The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About08) 10A Proposed Design Concept For 5800 Temple City Blvd.AGENDA ITEM 10.A. MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 2 , 2014 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Donald E. Penman , Interim City Manager Brian Haworth , Asst. to the City Manager I Econ . Development Manager SUBJECT: PROPOSED DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR 5800 TEMPLE CITY BLVD. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to : a . Approve recommendation of the Future Development of City Properties Standing Committee to pursue an interim reuse of 5800 Temple City Blvd . as detailed by Alternative 1 B herein ; or b. Provide staff with an alternate direction . BACKGROUND: 1. On . April 23 , 2013, the City purchased a former mortuary property at 5800 Temple City Blvd . for $1 .05 million . The property was intended for reuse as a downtown publ ic parking lot. 2. On February 18 , 2014 , the City Council estab li shed a Future Development of City Properties Standing Comm ittee. Currently comprised of Councilmembers V izcarra and Yu , the Committee develops recommendations to the full Counc il on pol icy issues regarding the City's property acquisition and reuse act ivities . 3. On April 25, 2014 , the Committee met to discuss potential uses for the property , and directed staff to procure an architect to explore and prepare schematic designs for the site 's highest and best use . 4 . On May 20 , 2014 , the Council authorized a $14 ,000 professional servi ces agreement with Gonzalez Goodale Architects to develop site-specific design concepts that prov ide for public parking , parkland , commercial/retail space or a hybrid t hereof. City Council September 2 , 2014 Page 2 of 7 5. On August 15, 2014 , the Committee was presented with four design concepts and nine development iterations that consider various development intensities ranging from public parking to senior housing . The architects were requested to develop two additional iterations : Alternative 1 B, which provides an i nterim public parking use and does not require full demolition of the property; and Alternative 3E that includes a live/work concept with ground floor retail and second story li ving quarters . The Committee ultimately recommended-for full Council deliberation-Alternative 1 B as it provides a cost-effective measure that adaptively reuses the site 's existing parking lot for additional public parking , while providing opportunity for civic deliberation on the property 's eventual reuse . 6. On August 20 , 2014 and at the Committee 's recommendat io n, the Council moved to delay its approval of authorizing the City Engineer to solicit bids for demolition of the former mortuary building and parking lot until the final design concepts-including the Committee 's recommendation for Alternative 1 B-were presented for full Council deliberation . 7 . On August 25, 2014 , the architect team submitted its final design concepts , includin g Alternatives 1 B and 3E , which are subsequently detailed in the Analysis section and illustratively provided hereto as Attachments "B" through "L". ANALYSIS: Situated at the southeast corner of Workman Avenue and Temple City Boulevard , the property is approximately 17 ,500 sq. ft . (or .4 ac .) in size . It is bound to the north and east by residential uses , and to the west and south by commercia l uses . The site contains a former mortuary building and adjacent parking lot with two vehicular access points via Temple City Boulevard and a public alley to the east (Attachment "A "). The Downtown Specific Plan governs land use and designates the property as Temple City Commercial, which generally allows for eateries and limited retail. Development standards for the site 's reus e allow for zero lot lines (no building setbacks), and generally require on-site parking and building heights at no more than 45'. A series of design concepts for the property 's re use was recently completed by Gonzales Goodale Architects , taking into consideration its : (1) potential as a ceremonial gateway into the downtown ; and (2) catalytic effect to spur the area 's overall redevelopment. As a result , the following four design concepts were subsequently produced , each addressing various intensities of development. Concept 1: Public Parking Incorporating findings of the Downtown Parking Specific Plan to provide for additional off-street public parking stalls , the following alternatives offer both permanent and temporary solutions. City Council September 2 , 2014 Page 3 of7 Alternative 1 A: Alternative 1 8 : This scenario provides a new, permanent parking lot at an estimated cost of $275 ,000. As the site is not conducive to 90 degree parking , the configuration provides 42 angled parking stalls with circulatio n via two access points (Attachment "8 "). It most li kely would alleviate local demand for employee parking , however it does not take full advantage of the site's gateway location and potential for catalytic development. Provided as a temporary solution , this option reta ins the site's existing asphalt parking lot to provide 31 angled parking stalls , and razes the former mortuary building to accommodate non-recreational landscaped frontage at the gateway corner (Attachment "C "). The alternative provides a twofo ld benefit of allowing additional parking in the area , as well as additional time for civic deliberation on the site's eventual reuse . Staff is currently developing cost estimates for repair of the existing parking lot , and measures that make the demolition site suitable for public use as a temporary park or other open space. Concept 2: Pocket Park This concept looks to add much-needed park space to the community