Glenbrook Basin Redevelopment Infill Study DRAFT REPORT

Transcription

1 DRAFT REPORT Prepared by Wahlstrom & Associates In association with RRM Design Group

2 2140 Shattuck Avenue, #2239 Berkeley, CA Tel Fax Jeri Amendola City of Grass Valley 125 E. Main Street Grass Valley, CA Dear Jeri, Enclosed is a of the Glenbrook Basin Infill Study. You can see from the enclosed report that significant retail spending leakages are available to be captured in Grass Valley. However, the available infill sites within the Glenbrook Basin are not well suited for a new shopping center due to reasons of regional location, the size and shape of available sites, steep topography, environmental constraints, and the City s mitigation fee policies that are intended to minimize traffic congestion at key intersections. Consequently, current policies intended to minimize traffic congestion should also be revamped in order to encourage the implementation of infill development. Additionally, land use and zoning policies should be modified to encourage residential, office and general business commercial uses. Property owners should not be required to attract retail to infill sites that have weak market demand and other constraints that are difficult to overcome. We look forward to presenting this information to the City Council on Tuesday, October 26. Sincerely, Stephen Wahlstrom Principal

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Demographic Characteristics Built Space Estimates Built Space Within Each Sub-Area Occupied Retail Space Spending Leakages and Business Attraction Prospects Big-Box Discount Stores Clothing Retailers Furniture and Home Furnishings Fast Food and Restaurant spending leakages Glenbrook Basin Planning Areas and Redevelopment Infill Sites Amaral Property Old Tunnel Road West Upper Sutton Way Union Property Southwest Glenbrook Neil Property North Brunswick Strip CHP/DMV Property Gates Place Fowler Center Glenbrook Plaza Redevelopment and Infill Constraints General Constraints Pertaining to the Glenbrook Basin Project Area Site Specific Infill Development and Redevelopment Constraints...33

4 6. Infill Development and Revitalization Recommendations General Recommendations to Guide Infill Development and Area Revitalization Other Area Specific Revitalization Recommendations Site Specific Infill Recommendations Funding Project Area Improvements Available Local Funding Local Funding Not Currently Available in the Glenbrook Basin Grant Funding...48 Appendix A: Tables Appendix B: Grass Valley Project Area and Proposed Added Area Map * * *

5 List of Figures 1. Characteristics of Glenbrook Basin Retail Business Prospects Glenbrook Basin Planning Area Glenbrook Basin Redevelopment & Infill Development Opportunity Site Characteristics Redevelopment Opportunity Sites in Southwest Glenbrook Gates Place Planning Area Infill Development Sites Infill Development Opportunities for Gates Place Planning Area Site Specific Development and Redevelopment Constraints General Recommendations to Guide Infill Development Within the Glenbrook Basin Area Site Specific Infill Development and Redevelopment Recommendations Funding Sources Available to Implement Roadway and Streetscape Improvements in the Glenbrook Basin Area...46 * * *

6 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Glenbrook Basin surrounds the Highway 49 interchange, midway between downtown Grass Valley and downtown Nevada City. The City of Grass Valley annexed the Glenbrook Basin in between 2002 and 2005, and a plan is in motion to create a Redevelopment Project Area that will commence in July During the past decade, the Glenbrook Basin developed into a regional destination for commercial services, attracting nearly one-million square feet of built commercial space that includes three grocery store-anchored shopping centers, offices, light industry, and a wide mix of other commercial uses. The retail leakage analysis enclosed in this report indicates that Grass Valley has nearly $102 million of retail spending leakages to be captured, and the economic fundamentals are in place to attract a big box general merchandise stores such as Target or Sam s Club and a community shopping center anchored by apparel and/or home furnishing stores. However, the Glenbrook Basin has only 11 sites available for infill development, and the available sites are not well suited to accommodate a new retail shopping center for reason of poor market demand, steep topography, possible soils contamination, non-conforming zoning, and the City policies that require property owners and developers to pay mitigation fees to fund transportation improvement projects that will reduce traffic congestion. The analysis incorporated into this report demonstrates that the available infill sites are limited to small sub-areas and specific buildings that are old, poorly constructed, or obsolete. A number of the infill sites are in locations best suited for residential or office uses. No compelling reason is in place to force retail into the infill sites given the weak demand for new commercial retail space. Consequently, future infill development within the Glenbrook Basin should continue to attract a mix of uses, consistent with the area s current character and business mix. The priority infill sites could be developed or redeveloped with more financial services, health care offices, general commercial space, and professional office space since more retail is not feasible. The enclosed report describes the market, infrastructure, and regulatory constraints to developing the infill opportunity sites. The report recommends an approach that the City can take to support infill development, along with the implementation actions. The consulting team has also forwarded some general streetscape, urban design, planning and regulatory changes that will help revitalize the Glenbrook Basin area and indirectly support infill development. The general recommendations are listed below:

7 2 Modify land use policies to allow property owners to develop their sites with residential, professional office or general commercial space do not limit infill development to retail commercial uses; Create a Flexible Zoning Overlay that will encourage property owners to develop a mix of uses at buildings adjacent to each other; Prepare a Master Streetscape Design Plan for major streets and intersections; Create design guidelines for the Glenbrook Basin area Revise the City s General Plan Circulation Element and the Traffic Policy to allow more traffic congestion and clarify the mitigation fees that will be required of infill developers; Establish a façade and site renovation program that will encourage owners to revitalize their properties to be consistent with the design guidelines; Create an open space site by converting a vacant lot into a functional town square use; Initiate a business retention effort in the Glenbrook Basin; Encourage the City, Nevada County, and Nevada County LAFCO to update and re-evaluate the tax sharing agreement so that more funding is available for Glenbrook Basin transportation improvement projects. The body of the report also identifies the funding available to implement a revitalization effort that will facilitate infill or redevelopment on ten opportunity sites. * * *

8 3 1. Demographic Characteristics Grass Valley has a large number of young adults and creative people engaged in the arts, technology, and entrepreneurship The demographic estimates contradict the conventional wisdom that Grass Valley has an unusual number of seniors and retired persons. Instead, only 12 percent of Grass Valley s population is 65 years and older, which is consistent with the percentage California s older residents. Of course, the demographic mix may change if new assisted living and senior housing projects are developed that attract additional seniors and retirees to the community. Additional demographic statistics that distinguish Grass Valley are summarized below. Grass Valley has a smaller percentage of middle class families than does Nevada County, the surrounding region, and California (see Table 1). The City has a relatively small percentage of children and teenagers (18 percent compared to 27 percent throughout California), and a relatively small percentage of adults between the ages of 35 and 54 (21 percent compared to 30 percent throughout California). Young adults comprise 39 percent of Grass Valley s residents, which essentially doubles the percentage of California s young adults. The young and creative people engaged in the arts, technology, and entrepreneurship are in this demographic cohort.

