City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

City Administration
Redevelopment Agency
City Council Members | Calander of Events | Council Current Agenda
Council Past Agendas | Council Meeting Minutes | Council Voting Log
RDA Current Agenda | RDA Past Agendas | RDA Meeting Minutes
RDA Voting Log | Elections

MINUTES
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
August 12, 2003

A regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood was called to order at 11:07 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 734 Third Street, with Chairman Swisher presiding.

Present: Agency Members Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Hill, Petrovich, Chairman Swisher
Absent: None

CITIZEN COMMENTS – None.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Approve Minutes of July 22, 2003.

2. Approved Warrant Nos. 73258, 73276, 73380, 73382, 73399, 73437, 73705, 73709, 73731, 73748, 73787, 73809, 73845.

3. Adopted the City of Brentwood’s Mission Statement for Affordable Housing Program.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to approve Consent Calendar Items 2 – 3 as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 1 Approve minutes of July 22, 2003.

It was moved/seconded by the Petrovich/Beckstrand to approve Consent Calendar Item 1 as recommended by staff. Agency Member Hill abstained. Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

4. Discussion and direction to staff regarding another study area for investigation to site a potential retail/parking structure. Item to be scheduled for a special meeting

Redevelopment Manager, Gina Rozenski, stated that Freidman, Tung and Bottomley (FTB) the specific plan consultants, had suggested another potential site for consideration of a potential retail parking structure, which staff had labeled Study Area 6 and she referred to a map identifying the area. She said that the FTB suggestion facilitated the recommendation of the Gruens for re-tenanting and reusing First Street properties as a catalyst for the northerly expansion of the downtown. Study Area 6 is centrally located on the corner of what is considered Main and Main. Existing uses in Study Area 6 included the Veteran’s Hall, fire station and eleven businesses, which include restaurants, apparel stores, professional offices and personal services. No land assemblage costs had been estimated for the Area. If Study Area 6 is included in further investigation, additional studies would need to be made, including but were not limited to land assemblage estimates, site assessment studies, expanded environmental impact report, traffic studies and an engineering survey of Study Area 6. Staff requested that the Agency engage in a discussion and provide direction regarding the addition of the labeled Study Area 6 for investigation as a potential site for the parking structure.

Agency Member Petrovich responded that there were hours worth of discussions regarding the parking study and said things were not done in that study. The thing that was not done or ever eliminated, according to the document, was that the three-quarter block parking structure was never eliminated and he could not find where it was eliminated as an option. The reports only showed full block studies and he asked why the ¾ block option was not done.

Manager Rozenski responded that at the request of Agency Member Petrovich, on June 11, 2003, staff researched records and according to the staff report and presentation of the Phase I parking structure study on November 26, 2002, it was the interpretation of staff that the three-quarter block option was eliminated for three reasons. The reasons were the higher cost per stall; it had fewer net new stalls than the other options; and it had less retail space. If there had been a misinterpretation of the direction to staff from the Agency, Planning Commission and Redevelopment Subcommittee, she asked that staff be told and the three-quarter block option would be put back in.

Agency Member Petrovich said that he never voted to eliminate it and he could not find any minutes that indicated that it was eliminated, according to the records and documents that were provided by staff.

Agency Member Hill said that there was a joint workshop with the Planning Commission where each of the scenarios were discussed, such as the AS and BS and the only recollection he had was where he determined that it was no longer feasible and how this was documented it may be missing.

Agency Member Petrovich said that he owned property on the block of one of the potential sites and the three-quarter parking structure was designed as a potential fit for the block. He said to his knowledge, it had never been eliminated and he had since been damaged by the Gruen & Gruen report and the Agency, and the actions of Redevelopment Manager and Economic Development Director. He said he did not take it lightly and he did not like the attitude of staff. He asked that he not be laughed at and that he took it very seriously when he was monetarily damaged by the City. He state the three-quarter structure was never eliminated unless staff eliminated it and he asked that he be shown the minutes where it had been eliminated.

Agency Member Beckstrand recalled the workshop with the Planning Commission and it was her recollection that in going through the cost per stall, that staff was directed to move forward with a couple of options. She said she believed that the three-quarter block option was one that did not move forward because of the cost and that was when we went to larger blocks. She did not recall how that was documented.

Agency Member Petrovich referred to a document he was holding and read that the Agency and Planning Commission held a joint workshop on July 23, 2002, wherein, parking structure Options A and D were eliminated and Option B, three-quarter block structure, and option C, full block speed ramp structure were retained for further investigation.

Agency Member Hill said he did not have the information that Agency Member Petrovich had referred to in front of him.

Manager Rozenski said that Member Petrovich was correct and that staff had included options B and C for further consideration at the July 23, 2002 meeting; however, when the Redevelopment Subcommittee started looking at the costs, the Subcommittee asked that Option A be returned and that Options A, B and C be expanded to include shear wall construction. She explained that six options, A, A-s, B, B-s, C and C-s were studied at the direction of the Redevelopment Subcommittee. When the report came to the Agency and the joint Planning Commission for the November 26, 2002 presentation, there was a recommendation that Options B and B-s, the two three-quarter block options, be eliminated. That report had been approved unanimously, according to the minutes.

Agency Member Petrovich said he would need to be shown the minutes where the action was documented and that he had not seen them. He said he did not vote to approve that and asked what pages it was on. He said he had another proposal and that he would like to go back to the three-quarter block structure across from the theater, where there was a City parking lot and where some restaurants were, and look at it as a three-level and not a four-level structure and to turn First Street into a mall where the whole top of the street would be covered with businesses on both sides.

