
;.1' ~~ .. ~\ ': ,'.1. "
4'
•
•
:,i
I
.j
1
--"";.-....
,'~' ,
-~,
•
'\
NORTH