9 4 Grass Valley and Western Nevada County are slow growth communities, with the population expanding at only a 0.6 percent annual growth rate. In comparison, the population in neighboring Placer County is expanding at a 3.5 percent rate of growth (see Tables 2 and 3). INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Glenbrook Basin retailers attract the spending of Western Nevada County residents, who have an average household income of $74,800 (see Table 4). Although Western Nevada County s household incomes are eight percent lower than California s average household income, retail prospects should be attracted by the region s $3,300 per household real income increase (adjusted for inflation) this past decade, which is the opposite of California s $1,800 per household income decline since Grass Valley s household income is significantly lower at $51,200. However, Grass Valley s lower incomes are a function of a larger number of rental units and the dominance of a young workforce that has not yet reached its peak earning years. Most new retailers will sell their products and services to the regional market, not limited to the City of Grass Valley. * * *

10 5 The Glenbrook Basin includes three shopping centers and nearly one million square feet of built commercial space 2. Built Space Estimates The 975,800 square feet of built commercial space within Glenbrook Basin represents a range of mixed uses (Table 5). 1 Retail businesses occupy approximately 475,000 square feet of space, which accounts for approximately 50 percent of the area s built space. Other segments of built space are summarized below. Nearly 220,000 square feet of office space is built in the Glenbrook Basin, including approximately 44,000 square feet of space for commercial banks and 19,000 square feet for health care offices. The remaining 156,000 square feet is for professional offices and business services, which may employ up to 800 daytime workers to the project area who will spend money at the area s restaurants, food stores and retail establishments; Restaurants and fast food establishments occupy nearly 90,000 square feet of space; Personal service establishments such as beauty shops occupy approximately 50,000 square feet of space; 1 Wahlstrom & Associates collected the data by walking the project area, measuring each building, and estimating the space occupied by individual business establishments.

11 6 Auto repair and maintenance establishments occupy 37,000 square feet of space; Establishments that rent videos or equipment occupy 26,000 square feet of space. The Glenbrook Basin also has a mix of eclectic other uses such as some light industry, a school, and a wildlife rehabilitation center. These uses occupy 40,000 square feet of space in addition to the space occupied by auto dealers, gas stations, and the Best Western Motel. The project area also includes 38,000 square feet of vacant retail space, which translates to a 4 percent vacancy rate. Glenbrook Basin has substantially lower vacancy rates than elsewhere in Northern California. 2.1 BUILT SPACE WITHIN EACH SUB-AREA The built space data were also analyzed for the four sub-areas within the Glenbrook Basin. Quadrant 1 Quadrant 1, located to the east of Highway 49 and north of Brunswick Road, includes more than 220,000 square feet of built commercial space. The Gold Country Shopping Center anchors this sub-area, with retail businesses occupying 67 percent of the sub-area s built space. This sub-area s retail space appears to be economically healthy, with no commercial vacancies. The sub-area also includes 39,000 square feet of professional offices and 9,000 square feet of retail banking space, which are also fully occupied. Quadrant 2 Quadrant 2, located west of Highway 49 and north of the I-49 interchange, includes 256,000 square feet of built commercial space anchored by the Fowler Center. Retail, food, and personal service establishments occupy 80 percent of the sub-area s built space. Built space in Quadrant 2 also includes 20,000 square feet of professional office space along with a small amount of health care office space, retail banking, and 12,000 square feet of commercial vacancies which translates to a 5 percent vacancy rate. Quadrant 3 Quadrant 3, located west of Highway 49 and south of the I-49 interchange, includes 233,000 square feet of built commercial space with a varied business mix. Retail, food, and personal service establishments occupy 35 percent, or 82,000 square feet, of Quadrant 3 s built space. The sub-area also includes 59,000 square feet of professional office and business service space; 33,000 square feet of auto repair and maintenance facilities; 15,000 square feet of other uses; and

12 7 22,000 square feet of commercial vacancies. 2 Thus, 57 percent of the Glenbrook Basin s commercial vacancies are located in Quadrant 3. Quadrant 4 Quadrant 4, located to the east of Highway 49 and south of Brunswick Road, includes more than 260,000 square feet of built commercial space anchored by the Glenbrook Shopping Center. Quadrant 4 includes 166,000 square feet of retail, food, and personal services establishments. The sub-area also includes 37,000 square feet of professional office space, 19,000 square feet of health care offices, and 26,000 square feet of space occupied by financial service establishments. 2.2 OCCUPIED RETAIL SPACE Three of the Glenbrook Basin s four quadrants have supermarketanchored shopping centers that attract customers from throughout Western Nevada County. Three supermarkets, one large home improvement store, and two national chain drug stores occupy more than 50 percent of the project area s 475,000 square feet of retail space (Table 6). The retail business mix also includes more than 70,000 square feet of home improvement stores, four convenience stores, three small apparel stores, a Dollar general merchandise store, three auto parts stores and eleven specialty retailers. * * * 2 The built space estimates do not include two used car dealers and a car rental agency that occupy key sites along Nevada City Highway.

13 8 3. Spending Leakages and Business Attraction Prospects Spending leakages in Grass Valley could support a new Shopping center with a big box discount store, apparel, and home furnishing establishments The Glenbrook Basin s retail establishments earn an estimated $237 million of sales, which amounts to half of the total sales earned by all Grass Valley business establishments (Table 7). 3 Three supermarkets earn nearly $92 million of sales, which accounts for 30 percent of the retail sales earned in the project area. Strong concentrations of retail sales are also earned by drug stores, home furnishing establishments, building materials stores, and auto parts establishments located in the Glenbrook Basin. Over time the Glenbrook Basin has become a regional destination for commercial services, attracting nearly 1 million square feet of built commercial space that includes three grocery store-anchored shopping centers, offices, light industry, and a wide mix of other commercial uses. Nearly $99 million of available retail spending leakages is available to be captured in the Glenbrook Basin (Table 8). The spending leakages identify business attraction opportunities that can be supported by unmet market demand, and the information will identify store types that should not be attracted to the Glenbrook Basin because of market saturation. Store types with sufficient spending leakages and opportunities to 3 Sales by store type estimates utilize the space estimates, sales per square foot standards established by the Urban Land Institute, and corporate 10K reports submitted to the Security Exchange Commission. The sales estimates are weighted to conform to the Glenbrook Basin s total taxable sales data as reported by the City s sales tax audit firm.

14 9 expand the retail supply in the Glenbrook Basin are summarized in Figure 1 and described below in more detail. Store Type Big Box General Merchandise FIGURE 1 Characteristics of Glenbrook Basin Retail Business Prospects Spending Leakages Tenant Prospect Maximum Supportable Store Size $50,000,000 Target or Sam s Club 180,000 SF Site Criteria 4-5 acre site Stand-alone facility or shopping center anchor Apparel $28,000,000 National Chains (e.g., Kohl's, Marshalls) or Local Owned 100,000 SF 6-10 acre site Tenant in a 150,000 to 500,000 SF shopping center Home Furnishings $15,000,000 National Chains (e.g., Bed, Bath & Beyond) or Local Owned 65,000 SF 6-10 acre site Tenant in a 150,000 to 500,000 SF shopping center Fast Food & Restaurants $5,600,000 National Chains or Local Owned 18,000 SF Stand-alone or shopping center tenant Needs drive-by traffic Source: Wahlstrom & Associates 3.1 BIG-BOX DISCOUNT STORES Nearly $50 million of spending leakages can attract a new general merchandise store to Grass Valley. A Target discount store would be an ideal general merchandise business attraction target, given the company s average annual earnings of $37 million of sales per store. Existing spending leakages could support up to 180,000 square feet of new space on an 8- to 10-acre site as a stand-alone facility. Less parking would be required if a Target Discount store could anchor a larger shopping center. The existing market demand may also support a Sam s Club warehouse club store, which earns approximately $56 million of sales per year. In contrast, the existing market demand is not sufficient to support a new Wal-Mart Supercenter in Grass Valley without taking sales away from established stores. The average 200,000 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter earns $115 million of sales annually, which greatly exceeds western Nevada County s general merchandise spending leakages. Insufficient demand also exists to support a Costco warehouse club, which earns more than $125 million of sales per year.

