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

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 4

Meeting Date: October 28, 2003

Subject/Title: Hear Re-presentation of November 26, 2002, Downtown Retail/Parking Structure Phase I Report; Re-affirm or Deny Past Actions and Directions regarding Proposed Retail/Parking Structure in Downtown Area; Engage in Discussion and Take Actions Regarding the Addition of New Study Areas to Site a Potential Retail/Parking Structure; and Engage in Discussion and Take Action regarding the Investigation of Developing First Street into a Pedestrian Mall.

Submitted by: Gina Rozenski, Redevelopment Manager

Approved by: John Stevenson, Executive Director

RECOMMENDATIONS
Hear re-presentation of November 26, 2002, Downtown Retail/Parking Structure Phase I Report.

Re-affirm or deny past actions and directions regarding proposed retail/parking structure in Downtown Area.

Engage in discussion and take actions regarding the addition of new study areas to site a potential retail/parking structure in Downtown Area.

Engage in discussion and take action regarding the investigation of closing First Street at Oak and Chestnut Streets and developing First Street into a covered pedestrian mall.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS
At its meeting of August 12, 2003, the Agency directed staff to re-present the November 26, 2002, Downtown Parking Structure Phase I Report for the purpose of Agency members to re-affirm or deny its past actions and directions as it relates to proposed parking structures.

Also at its meeting of August 12, 2003, the Agency requested that the discussion regarding the addition of Study Area 6, and the approvals of EIR and Phase I Site Assessment contracts, be continued.

Also at its meeting of August 12, 2003, Member Petrovich requested a discussion regarding developing First Street into a covered pedestrian mall, by closing Oak and Chestnut Streets.

At its meeting of September 23, 2003, the Redevelopment Agency set a special meeting for Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 5:30 pm to consider these items.

BACKGROUND
Re-affirm or deny past actions and directions regarding proposed retail/parking structure in Downtown Area.

► Attached are copies of the November 26, 2002, meeting minutes, staff report and the Downtown Parking Structure Phase I Report. Heather Horne of Watry Design will re-present this Report.

There are many different levels of architectural finish that can be used on a retail/parking structure. The Report did not recommend any specific architectural design or style, but rather addressed the potential of design and appearance as it relates to incorporating the structural elements into the architecture. The Report assumed a high level of architectural and landscaping treatments in the opinions of probable construction costs. Sketches of possible architectural features will be presented to assist the Agency and the community in understanding the design and pedestrian experience available for retail/parking structures.

After re-presentation of the Report by Heather Horne of Watry Design and after discussion of the Report by the Agency members, the Agency should take action to re-affirm or deny the recommendations made by the Report and the Redevelopment Subcommittee to further investigate the preferred parking structures. These actions include (please refer to Chapter 6, page 64 of the Phase I Report):

1. Re-affirm or deny the recommendation that Option B and B-s (the ¾ block options) be eliminated from further investigation. This recommendation was based on three facts: 1) highest cost per stall; 2) least amount of net new stalls; and 3) least amount of retail space.

2. Re-affirm or deny the recommendation that the second phase of investigation include a blending of Options A-s and C-s, with additional 5,000 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 5,000 square feet of retail space. This recommendation was based on the desire to effectively compare the parking structures on equal footing as it relates to retail space, number of stalls, and costs per stall.

3. Re-affirm or deny the recommendation to accept the Downtown Parking Structure Phase I Report, and direct staff to commission Watry to conduct the secondary study to include, among other issues, a site selection analysis.

► At a joint workshop of the Agency and Planning Commission on May 27, 2003, a new parking structure Option E-s was presented. This was in response to the preference for reduced massing on the speed-ramp structure designs as seen on other parking structures during a March bus tour. At the May 27 workshop, there was consensus by the Redevelopment Agency and Planning Commission, with support by the Redevelopment Subcommittee and the Project Area Committee, that Option C-s (speed ramp structure) be replaced with Option E-s (speed ramp structure with reduced massing) in the ongoing investigation of parking structure styles and types.

It is suggested that the Agency take action on the consensus and direction given during the May 27, 2003, workshop as follows:

4. Re-affirm or deny the replacement of Parking Structure Option C-s with Parking Structure Option E-s in the ongoing Phase II investigation.

Engage in discussion and take actions regarding the addition of new study areas to site a potential retail/parking structure in Downtown Area.

► The April 2003 Strategies and Programs for a Vital Town Center prepared by Gruen Gruen + Associates recommended the northerly expansion of the Downtown District. To facilitate this, the re-use of strategic properties along First Street is critical to link and expand the four-block core Downtown to the north.