In response to Agency Member Petrovich, Manager Rozenski referred to the November 26, 2002 minutes and said it had been moved/seconded by Hill/Beckstrand to accept the Downtown Parking Study Phase I report and directed staff to move forward with the project and that the motion carried unanimously.

Agency Member Petrovich said that the approval still did not eliminate the three-quarter block structure.

Agency Member Hill stated that the fact that it was not documented could not be changed and would need to be brought back so it could be documented if that were the desire of the Agency.

Economic Development Director, Howard Sword, said the recommendation was clear in the staff report.

Agency Member Petrovich said it was a wish list from the Economic Development Director.

City Manager, John Stevenson, said that what was in front of the Agency was a discussion of whether or not the Agency wished to add another parking area for study. If staff misunderstood the direction of the Agency previously, then staff could add one or two study areas.

Agency Member Petrovich asked to see the three-quarter block structure study.

Agency Member Hill said that was fine as long as the rest of the Members agreed.

Agency Member Petrovich said he was being affected by this. Agency Member Hill said that Member Petrovich should not be advocating his affect at the dais.

Agency Member Hill said that instead of making the change arbitrarily. He preferred bringing the item back and to the Agency. He did not like the site that was being supported through supposedly what the Gruens had said. He said he believed that Study Area 6 did not have a lot of merit. He said that saying it was a mall was a different type of spin and he was not sure how that fit in with the discussion.

Agency Member Petrovich said if the Agency looked at First Street, which was a nice area, and was made into a mall, it would be a nice central area to go to. The proposed parking structure was too high to place it in the middle of downtown. He felt at four stories or four parking levels, it would ruin downtown because it was just too high and would not be used.

Agency Member Hill said he was not prepared to debate the points made by Agency Member Petrovich tonight and Agency Member Petrovich desired to re-interject a discussion on the three-quarter block option. He said he would rather do that in the full context of everything else that the Agency was looking at. He said he would prefer to bring the item back for discussion and with full documentation of the action.

Agency Member Petrovich stated that a full report was needed from the Subcommittee and the consultant before an option could be eliminated.

Chairman Swisher stated that the Agency was looking at having a full discussion on September 23, 2003. He felt Study Area 6 could go with that discussion and he moved to continue the item to September 23, 2003.

Agency Member Beckstrand announced that she would not be available for the meeting.

Agency Member Hill said that a special meeting would need to be held so that it would be fair for all members and that it was worth the discussion to resolve the issue.

Agency Secretary, Karen Diaz, stated that staff would work on some dates and get back to the Agency.

Manager Rozenski asked what type of studies the Agency would like to have prepared for the special meeting.

Agency Member Hill said he believed that there had been a presentation of all the options and asked that a detailed report be returned to the Agency so that he could see the rationale that he had used and whatever else the Agency would like to interject. He suggested that the original report received by the Agency should be brought back for discussion.

Agency Member Petrovich said the report eliminated the three-quarter structure.

Agency Member Hill noted it was the same report that had the models.

Manager Rozenski said it would be the November 26, 2002 report.

Agency Member Gutierrez asked if the Agency was requesting to have the same report back. Chairman Swisher noted that he and Agency Member Gutierrez were not involved in the report since it was November 26, 2002.

Agency Member Hill said he believed it was appropriate to reestablish a baseline on where the Agency was with the study so that it could be documented so the Agency was on the same page, collectively, since two Members of the Agency were not on board at that time.

Chairman Swisher said that was the motion made.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Hill to reestablish a baseline on where the Agency was with the project so that it could be documented and to make certain that the Agency was on the same page, collectively, since two Members of the Agency were not on board at that time. Motion carried unanimously. To be scheduled for a special meeting per Agency discussion.

Chairman Swisher said that would took care of Items 5 and 6 and Manager Rozenski stated that staff requested that the items be postponed until such time.

5. Authorize Executive Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Raney Planning & Management, Inc., (RPM) to prepare the required Environmental Impact Report for a Potential Retail/Parking Structure in Downtown District, authorize Executive Director to execute change orders up to 10% of the contract amount, and approve a Resolution authorizing the Agency Treasurer to use funds from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2001, to fund this Agreement. No action taken

6. Authorize Executive Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Consolidated Engineering Laboratories to perform the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for the required Environmental Impact Report for a Potential Retail/Parking Structure in Downtown District, and approve a Resolution authorizing the Agency Treasurer to use funds from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2001, to fund this Agreement. No action taken

CITIZEN COMMENTS

Barbara Guise stated that she was a downtown merchant and that there had been a meeting regarding the retail/parking structure with merchants. She said she believed that the merchants were not given an opportunity to decide their fate and whether or not they would want the monstrosity of a parking structure. She felt it would be atrocious, especially if it was across from the park, and it would destroy downtown. There was another location that would be better and that was the block along Brentwood Boulevard where the Police Department is currently located. She said that a parking structure was not needed and it was premature and that a four-story atrocity would destroy the City. She said that the City needed to meet with the downtown merchants and the Chamber of Commerce and to look at their needs. She said she believed that there are a lot of other things needed in the City that Redevelopment money could address.

Council Member Petrovich said that he agreed.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Hill to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Beckstrand to adjourn to City Council Closed Session. Motion carried unanimously.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,



Cynthia Garcia
Assistant City Clerk

 

City Administration
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5440
Fax (925) 516-5441
E-mail allcouncil@brentwoodca.gov