15 CLOTHING RETAILERS An estimated $28 million of spending leakages can be captured to expand Grass Valley s apparel store space. The spending leakages are sufficient to attract up to 100,000 square feet of new retail space that could be occupied by local businesses or brand name chain stores such as Kohl's, Old Navy, Gap, and American Eagle. Chain store retailers such as Ross and Mervyns have located at standalone sites, but many of these stores have closed in recent years, and it is very difficult to attract retail stores to stand-alone sites in today s difficult economic climate. Instead, it is more feasible to attract clothing retailers to established shopping centers within walking distance of other retailers. Thus, the feasibility of attracting clothing retailers to the Glenbrook Basin is improved if a shopping center can be assembled. 3.3 FURNITURE AND HOME FURNISHINGS An estimated $15 million of spending leakages can support up to 65,000 square feet of new retail space for home furnishing establishments such as Crate & Barrel; Bed, Bath & Beyond; Aarons Furniture; or locally owned specialty stores. Furniture and home furnishing stores want to be within walking distance of other retailers, and they are most successful within developed shopping centers rather than stand-alone facilities on infill sites. 3.4 FAST FOOD AND RESTAURANT SPENDING LEAKAGES Food service establishments in the Glenbrook Basin serve the surrounding neighborhoods, shoppers, and approximately 1,600 day-time employees at existing business establishments. 4 Although there is $80 million of regional household spending at restaurants and fast food establishments, W&A estimates that only $34 million of household spending is available to be captured by Glenbrook Basin food service businesses because a large percentage of food service spending is away from home and near places of employment (See Table 9). The daytime workforce at Glenbrook Basin spends an additional $2.1 million at restaurants and fast food establishments near the workplace. Thus, new food service entrepreneurs compete for $36.3 million of spending by 4 The number of employee estimates is based on the 975,000 square feet of built space and employees per square foot assumptions, which range between 450 square foot per employee and 700 square feet per employee. Spending assumes that employees spend $25 per week eating out near their place of work, as reported by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).

16 11 Grass Valley residents and the Glenbrook Basin workers, which leaves $5.7 million of spending leakages available to be captured. The spending leakages can support up to 18,000 square feet of new space for coffee shops, bars, sit down restaurants, or fast food chains, depending on whether the establishment is a chain or locally owned. 5 Of course, the success of new food service establishments is highly dependent on a location that is attractive to customers. Food service businesses can be successful in a variety of settings including shopping centers, shopping center pads, or as stand-alone facilities with good visibility, strong traffic flow, and adequate circulation. * * * 5 The average McDonalds earns $2.2 million of sales each year. Many locally owned restaurants earn well under $1 million of revenue per year.

17 12 Ten specific sites within the Glenbrook Basin could support new infill development, or sites could be redeveloped for more intensive commercial uses 4. Glenbrook Basin Planning Areas and Redevelopment Infill Sites Figure 2 on the following page illustrates the 11 planning areas within the Glenbrook Basin. The characteristics and the redevelopment infill sites within each planning area are summarized in Figure 3 and described below the figure in more detail. [This space is intentionally left blank]

18 13 FIGURE 2 Glenbrook Basin Planning Area

19 FIGURE 3 Glenbrook Basin Redevelopment & Infill Development Opportunity Site Characteristics 14 Planning Area Description 1. E. Plaza Drive Property 1 parcel 10.6 acres 2. Old Tunnel Road West 2 parcels 10.3 acres 3. Upper Sutton Way 9 parcels 6 acres 4. Union Property 1 parcel 1 acre 5. Southwest Glenbrook 38 parcels 26 acres 6. E. Main Street Residential Property 4 parcels 3 acres 7. North Brunswick Strip 7 parcels 4.7 acres 8. CHP/DMV Property 2 parcels 1.6 acres 9. Gates Place 23 parcels 29 acres 10. Fowler Center 10 parcels 17 acres 11. Glenbrook Plaza 3 parcels 11acres Infill Development & Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Planning area is vacant & available for infill development Planning area is vacant & available for infill development Only two acres of vacant land are available for infill development Planning area is vacant & available for infill development Redevelopment potential is limited to 20,000 SF of vacant space in 3 buildings Site could support more infill development or be redeveloped for other uses Planning area is built out & only one site is available for reuse or redevelopment Site is developed & may be redeveloped if there is an ownership change 12 acres of vacant land infill sites. Undeveloped parcels are not contiguous Redevelopment potential limited to 0.8 acre car wash site Site fully developed with no infill or redevelopment potential Current Uses & Zoning Policies Owner Plans Other Important Characteristics Planning area includes one single undeveloped land parcel zoned that is entitled as Olympia Plaza II, which includes a mix of retail, office & multi-family residential uses. Planning area includes two undeveloped land parcels zoned for professional office (OP) Four acres are developed for low density residential & institutional uses. Two undeveloped acres are zoned for commercial (C-2) uses Vacant undeveloped land that is zoned for commercial (C-2) uses, currently used as a seasonal Christmas Tree lot. 233,400 SF of developed space as a mix of commercial, office, light industrial, & institutional uses. Vacant spaces are zoned for commercial (C-2) uses Site is developed with cabins for low-income residents. Area zoned for professional office uses & current uses do not conform with the zoning Businesses include retail, light industrial & office space users. Area zoned for commercial (C-2) uses State offices zoned for OP - professional office Area includes a mix of some successful commercial sites, underutilized commercial sites, vacant land, & low density residential Includes shopping center & nearby commercial pads with three commercial vacancies that add up to 14,000 SF Includes shopping center with one 1,600 SF vacant commercial space that will eventually be occupied by a new business Owner wants to develop the site for senior housing &/or other types of residential uses. Property may be for sale. Owner s intentions are unknown The owner s intentions for the two undeveloped parcels are unknown The owners of the developed sites intend to continue the existing uses Adjoining senior housing facility looking to expand onto property. Attract new tenants to vacant buildings or redevelop obsolete buildings Continue or intensify existing uses The one-acre Suburban Propane site will become vacant & the owner intends to find a new tenant Property owner & tenants intend to continue existing uses Owners of 17 developed acres are satisfied with the current uses. One owner that controls 12.1 non-contiguous acres wants to develop the property by recruiting commercial retail businesses to the area Owner intends to continue existing uses, lease the vacant space to new businesses, & redevelop the car wash site for a higher & better use Owner intends to continue existing uses & lease the vacant space to new businesses Needs roadway & storm drainage investment. Site can be connected to adjacent parcel entitled for subdivision Heavy tree cover & steep topography will increase construction costs Challenging topography, lack of safe turnaround, adjacent low traffic volumes & limited infrastructure Poor commercial retail location on terminus of dead end street. Site needs frontage improvements & upgrades to adjoining public road. Need improvements to Maltman Drive & Brunswick Road intersection Challenging topography. Limited fixes for the Nevada City Highway & Brunswick Road interchange. Need frontage improvement upgrades & widening for E. Main Street Significant traffic congestion along this segment of Nevada City Highway constrains more intensive commercial uses Site redevelopment is pending relocation of existing uses Infill development is constrained by traffic impacts, limited infrastructure & potential contamination challenges from historic uses Traffic access constrains car wash redevelopment Area traffic flow is congested and nearby roads are in poor condition Source: Wahlstrom & Associates

