HomeMy WebLinkAbout0324.092I ,
I
!
~staH ~ '"tellOll ___ _
~lY 2,1992
Honorable city Council
Falo Alt~, Californi~
Members of the council:
This is an informational reo.port. No Council action is requir~d~
This report is to advise the coun·-:.i 1. that payment in the amount of
$7,500 to Claude and Nina Gruen will be :C-Iade to compensate them for
testimQny at varioLls community meetings and Planning Commission and
City Council hearings on the study prepared by the Gruens, "A
Plan~ing Policy Audit of REtail Areas in the City of Palo Alto"~
p.!lckqround
On July 8., 1991, the city Council authorized approval of a study.,
to be prepa~ed by an economic consultant, to determine the general
economic health of the city's commercial areas, and specifically
the neighborhood commercial centers and El Camino Real strip
commercial development. In addition, the consultants were to
report on the applicability of the hotel overlay zone to present
hotel market conditions (.60 Floor Area Ratio) and the economic and
planning implications of the 6S,OOO-square-foot-c<?p on the
expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center. Cost of the study was
not to exceed $25,000. The request for proposal and scope of work
for the: study lIlas prepared by the city's Planning Depar-tmell,t.
Piscussion
Claude and Nina Gruen, of Gruen Gruen + Associates, economic and
land use conSUltants from San Francisco, ~e~e ch0sen in accordance
with the City's selection procedl.<.res to perfonn the stUdy. At the
time of contract approval, staff noted 'the tight budget for the
study, and advised the council that further expenditures l'ltight be
rlecessary to complete all of tr-te study's objectives and detailed
requirements of the scope of work. At that time staff 'Was
instructed to advise: Counci 1 if the costs of the study exceeded
$25,OGO.
CMJ(:324:92
,~~~~_ ~."'~~~,";~,~" •. (:I:~":_:,;" .. '"" ... m ............ -zr ...... 1J ...... '_, ..... , -j'tjol...: ... ~ ...... -~....,.,.~.~~ •... ,,;"-,.
, t~~;.~~;::t> ~-.'"; 1
.-'--'.
Page ~·o
Duri,lq the preparation of the scope of 'Work, and in 5~bsequent
council approval of the consult~nt agreement, no provis1ons .ere
made for meeting attendance and pub~ ie hearing testimony by the
consultants on the study's findings and reco:mrnendat~_ons. 1'his
oversight 'Was not disco\'erec until the pui=llic revieW" process ...... as
'Well under;.ra}', and the Council authoriz.ed expenditu.res for
preparation of the study had been depleted. Consequently, there
~as insufficient time to return to Council for an amendment to the
contract prior to the scheduled public hearings before Planning
Commission and City Council.
Th~ additional payme~t of $7,500 represents time and ~harqes for
the consult,ants' attendance at the February 13, 1992 Chamber of
Commerce meeting with representatives of retail and El Camino Real
residential community; the !-"ebruary 13, 1992 Economic Outlook
committee meeting:; the Feb'!"uary 26 and Ma-rch 11 Planning Commission
meetings; and April 27 ar=d May 4. City COIJMcil hearings.
F1JTIds to cover this expense are available and liO COUncil budget
amendment is required.
Respectfully submitt~d,
~'w {~<U1.-UA-__ /
CAROL Jl<NSEN
Office of the city Manager
~~-,
WILLIAM: ZANER
City Hanaqer
CMR;324~92
•