by developing the property entirely as a pocket park , or as a blended approach of park and public parking (otherwise known as Alternatives 2A and 28 , and illustrated by Attac hm ents "D" and "E" respectively). Parking under the former scenario is provided off-street, while the latter builds upon Concept 1, offering 11 angled park ing stalls in a similar configuration. Because of adjacent res idential uses, both alternatives envision the park for passive activities l ike walking , sitting and picnicking . Key features may i nclude public art and xeriscapi ng to provide a un ique greening and cultural introduction to the downtown- construction costs for both scenarios are estimated upwards of $350 ,000 . The only caveat: the site is located within .3 miles of Temple City Park , and the new amenity would most likely serve the neighborhood (an d possibly nearby commercial customers), but not the greater commun ity . If a new park is desired, Alternative 2A is recommended as it fully maximizes th e site for public use . Concept 3: Retail Given the property's relatively small size and prominent location , retail uses like bakeries or specialty shops-wh ich function well in today 's larger retail sector-provide a good starting point for site reuse. Four alternatives of this concept were developed , providing various configurations of building area , parking and public spaces. Alternative 3A: A 5,400 sq. ft . retail pad fo r a bakery a nd/or small reta il is situated along Workman Avenue, with shaded outdoor seating at the gateway corner. The development is served by 22 parking spaces with ------------ City Council September 2 , 2014 Page 4 of 7 vehicular access from Temple City Bou levard from the west, and a public alley to the east. This scenario is relatively standard in its approach of facing retail frontage along the street, and parking and service access in the back (Attachme nt "F"). A lternative 3B: This scenario bu i lds upon Alternative 3A by adding-or wrapping- an additional 600 sq . ft . of retail onto Temp le City Boulevard . The increased space could support another retail use, or be marketed as a larger 6 ,000 sq. ft . space for enhanced retail attraction opportunities . Nevertheless , this design presents a circulation challenge to the proposal 's 26 parking stalls as the alley serves as the only vehicular access point , which may limit the site 's retail marketability for convenient customer parking and service access (Attachment "G"). If gateway retail is a goal for the site , th is alternative provides an optimal design for new retail and its reinforced context into the downtown area. Alternative 3C: A small cafe and linear park define the concept with a 3 ,600 sq . ft. restaurant pad a long Temp le City Boulevard and a .1 0 ac pocket park along Workman Avenue. Taking advantage of th e site 's three large trees along Workman Avenue , th e linear park would incorporate design elements of Concept 2 and create a greening buffer for residential uses to the north . The adjacent retail pad would include a 2,400 sq . ft . dining area with 24 parking spaces via rear alley access . The driveway configuration allows the site design-and more specifically , the restaurant pad -to unify the streetscape along Temple City Boulevard and continue a visual urban aspect into the downtown area (Attachment "H"). Alternative 30: This alternative is a hybrid of Alternatives 3A and 3C , which resituates the 3,600 sq . ft. restaurant pad from Temple City Bou levard to Workman Avenue. A restaurant-serving patio to the east creates a lively gateway of diners and active commercial use, while a nearby green space allows for visual interest and passive recreation . Two driveways and 26 parking stalls support the site ; possible elimi nation of the driveway along Temple City Boulevard could visually and physi cal ly expand the greening e lement , however, this may not prove feasible depending on a potential reta iler needs for parking access points (Attachment "1"). If a gateway cafe is a preferred use of the site , this favorable alternative uses seating and a parking area to frame entry into the downtown . Alternative 3E : Taking inspiration from Alternatives 3C and 30, this scenario incorporates three physical elemen ts : green space along Workman Avenue , public art and seating at the gateway corner , and a 3 ,600 City Council September 2 , 2014 Page 5 of 7 sq . ft. restaurant pad with (presumably two) living quarters a long Temple City Boulevard (Attachment "J"). Served by 26 parking stalls via alley access , this des ign scenario continues both vertical and horizontal streetscape elements , especially with second floor living quarters present elsewhere on the block . From a policy level , the introduction-or rather proliferation of housing over commercial uses-could i nfluence a new urban culture and philosophy for future development opportunities in the downtown area . It should be noted that consideration of the aforementioned retail alternatives require further Council discussion , specifically on policy decisions regarding desired tenants , site control and property disposition . As each of these alternatives presume market conditions , further due diligence (via real estate consulting services) will be requ i red for assistance with financial pro formas (i.e ., project costing), development negotiations and the structuring of real estate transactions. In the end , it will likely be the reta il market (or demand) that determines building size, configuration and other amenities . Concept 4: Senior Housing The site 's small size limits financial feasibility for new housing except for the provision of senior hous i ng , which can be funded through a variety of sources including tax credits , a land "write-down " and bond proceeds from the City's former redevelopment agency . As senior housing is an identified need in the City 's Housing Element, the architects prepared the following two alternatives that propose senior housing units on -site , and with the acquisition of three adjacent privately-owned parcels . In both scenarios, ground-level retail spaces were incorporated to visually complement surrounding streetscapes , as well as to provide a potential funding stream for the project's underwriting and long-term financing. Alternative 4A: Alternative 4B: This prototype provides for a three-story building with at-grade features including two vehicular access points , 30 site-serving parking stalls and a 3 ,300 sq . ft. restaurant pad along Workman Avenue . The second and third stories each contain 14 un its of senior housing (28 total), all configured as 500 sq . ft. studios for independent living (Attachment "K"). Provided as an alternate , this study assumes acquisition of three adjacent parcels (581 0-5816 Temple City Blvd ., collectively .3 ac .) to provide a larger mixed-use concept for s ite maximization and economies of scale. Roughly 4,000 sq . ft . of commercial is situated along both streetscapes with outdoor dining and seating at the gateway corner, in addition to 27 parking stalls and three veh icular access points at-grade . Underground parking provides another 62 parking stalls to support a total of 54 senior housing [studio] units within a four-story, 45 ' building (Attachment "L"). City Council September 2 , 2014 Page 6 of 7 If urban vitality is a goal for the gateway corner, Alternative 48 is a recommended option-at least in theory . A number of items will require much Council consideration , notably whether to pursue costly acquisition of adjacent properties (which the Committee d id not favor), and how the development's f inancing and partnersh ips will be defined . It is staffs opinion-based on experience-that senior housing units may be more su itable for development on the City's Primrose Avenue properties as they are centrally located , larger in s ize , and may provide for a more competitive RFP and tax credit application process . CONCLUSION: Council selection on one of the aforementioned design concepts will move forward the property's reuse by providing clear direction on pending demolition activities , as well as longer-term actions for the site 's future development and its function as a local redevelopment catalyst. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for professional services pertaining to the property's environmental remediation , demolition and schematic design options are budgeted as a $200,000 lin e item under Capital Improvement Project No . 14-13 . Until demolition activities are authorized , it is unknown of how much funding is available for realizing interim uses provided by Alternative 1 8, should it be an option the Council supports . Alternativ e 1 8 may be appropriate , as it does not leave the site vacant for an undetermined amount of time while other uses are explored . However, if Council wants to eventually pursue a permanent parking lot and/or passive park (e .g . Alternatives 1A, 2A and 28), it should first consider whether it wants to expend funds for temporary uses since work on permanent uses could soon commence with the retention of a design firm . If the Council opts for a parking lot , park or a combination of the two , project costs are estimated in the range of $275,000 to $350 ,000 . At this time , it is difficult for staff to determine costs for the property 's commercial reuse . The City will have spent or will be spending roughly $1 .2 mill ion on acquisition , remediation, demolition and architectural services . The net cost to the City could be $0 if a commercial user or developer purchased the property at the City's cost. However, a tena nt or other user may seek assistance , wh ich could take on many forms and require negotiation . An economic or rea l estate consultant would need to assist with the analysis. City Council September 2 , 2014 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENTS: A. Property Map Public Parking B. Alternative 1A C. Alternative 1 B Pocket Park D. Alternative 2A E. Alternative 28 Retail F . Alternative 3A G . Alternative 38 H. Alternative 3C I. Alternative 30 J . Alternative 3E Senior Housing K. Alternative 4A L. Alternative 48 Ll.J C\J 1-'+--0 (/) .. ~ 1- 2: Ll.J ~ ::r 0 ;5 I- ~ -- 1111111111 --, ATTACHMENT A ----.. ---._ r------.. ·aNtJ a -- WN t-o -N C/)(1) <(ro 1-0.... z w ~ I 0 ~ ~ w > ~ z 0:: w ~ <( .. co r-z w ~ I (_) ~ ~ ATTACHMENT B 1 I l ~-----------~ ?/(J )-JI? 3 -1 J f-J. 3 ) w > ~ z 0::: w ~ <t: .. 0 r-z w ~ I 0 ~ ~ ATTACHMENT C ·~ ~~ ii~ .,..._,..~.~if <( N w > ~ z 0:: w ~ <( .. 0 1-z w ~ I () ~ ~ ATTACHMENT D ,...,__ ____ __.-~-.llJ -..... .__ co N w > ~ z 0:: w ~ <( .. w t-z w ~ I () ~ ~ ATTACHMENT E ____ _____..l-.i lJ <( ('f) w > ~ z 0::: w ~ l <( .. LL I-z w ~ I () ~ ~ '-0 ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ¥~~ __ j ~i"~ ~~ ~"*~ ~"37~}' ~ -..$' ~ ~ c--J ~ - d ~ I ~ ~ ~ '>-~ ~ •• • ATTACHMENT F . ~ ><( -;/: ~ 2: ~ ~ 0 ~ .. <.9 1--z w ~ I (.) ~ ~ ATTACHMENT G ----~----------~ .. I 1--z w ~ I 0 ~ ~ ~ <.J ~ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT H ~ ) ~ < * y ~ V- C> ~ 0 C'0 w > ~ z 0:: w ~ <( ATTACHMENT I w ('f) w > ~ z 0::: w ~ <1:: .. ""'"') r-z w ~ I 0 ~ ~ 4 I I ' /;J ATTACHMENT J . ..... <(N ~0 w~ >Q) -0) ~~ z 0::: w ~ <( ~ 1--z w :?! I () ~ ~ ATTACHMENT K - ~ - .. -.J f- 2 l..LJ ~ :::c u ~ f- <( L I I I I I ... I I I I -I I 1 - ' ~ ·-I J I . I J LJ ... ~ \, -""1 -- ~ - -- .. _J 1-z w ~ I (_) ~ ~ :t. --. - ~ \l\ (~ J\ ) ~ ~ "' {: ::.~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ .. ...J r-z w ~ I 0 ~ ~ ----- """ -