20 EAST PLAZA DRIVE PROPERTY The East Plaza Drive property is a single 10.6-acre parcel located near auto parts and repair dealers, commercial banks, offices, a cinema, and other commercial services. The planning area is not well located for commercial services, which has affected past efforts to develop a shopping center. The location adjacent to the Lake Olympia Wetlands limits access and creates storm drainage and retention challenges for any land development proposal. Development is constrained by the need to finance roadway access, storm drainage, and circulation improvements. The planning area can be connected to an adjacent parcel that is entitled for subdivision development. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #1 The entire planning area is vacant and available for infill development. The infill development opportunity site was entitled in 2002 as Olympia Plaza II, which allows the property owner to develop a mix of retail, office, and multifamily residential uses. The entitlement will expire in May Property Owner Plans The property owner was unsuccessful at past effort to develop a grocery store anchored shopping center. Consequently, the owner wants to develop the site as a gated senior housing complex. The property may also be for sale. 4.2 OLD TUNNEL ROAD WEST The Old Tunnel Road West planning area includes two parcels on 10.3 acres that are located between the Gold Country Shopping Center and Old Tunnel Road. The property owners include a residential development company, which indicates that the owners may be interested in developing the site for residential uses. 6 However, development of this site is constrained by very steep topography and heavy tree cover, which will make new construction very expensive. Site development plans will need to address driveway access and on-site parking. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #2 The entire planning area is vacant and available for infill development. Current zoning allows the site to be developed for professional office 6 John McManus owns one parcel in the planning area; A.F. Evans, a housing development company, owns the second parcel.

21 16 space, and the planning area could physically accommodate 67,000 square feet of office space. 7 The feasibility of any development proposal will depend on the site improvement and construction costs, as well as the rents that will be earned. Property Owner Plans The property owners include a residential development company, which indicates that the owners may be interested in developing the site for residential uses. 8 However, the owners have yet to express any plans to develop or sell the property. 4.3 UPPER SUTTON WAY The Upper Sutton Way Planning Area includes nine parcels on six acres that are zoned for commercial (C 2) uses. Four acres are developed with low-density residential uses and a church. The remaining undeveloped parcels are in a terrible location for commercial development, given their location on a cul-de-sac at the upper end of Sutton Way. Infill development is significantly constrained by the steep topography, existing residential uses, and the lack of a safe automobile turnaround. 9 Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #3 Only two acres of vacant land are available for infill development within planning area #3. The undeveloped parcels might accommodate 22,000 square feet of commercial space. 10 However, it is unclear how infill development could be implemented in advance of constructing a safe automobile turnaround on this cul-de-sac. Property Owner Plans The owners of the developed property are satisfied with the current uses and are not compelled to attract or encourage new commercial real estate development. However, the intentions of the undeveloped infill site owners are unknown, and any attempts to build commercial buildings on the undeveloped properties will be constrained by the steep topography, existing residential uses, and the lack of infrastructure. 7 Assumes a 0.15 FAR to accommodate the site s steep topography. 8 John McManus owns one parcel in the planning area; A.F. Evans, a housing development company, owns the second parcel. 9 Rowland and Sharon Franssen own one 0.88-acre vacant parcel; Douglas Mitchell owns one 1.05-acre vacant parcel; John McManus owns one 0.06-acre vacant parcel. 10 Assumes a 0.25 FAR.

22 UNION PROPERTY The one-acre planning area is a vacant lot located between a strip commercial building at the south end of the Glenbrook Shopping Center, and the Brunswick Village Assisted Living Facility. The site is zoned for commercial (C-2) uses, and is currently used as a seasonal Christmas tree lot. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #4 The planning area is a single parcel available for infill commercial development under current zoning. The site is flat and there are no physical constraints to developing the site. However, the planning area is unlikely to attract new commercial real estate investment given the lack of visibility, inadequate circulation, and the location next to another vacant commercial building. Property Owner Plans The property owner s intentions to develop this site are unknown. However, the neighboring Brunswick Village Assisted Living facility wants to acquire and expand onto the site, but the acquisition is constrained by the current zoning that is limits the site s development to commercial uses. 4.5 SOUTHWEST GLENBROOK The 26-acre Southwest Glenbrook Planning Area is highly visible to Highway 49 southbound traffic, which makes the area strategically located for more intensive development. The Planning Area is fully built out, with 233,400 square feet of space developed into an eclectic mix of office, light industrial, auto service, commercial retail, and food service business establishments. No vacant infill sites are available to be developed, but the infrastructure is adequate to support future redevelopment of sites. The area presents opportunities to make lot line adjustments that will allow larger sites to be developed. Vacant and dilapidated buildings may be redeveloped by the property owner if land values and rents can support new construction. Most property owners in this area are satisfied with their current tenants and do not intend to improve their properties or change uses. The three distinct sub-areas of Southwest Glenbrook are illustrated in Figure 4 and described below.

23 18 FIGURE 4 Redevelopment Opportunity Sites in Southwest Glenbrook

24 19 SUB-AREA A Sub-area A includes 43,000 square feet of business space that is located between Nevada City Highway, Maltman Drive, and Joerschke Drive. The business mix includes 23,000 square feet of office space, three fast food establishments, a local restaurant, and beauty, hair, and tattoo shops. No vacant infill sites remain to be developed. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area A The area has no vacant spaces or underutilized buildings in need of redevelopment. If the land values and rents are sufficiently large enough to support new real estate investment, property owners may have opportunities to create larger sites by making lot line adjustments that improve the quality and value of built commercial space Property Owner Plans Sub-area property owners are not in regular contact with the City, and their commercial real estate investment intentions are unknown until they request a meeting with the City, or formally submit a plan or a land development proposal. SUB-AREA B Sub-area B includes 80,000 square feet of built space that is occupied by a mix of auto service establishments, destination retail stores, light industrial, used merchandise, financial and personal services, offices, a car rental facility, a motor vehicle sales establishment, a school, a wildlife rehabilitation center, and a health club. No vacant infill sites remain to be developed within this sub-area. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area B No vacant infill sites remain in this area. However, two vacant buildings (1 and 2) that total 8,600 square feet need new commercial real estate tenants (see Figure 4 for the location of vacant sites). The vacant buildings also appear to be of poor quality and may be redevelopment candidates. Property owners may also have opportunities to create larger sites by making lot line adjustments that improve the quality and value of built commercial space if the land values and rents are sufficiently large enough to support new real estate investment. Property Owner Plans Sub-area property owners are not in regular contact with the City, and their commercial real estate investment intentions are unknown until they request a meeting with the City, or formally submit a plan or a land development proposal.

