2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City
Council Members | Calendar
of Events | Elections
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 03
Meeting Date: November 26, 2002
Subject/Title: Presentation by Watry Design, Inc., of the Downtown Parking Study Phase I, Acceptance of Study by Agency, and Direction to Staff to Proceed with Phase II Scope of Services
Submitted by: Howard Sword, Economic Development Director
Gina Rozenski, Redevelopment Analyst
Approved by: John Stevenson, Executive Director
Accept the Downtown Parking Study Phase I prepared by Watry Design, Inc., and direct staff to proceed with Phase II Scope of Services to consist of site selection survey, further design investigation, massing models, public workshops, and further financial analysis.
On April 9, 2002, the Executive Director approved a Professional Services Agreement with Watry Design, Inc., to conduct the Downtown Parking Study in the amount of $35,500. The scope of services included two design alternates for parking structures, along with construction cost estimates and financial feasibility analysis, interviews and meetings with Agency and Planning Commission members, and for presentations.
The Agency and Planning Commission, in a joint workshop on July 23, 2002, identified two preferred design alternatives for a parking structure. Both alternatives include retail on the first floor, speed ramp design, and diagonal, flat-surface parking. Watry Design prepared the construction cost opinions for the preferred alternatives, using moment frame construction. The cost opinions, financing alternatives, and financial feasibility analyses were presented to the Redevelopment Subcommittee on August 8. Due to projected financial shortfalls for the preferred alternatives, the Subcommittee commissioned an expanded scope of services from Watry Design.
On September 10, 2002, the Redevelopment Agency authorized an expanded scope and additional fee of $21,800, as recommended by the Redevelopment Subcommittee, to include additional parking structure designs, cost opinions, and financial feasibility analysis for the preferred design alternatives and for an inclined ramp design alternative, using both shear wall and moment frame construction.
The highlights of the Downtown Parking Study Phase I are described as follows.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The parking deficit study for the nine-square block area reflects an immediate need for an additional 143 spaces. A more focused study of the four-block square area surrounding the intersection of Oak and First Streets reflects a 245-space parking deficit.
Chapter 3 – Preliminary Design Options
Of the seven preliminary design options, six designs required a more extensive opinion of probable construction costs. These are presented in Chapter 3 of the Study, and identified as A, A-S, B, B-S, C and C-S. A single-letter design option, such as “A”, refers to a design with moment frame construction and a two-letter design option, such as “A-S”, refers to the same type of design but using shear wall construction. Chapter 3 is organized to describe each of the six design options, its floor plans, and cost opinions.
The seventh Design Option D is also included in Chapter 3. However, this design option was eliminated from further consideration due to a zero increase in net new stalls.
The statistics for each of the six design options are summarized on Page 14. Design Options A-S and C-S were intentionally designed to provide the same net new stalls for comparison purposes. Both are full-block designs, but Option A-S is a park-on ramp design with 90 degree parking stalls and Option C-S is a speed-ramp design with diagonal parking stalls on flat surface. The cost for Option A-S is approximately $2,000,000 less than Option C-S, and almost $2,700 less per stall.
The most expensive option is Design B for $22,742 per stall, yet it yields the least amount of net new stalls at 160. Design Options C and C-S are more expensive than Options A and A-S, but A and A-S have less square feet of retail.
Chapter 4 – Financial Analysis
Chapter 4 describes the assumptions, sources and results of the analyses of financial feasibility of the parking structure options. It is important to note that this financial feasibility analyses for the six design options were based solely on land costs, construction costs of both the parking and retail components, the proposed contribution from the Redevelopment Agency, and the value added by the retail component. The analysis does not include sales tax, property tax or tax increment analysis.
The net shortfalls for the shear wall buildings are less than the net shortfalls for the moment frame buildings, mainly due to shear wall construction being less expensive and simpler. While Option A is the most expensive structure, it has almost 70 more parking spaces than the next most expensive Option C, but has less retail space.
Based on parking component costs only, Option A-S is the most economical design at $14,929 per stall, almost $3,000 less per stall than Option C-S.
Chapter 5 – Architectural and Landscape Treatments
This section describes the level of architectural and landscape treatments used in the cost opinions for the design options. It also describes the differences between a shear wall building and a moment frame building. This section does not recommend a type of architecture or landscaping. The actual architectural finish will take shape when the architect is chosen to do the final design.
On October 3, 2002, Watry Design presented the findings of Chapter 3, 4 and 5 to the Redevelopment Subcommittee. After its review, discussion, questions and answers, the Redevelopment Subcommittee made the following recommendations and conclusions:
1. Recommends that Option B and B-S be eliminated from further investigation.
2. Recommends the second phase of investigation include a blend of Options A-S and C-S, with additional 5000 square feet of retail space in Option A-S, and an analysis of increasing the parking stalls in A-S to accommodate the on-site parking needs for the additional 5000 square feet of retail.
3. Recommends the Redevelopment Agency accept the Downtown Parking Study Phase I and direct staff to commission Watry Design to conduct the secondary study to include, among other issues, a site selection survey.
There is no fiscal impact incurred by accepting the Downtown Parking Study Phase I report.
Should staff receive direction to proceed with commissioning a secondary study from Watry Design to include site selection survey, further design investigation, massing models, public workshops, and further financial analysis, a professional services agreement shall be returned to the Redevelopment Agency Board for consideration and approval.
Attachment: Downtown Parking Study Phase I
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Fax (925) 516-5441