Kathrin Moore of FTB, the City’s Specific Plan consultant, has suggested another potential site for consideration for the retail/parking structure, which staff has labeled Study Area 6 (please refer to attached map). There are two reasons for FTB’s suggestion: 1) it facilitates the Gruen’s recommendation for re-tenanting and re-using First Street properties as a catalyst for the northerly expansion of Downtown, and 2) Study Area 6 is centrally located at the corner of “Main and Main” in the Downtown.

Study Area 6 is the same size as Study Areas 1 and 2, and therefore could accommodate the same full-block parking structure design. The existing uses in Study Area 6 include the Veteran’s Hall, fire station, and eleven businesses. The businesses include restaurants, apparel stores, offices and services, and a salon. No land assemblage costs (acquisition, relocation, etc.) have been estimated for Study Area 6.

Should the Agency desire to include Study Area 6 in the investigation of a retail/parking structure, Staff requests tonight’s consideration to approve agreements for environmental impact report and site assessment studies be postponed until new proposals can be submitted, wherein Study Area 6 shall be included in the scope and fees.

Staff requests the Agency members engage in discussion and take action regarding the addition of Study Area 6 for investigation to site a potential retail/parking structure. Recommended action:

5. Approve or disapprove the addition of Study Area 6 for investigation to site a potential retail/parking structure.

► At the Agency’s August 12, 2003, meeting, a Downtown property owner and stakeholder suggested another potential site for consideration for the retail/parking structure, which staff has labeled Study Area 7 (please refer to attached map). This area includes the old CentroMart, existing police station, the Highway Rooms, a residence and two vacant parcels. It excludes the apartment complex on Birch Street and Diablo Way due to high relocation costs. This site, according to the stakeholder, is ideal because it faces Brentwood Boulevard and is not intrusive to the Downtown proper but rather flanks the Downtown making it a preferable location. It should also be noted that a portion of Study Area 7 is needed for future right-of-way to widen Brentwood Boulevard.

A new retail/parking structure needs to be engineered and designed to fit Study Area 7 as it is does not have the same dimensions or shape as other Study Areas. No land assemblage costs (acquisition, relocation, etc.) have been estimated for Study Area 7.

Should the Agency desire to include Study Area 7 in the investigation of a retail/parking structure, Staff requests tonight’s consideration to approve agreements for environmental impact report and site assessment studies be postponed until new proposals can be submitted, wherein Study Area 7 shall be included in the scope and fees.

Staff requests the Agency members engage in discussion and take action regarding the addition of Study Area 7 for investigation to site a potential retail/parking structure. Recommended action:

6. Approve or disapprove the addition of Study Area 7 for investigation to site a potential retail/parking structure.

Engage in discussion and take action regarding the investigation of developing First Street into a pedestrian mall.

► Staff requests the Agency members engage in discussion and take action regarding the investigation of closing First Street between Oak and Chestnut Streets, and developing First Street into a covered pedestrian mall. It’s staff understanding that this idea would incorporate a retail/parking structure somewhere in the concept.

7. Approve or disapprove the investigation of closing First Street between Oak and Chestnut Streets and developing First Street into a covered pedestrian mall and incorporating a retail/parking structure.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with re-affirmation or denial of past actions and directions (Actions 1, 2, 3, and 4 above). The Agency cost to date for the studies associated with Actions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above is $100,080.

Additional studies will need to be performed to include Study Area 6 and/or Study Area 7 in the ongoing investigation. These additional studies include, but are not limited to, land assemblage estimates, site assessment studies, expanded environmental impact report, traffic studies, engineer’s surveys, and new parking structure design. (Actions 5 & 6 above.)

Additional studies will need to be performed to investigate the development of First Street into a pedestrian mall. These additional studies include, but are not limited to, construction estimates, traffic studies, economic impacts on businesses that are only pedestrian accessible, environmental impact report, studies to determine parking structure siting, land assemblage estimates, new parking structure design, and net new parking stalls. (Action 7 above.)

Attachments: November 26, 2002, Agency meeting minutes
November 26, 2002, Staff Report
November 26, 2002, Downtown Parking Structure Phase I Report
Supplement to Chapter 5, Architectural and Landscape Treatments
Map for Study Areas 6 & 7 & Pedestrian Mall

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. _______

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

RECOMMENDATION
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.

PREVIOUS ACTION
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.

BACKGROUND
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.

FISCAL IMPACT
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 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