25 20 SUB-AREA C Sub-area C, located between Maltman Drive and Highway 49, includes 110,000 square feet of built space with restaurants and fast food establishments, destination retail stores, auto services, office space, party rental, pet services, and landscaping services. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area C No vacant infill sites remain in this area. However, three buildings with 19,000 square feet of vacant space need new commercial tenants (see Figure 4). The area s strategic location may encourage redevelopment of underutilized properties. Sub-area C property owners may also have opportunities to create larger sites my making lot line adjustments that improve the quality and value of built commercial space if the land values and rents are sufficiently large enough to support new real estate investment. Property Owner Plans Sub-area property owners are not in regular contact with the City, and their commercial real estate investment intentions are unknown until they request a meeting with the City or formally submit a plan or a land development proposal. 4.6 EAST MAIN STREET RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY The East Main Street residential property includes four parcels on three acres located north of Nevada City Highway and west of Olympia Drive. The area is currently zoned for professional office uses, but nonconforming cabins have been developed to house low- and moderateincome residents. More intensive development or redevelopment of the site is constrained by restrictive zoning, steep topography, heavy tree cover, the need for frontage improvements, and concerns about additional traffic impacts. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #6 One owner controls the entire planning area where it is possible to develop more cabins or to redevelop the site for more intensive residential uses. Property Owner Plans The property owner has expressed a desire to build additional cabins on the site, but is prohibited by the current zoning and other site development constraints.

26 NORTH BRUNSWICK STRIP The North Brunswick Strip includes seven parcels on 4.7 acres with 40,400 square feet of built commercial space. This highly visible retail strip is located between the Nevada City Highway and Highway 49. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #7 No undeveloped infill properties are available along the New Brunswick Strip, and only two sites can be more intensively developed for commercial uses. The Suburban Propane business intends to relocate, which will allow the property owner to redevelop the one-acre site for more intensive commercial uses, or to simply recruit a new business to the site. The owner of the AM-PM Convenience store may reconfigure the site to add more space. Property Owner Plans The Suburban Propane property owner is not in regular contact with the City. It is presumed that the owner will seek a new tenant, and that no immediate plans to redevelop the site are in place. No use changes are under consideration for the other commercial properties within the North Brunswick Strip. 4.8 CHP/DMV PROPERTY The CHP/DMV property is strategically located between the Best Western Hotel and the new Walgreen s across the street from the Gold Country shopping center. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office serves the public. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) office functions as a police station. The City would benefit by redeveloping the site for the allowed professional office uses, and the location would be a very attractive commercial site if it becomes available sometime in the future. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #8 The planning area is built out and could be redeveloped for professional office uses. City zoning would allow the site to be redeveloped for professional offices, but the zoning must be changed in order to attract a commercial retail user to the site.

27 22 Property Owner Plans Redevelopment of this site will be a long-term proposition due to the fact that the State of California is the property owner. The State has been searching for another site to relocate these services. 4.9 GATES PLACE The 29-acre Gates Place Planning Area has been subdivided into nine smaller areas to reflect the complexity of geography and ownership. This Planning Area partially zoned for commercial (C-2) and professional office (CBP) includes a number of undeveloped parcels, underutilized commercial buildings, and residential uses that owners could convert to commercial. The primary constraints to developing this area include concerns about additional traffic impacts, limited on-site infrastructure and potential contamination challenges from historic uses. The opportunity sites within the nine smaller areas are illustrated in Figure 5, summarized in Figure 6, and described below. [This space intentionally left blank]

28 23 FIGURE 5 Gates Place Planning Area Infill Development Sites

29 24 SUB-AREA A This 3.6-acre area is vacant and available to be developed for corporate business park uses (CBP). Sub-area A s proximity to Meeks Lumber and the lack of services within walking distance would make the area less desirable to develop as new professional office space than other nearby areas where employees can walk to commercial services. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area A If developed, the vacant land within Sub-area A could accommodate 55,000 square feet of corporate business park space at 0.35 floor area ration (FAR). Property Owner Plans The owner (Pendola) is eager to develop the site for commercial retail uses, which would require rezoning and the mitigation of traffic impacts. SUB-AREA B Sub-area B is a 6.2-acre site occupied by Meeks Lumber. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area B Sub-area B could be redeveloped for more vibrant commercial uses if Meeks Lumber relocates and additional traffic impacts could be mitigated. Property Owner Plans This owner intends to continue the existing use, and the site is unlikely to become available for new commercial tenants or redevelopment in the foreseeable future. SUB-AREA C Sub-area C is an old mill site located along Nevada City Highway with no nearby commercial services. A portion of Sub-area C is zoned for commercial uses, and another portion is zoned for professional office uses. The presence of old mill sites, topographical challenges, and concerns about additional traffic constrain the owner to develop the site. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area C Nine parcels could be assembled into a 5-acre site that can support 75,000 square feet of commercial and corporate business park space. Property Owner Plans The property owner (Pendola) wants to recruit commercial retail tenants, which would require a portion of the property to be rezoned.

30 25 SUB-AREA D An established florist and coffee shop business is located in this area on land that is zoned for commercial uses. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area D The site could be redeveloped to support more intensive commercial development if the owner determines that new real estate development is financially feasible. Property Owner Plans The owner intends to continue the current use, which means that the site is unlikely to be redeveloped for more intensive commercial uses in the foreseeable future. 11 SUB-AREA E A motorcycle dealer with Nevada City Highway frontage occupies Sub-area E. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area E The site could be redeveloped to support more intensive commercial development if the owner determines that new real estate development is financially feasible. Property Owner Plans The current use appears to be viable, and the owner intends to continue the existing uses in the foreseeable future. SUB-AREA F Sub-area F includes 3.5 acres of undeveloped property with access to Nevada City Highway. One parcel in this sub-area is zoned commercial, and the second parcel is zoned for professional office. The primary constraints to developing this area are steep topography, shape of the site, and concerns about the traffic impacts of new development. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area F Development of the two parcels could support approximately 50,000 square feet of new commercial or professional office space. Attracting commercial retailers to the area would require a zoning change because one parcel is zoned for professional office. Property Owner Plans The owner (Pendola) would like the property developed and is actively recruiting commercial businesses to the site. 11 Site is owned by Ingrid Carter.

31 26 SUB-AREA G Sub-area G is a strategically located 1-acre site developed for a restaurant use. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area G More intensive development or redevelopment of the site is not in the foreseeable future. Property Owner Plans A new owner just acquired the site to continue restaurant operations. SUB-AREA H This 5.6-acre area includes one 4.5-acre parcel that has been developed for low-density residential uses, and is occupied by a mental health clinic. The remainder of the site is vacant, leaving sub-area H with a rural residential character. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area H The owner s lease with a mental health clinic is renewable yearly. However, more intensive commercial uses on the site may require the tenant to be relocated. Property Owner Plans The owner (Rodman Trust) is interested in developing more buildings on the site in order to expand the mental health clinic, or to attract other commercial uses to the site. SUB-AREA I Sub-area I is a 1.6-acre site with a closed wholesale plumbing supply business at the end of a cul-de-sac. The site is zoned for corporate business park with no surrounding services. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Sub-area I The site could be redeveloped if traffic impact and circulation concerns can be mitigated. Property Owner Plans The property owner is not in regular contact with the City, and their commercial real estate investment intentions are unknown until they request a meeting with the City or formally submit a plan or a land development proposal. * * *

32 FIGURE 6 Infill Development Opportunities for Gates Place Planning Area Sub-Areas Parcels Acres Owner Existing Land Use Owner's Intentions Infill Development Potential A Pendola Vacant and Undeveloped Develop the site Site is zoned for professional office and can support 55,000 SF of commercial space B Meeks Lumber Lumber Continue existing use None at this time C Pendola Old mill site Recruit commercial retail tenants to the site Site can support 75,000 SF of commercial and corporate business park space D Carter Coffee shop/florist Continue existing use None at this time E Honda Motorcycles (two owners) Motorcycle dealer Continue existing use None at this time F Pendola Vacant and Undeveloped Develop the site for commercial retail Site can support 50,000 SF of commercial and professional office space G Axtel Restaurant site Continue existing use None at this time H Gates Mental Health Clinic Continue existing use More intensive development of mental health facilities on the existing site I Rodman Closed wholesale plumbing supplies Owner s intentions are unknown Site could be redeveloped Source: Wahlstrom & Associates and RRM Design Group 27

33 FOWLER CENTER The Fowler Shopping Center and the nearby commercial pads include 186,000 square feet of built commercial retail space that is primarily controlled by a single owner. The built commercial space within the Fowler Center is economically healthy, with only two vacant commercial spaces. Homeless encampments behind the SaveMart create additional security costs for the property owners, affecting the shopping center s continued economic viability. The Fowler Center planning area has no undeveloped infill sites. A 10,800 square foot vacant building should soon be occupied by a new business prospect. The tenant search for a second 1,400 square foot vacant space is ongoing. Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #10 The carwash site could be redeveloped for a higher and better use if access could be improved and traffic impact concerns can be resolved. Redevelopment of the site is constrained by the inability to make left turns onto Nevada City Highway. In order to solve this problem, a private road or driveway could be constructed to connect the back of the carwash site to Olympia Drive. Property Owner Plans The property owner would like to redevelop the carwash site and may be willing to finance a road or driveway that connects the site with Olympia Drive. The potential connection should be studied because the proposed roadway needs to navigate steep terrain GLENBROOK PLAZA The Glenbrook Plaza Shopping Center includes 113,000 square feet of built commercial space. The center has one vacant space in the southernmost building that is difficult to lease. Redevelopment Opportunities The shopping center is fully utilized with no immediate potential to redevelop any nearby buildings.

34 29 Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Within Planning Area #11 The planning area is built out. The shopping center s economic success constrains any redevelopment potential. Property Owner Plans The property owner intends to continue existing uses, lease the vacant space to new business and make new building improvements this coming year. * * *

35 30 Market and policy considerations constrain private investment at infill development sites 5. Redevelopment and Infill Constraints Only a few sites within the Glenbrook Basin could realistically be developed or redeveloped for more intensive commercial uses. In general, the available sites do not support the commercial real estate demand. Some of the sites need infrastructure improvement investment; land-use zoning policy does not support the market demand; and the City s policies to minimize traffic congestion and utilize mitigation fees to fund traffic infrastructure improvement projects constrains and sometimes stops the infill and redevelopment of the Glenbrook Basin opportunity sites. 5.1 GENERAL CONSTRAINTS PERTAINING TO THE GLENBROOK BASIN PROJECT AREA The overall constraints to the infill or redevelopment of the opportunity sites listed briefly above are explained below. Commercial Retail Market Conditions Weak market conditions for more commercial retail uses in the Glenbrook Basin constrain the property owners from attracting more commercial retail businesses. Grass Valley has an opportunity to attract a

36 31 big-box discount store, and to develop a new shopping center anchored by clothing and home furnishings retailers. Only one site within the Glenbrook Basin may be large enough to support either use. However, numerous constraints must be overcome to develop this site (See Figure 7 in Section 5.2). City Zoning Does Not Support Market Demand The infill and redevelopment opportunity sites within the Glenbrook Basin are zoned for commercial or professional office uses, but the zoning does not support the market demand for big box retail or an apparel store-anchored shopping center. The commercial zoning leaves the property owners holding open space and unable to pursue infill development for uses with weak demand. Transportation Infrastructure Difficulties The Glenbrook Basin has relatively heavy traffic congestion at certain intersections and at certain times of the day. However, the roads, sidewalks, street lights and the other services that the City inherited when the Glenbrook Basin was annexed into the City are generally inadequate, and the City will need to retrofit and upgrade the area to meet City standards. The City desires that transportation infrastructure improvements be made at the Nevada City Highway and Brunswick Road intersection, and at the Maltman Drive and Brunswick Road intersection. The City also desires to widen portions of the Nevada City Highway, and install sidewalks to make the area more pedestrian friendly. Lack of Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Funding The existing tax share agreement with Nevada County (adopted in 2001) allows the City to collect a maximum of 50 percent of the area s sales and property tax revenues, once the annexation of the Glenbrook Basin has been completed. Presently, the annexation is still not recognized as being completed and the City receives an allocation of property and sales tax less than the 50 percent allowed by the agreement. The present property and sale tax revenue stream is not sufficient to fund the desired transportation or infrastructure improvements for the Glenbrook Basin or address on-going maintenance needs. Funding resources will continue to be limited in the future unless the City, LAFCO and Nevada County can work to address whether the annexation of the Glenbrook Basin can be considered complete and/or re-evaluate other options for how re-investment can occur for this area. However, available funding resources should improve after the Glenbrook Basin is annexed into the City's Redevelopment Agency, which is scheduled for completion by June 30, The creation of a new Project Area will allow the Agency to receive up to 80 percent of the property tax increment that can be used to fund additional

37 32 transportation infrastructure and urban design improvements for the area. In addition, after the boundaries of the Redevelopment Agency have been expanded, the incremental growth in property taxes will increase the City s ability to invest in transportation or general infrastructure improvement projects. The Redevelopment Agency can re-invest the tax increment revenues back into the Glenbrook Basin, which may stimulate more intensive infill development that could prompt growth in the area's property and sales taxes. Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Mitigation Fees Creates Investor Uncertainty and Adds Costs to Developing Infill Site The City s mitigation fees were established to fund the transportation infrastructure improvements that will be needed to maintain the more rural, small-town service levels and transportation expectations set forth in the City s 2020 General Plan Circulation Element. The mitigation fees constrain infill development by shifting off-site improvement costs to the private sector, which drives up the costs of infill development, and creates uncertainty about the total costs of infill development projects. More specifically, City policies intended to minimize traffic congestion in the Glenbrook Basin requires a project applicant to prepare a traffic study for any proposed development that is not consistent with the General Plan or generates more than 50 PM Peak Hour Trips.12 If the traffic study determines that a proposed development contributes to a D or worse Level of Service on specific Glenbrook Basin roadways and intersections, then the applicant will be required to mitigate the traffic impact to a level of insignificance. Essentially, property owners and developers must fund a traffic study to determine whether they are required to pay mitigation fees or install the actual transportation improvement as part of their project. Mitigation Fees Create Investor Uncertainty and Adds Costs to Developing Infill Site Although traffic congestion does not constrain infill development, the more rural, small-town, service levels and transportation expectations set forth in the City s Circulation Element, along with the lack of local funding, has encouraged the City to use developer mitigation fees to fund transportation infrastructure improvements that minimize traffic congestion. The mitigation fees shift off-site improvement costs to the private sector, which drives up the costs of infill development, and creates uncertainty about the total costs of off-site improvements that will have to be funded by property owners and developers. 12 Approximately 5,000 square feet of proposed commercial retail will generate 50 PM Peak Hour Trips. See Appendix A, Table 10 for data from the Institute of Transportation Studies that links PM Peak Hour Trips with new commercial real estate space.

38 33 City policies intended to minimize traffic congestion in the Basin require a project applicant to prepare a traffic study for any proposed development that is not consistent with the General Plan, or generates more than 50 PM Peak Hour Trips. 13 If the traffic study determines that a proposed development contributes to a D or worse level of service on specific Glenbrook Basin roadways and intersections, then the applicant will be required to mitigate the traffic impact to a level of insignificance. Essentially, property owners and developers must fund a traffic study in order to determine the mitigation fee costs in advance of approval. Potential changes to the County tax sharing agreement and the creation of a Glenbrook Basin Redevelopment Project Area should reduce the dependence on mitigation fees to fund the desired improvements. 5.2 SITE SPECIFIC INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS Ten specific sites within the Glenbrook Basin can support infill development, or they can be redeveloped for more intensive commercial uses. The market, infrastructure and regulatory constraints to developing the specific sites are summarized in Figure 7. [This space intentionally left blank] 13 Approximately 5,000 square feet of proposed commercial retail will generate 50 PM Peak Hour Trips. See Appendix A, Table 10 for data from the Institute of Transportation Studies that links PM Peak Hour Trips with new commercial real estate space.

39 FIGURE 7 Site Specific Development and Redevelopment Constraints 34 Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Planning Area #1 E. Plaza Drive Property Planning Area #2 Old Tunnel Road West Planning Area #3 Upper Sutton Way Vacant Parcels Planning Area #4 Union Property Planning Area #6 E. Main Street Residential Property Planning Area #7 Suburban Propane Site Planning Area #9 Gates Place Sub-Areas C & F Planning Area #9 Gates Place Sub-Area A Planning Area #9 Gates Place Sub-Area H Planning Area #10 Fowler Center Car Wash Site Market and Financial Constraints Infrastructure and Topographic Constraints Regulatory Constraints The entitled Olympia Plaza II land uses have not been financially feasible to develop The professional office zoning has not been financially feasible to develop The available infill sites are poorly located for the allowed commercial land uses Neighboring assisted living facility wants to expand to the Union Property infill site. The site is not in a good commercial retail location Current owner wants to expand residential uses on the site Market conditions are strong enough to support reuse of the site The assembled 8.5 acres of undeveloped land could support 125,000 square feet of commercial space. This area could support a small apparel store- anchored shopping center The 3.6 acres of undeveloped land is not well located for professional office space, which is allowed under current zoning The 5.6-acre site is located along an isolated road with limited access and low traffic flow. The established mental health clinic wants to expand on the site, which will make it difficult to implement the professional office zoning Market conditions are strong enough to support the redevelopment of this site for more intensive commercial uses Development of the entitled land uses will require on-site drainage; curb, gutter and sidewalk; the dedication of Plaza Drive as a public road; and the funding of ongoing road maintenance Steep topography will drive up real estate development costs. New buildings developed in this area will need to connect to the Gold Country Shopping Center sewer line Steep topography, poor traffic circulation, and unknown sewer connections constrain new real estate development No topographic or infrastructure constraints to develop this site Steep topography and poor access constrain infill development No topographic or infrastructure constraints to reuse or redevelop this site Steep topography and limited access will make it difficult to develop commercial retail space. Access to sewer is unknown. Soils remediation may be required to mitigate potential contamination from historical uses Access to sewer is unknown. Possible soils contamination may constrain new real estate investment Access to sewer is unknown. Possible soils contamination may constrain expansion No topographic or infrastructure constraints to reuse or redevelop this site On-site improvements and traffic mitigation fees drive up real estate development costs. The property owner may be required to reserve a portion of the site along Brunswick Road for open space Sewer connection fees and traffic mitigation fees drive up real estate development costs. Current zoning restricts residential land uses on the site The commercial zoning does not match the market demand to develop the vacant infill sites The commercial zoning does not match the market demand to develop the vacant site. City will require frontage improvements and upgrades to the adjoining public road in advance of approving new development. Traffic policy will drive up development costs Developing more residential units on this site will require a zoning change. City will require frontage improvement upgrades and improved internal circulation with minimal driveways on Nevada City Highway. City may require mitigation fees to fund improvements to the Maltman Drive/Brunswick Road intersection and the widening and improvement of East Main Street Traffic policy may constrain more intensive development of the Suburban Propane site. City may require mitigation fees to fund the widening and improvement of East Main Street Traffic policy and potential mitigation fees constrain the development of a shopping center on this site. The existing Corporate Business Park (CBP) zoning needs to be changed, which would require a development code change Site s location does not match current zoning. Traffic policy and potential mitigation fees constrain infill development on the site Expansion of the mental health clinic may require a zoning and development code change. Traffic policy and potential mitigation fees constrain infill development on the site Vehicles leaving the site can only turn right, which could be mitigated if the property owner is allowed to build a driveway that connects the back of the site with Olympic Drive. Traffic policy and potential mitigation fees could constrain redevelopment of the site for more intensive commercial uses Source: Wahlstrom & Associates

40 35 Thirteen action steps and policy changes are recommended to stimulate infill development in the Glenbrook Basin 6. Infill Development and Revitalization Recommendations Successful infill development is directly linked to larger area revitalization efforts that will improve the economy and the physical environment within the Glenbrook Basin area. Infill development is a site-by-site and task-by-task process that can be modeled after Grass Valley s successful downtown revitalization effort. The best practices and principles that can guide Grass Valley s initiatives to revitalize the Glenbrook Basin area is described below. Steps and tasks should be incremental Small projects make a big difference; small improvements demonstrate that things are happening. Leadership and the self-help approach works The City can provide the leadership needed to guide the long-term success of the infill development and revitalization effort. Successful infill development and revitalization will benefit from a public/private partnership Infill development within the Glenbrook Basin needs the support of the private sector with the investment capital and business management experience; the public sector contributes its ability to plan and coordinate common activities for the common good.

41 36 Infill development within the Glenbrook Basin should focus on developing an interesting mix of businesses, public services, and residential areas that will encourage pedestrian activities. Urban design and streetscape improvements will make the area more attractive to customers and real estate investors. Community attitudes and City policy about traffic must change if infill development is to be implemented within the Glenbrook Basin The City s current policies to require traffic studies and mitigations fees for small amounts of new space constrain and stop new infill development. Change should be action-oriented Small dramatic improvements solidify residents attitudes that the area is improving. 6.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND AREA REVITALIZATION The general recommendations described in Figure 8 below will improve the area s physical environment that may attract infill development real estate investors. [This space intentionally left blank]

42 37 FIGURE 8 General Recommendations to Guide Infill Development Within the Glenbrook Basin Area Recommendations Rationale 1. Infill sites should be developed with a mix of residential, office and general commercial uses Land use policies should not restrict absorption to new retail businesses 2. Create a Flexible Zoning Overlay that will encourage property owners to develop a mix of uses at buildings adjacent to each other It is not viable to attract new retail establishments to the infill sites due to weak market demand and traffic congestion concerns. Flexible zoning will improve the financial feasibility of infill development within the opportunity infill sites 3. Prepare a Master Streetscape Design Plan for major streets and intersections The design plan will guide the strategic improvement of key roadways 4. Create design guidelines for the Glenbrook Basin area 5. Revise the Level of Service standards for key intersections, the General Plan Circulation Element, and the Traffic Policy to make it less burdensome to new infill development 6. Establish a façade and site renovation program that will encourage owners to revitalize their properties to be consistent with the design guidelines 7. Create an open space site by converting a vacant lot into a functional town square use 8. Initiate a business retention effort by assigning a staff member to assist the Glenbrook Basin property owners and small businesses with small business financing, open space, façade renovation, and other related tasks. 9. The City, LAFCO, and Nevada County should work to address whether the annexation of the Glenbrook Basin can be considered complete per the terms of the Tax Share Agreement, and re-evaluate other options for how re-investment can occur for this area The design guidelines can shape new development to be consistent with Grass Valley s historic character Existing policies intended to minimize traffic congestion function as a de facto moratorium on infill development in the Glenbrook Basin Façade and storefront improvements will help retain existing businesses by attracting more people into the Glenbrook Basin area. A functional town square encourages pedestrian activity that fosters a sense of community A business retention program will help the area maintain services and economic vitality. The City s existing agreement with Nevada County does not provide the level of funding needed to finance the transportation infrastructure improvements required to support infill development and to retain the desired low level of traffic standards Area Specific Recommendations 10. Prepare a vision plan for Southwest Glenbrook (Planning Area #5) to The vision plan can attract new investment for more intensive improve the cohesion among the interconnected parcels commercial uses and increase property values 11. Prepare a concept plan for the New Brunswick Strip (Planning Area #7) to The concept plan can attract new investment for more intensive provide more cohesion among the interconnected parcels commercial uses and increase property values Physical and management changes will free up parking space 12. Reduce buffer and encourage employees to park behind the Fowler for customers and create an opportunity to develop new Shopping Center (Planning Area #10) commercial space in the area 13. City should improve the streetscape in front of Glenbrook Plaza Shopping Center near the Sutton Way intersection RECOMMENDATION #1 New streetscape and urban design investments will make the Glenbrook Plaza shopping center more attractive to consumers, which may expand retail sales The City of Grass Valley should encourage the infill sites to be developed with a mix of residential, office and general commercial uses. Land use and zoning policies should be modified to not restrict new development to retail businesses, and to allow infill sites to be absorbed with residential, office, and general commercial uses.

43 38 Rationale With few exceptions, it is not viable to attract new retail establishments to the infill sites due to weak market demand and traffic congestion concerns. RECOMMENDATION #2 Additional flexibility in the zoning will encourage a mix of uses to be developed next to each other. This will improve the financial feasibility of developing the infill opportunity sites without being bound by the existing restrictive zoning. Rationale Additional flexibility in the zoning will encourage a mix of uses adjacent to be developed next to each other, which will improve the financial feasibility of developing the infill opportunity sites without being bound by the existing restrictive zoning. For example, flexible horizontal zoning may allow the property owners to develop a residential building adjacent to a professional office building, which will improve land values and promote more intensive infill development. RECOMMENDATION #3 Prepare a Master Streetscape Design Plan for the major streets in the Glenbrook Basin Area including Nevada City Highway, Brunswick Road, Sutton Way, and Maltman Drive. Rationale The plan will modify the City's street improvement standards on key roadways and intersections within the Glenbrook Basin. RECOMMENDATION #4 Create a new chapter of Grass Valley's Design Guidelines for the Glenbrook Basin Area. Rationale The design guidelines can be used to mold new infill development and redevelopment in the area so that it is consistent with Gold Country architecture and more compatible with Grass Valley s historic character. RECOMMENDATION #5 Revise and rewrite the Level of Traffic Service Standards, the General Plan Circulation Element, and the Traffic Policy to match the standards imposed by many Bay Area suburban communities. The Level of Service Standard should be redefined for certain intersections, specifically those controlled by Caltrans.

44 39 Proposed infill development projects should be allowed 100 PM peak hour trips before a traffic study is required. 14 Required mitigation fees should be clarified so that property owners and developers are certain about the off-site improvement costs associated with new development. Rationale The existing policies intended to minimize traffic congestion have contributed to a de facto moratorium on new infill development within Glenbrook Basin. RECOMMENDATION #6 Consider establishing a Façade and Site Renovation Program that will encourage owners to revitalize their properties consistent with the Glenbrook Basin Design Guidelines. A pilot program could be established in either the Southwest Glenbrook Basin (Planning Area #5) or the New Brunswick Strip (Planning Area #7). Rationale Façade and storefront improvements will help retain existing businesses by attracting more people into the Glenbrook Basin area. Façade renovation programs can be simple and effective when several strategic buildings are rejuvenated collectively. Implementing an ASAP program (Awnings, Signs, and Paint) can have great visual impact and be an economic stimulus in a variety of commercial districts. RECOMMENDATION #7 The City should consider creating an open space site in the Glenbrook Basin by converting a vacant lot into a positive public use such as a functional town square. Rationale A functional town square provides the Glenbrook Basin with a place for residents to come together and celebrate, a place to relax, and a place that encourages pedestrian activities and fosters a sense of community. RECOMMENDATION #8 Initiate a business retention effort with a focus on the Glenbrook Basin. The City should assign a staff member or a consultant to work with the Glenbrook Basin property owners and small businesses to assist with small business financing, the acquisition of open space, establishing a 14 Current policy requires traffic studies to be prepared for any proposed development that generates 50 PM peak hour trips

45 40 façade renovation program, and general interfaces with the City that is needed by small business. Rationale The stability of Glenbrook Basin businesses is at risk from the recession. A business retention program will help the area maintain services and economic vitality. RECOMMENDATION #9 The City of Grass Valley and Nevada County should improve the Tax Share Agreement so that more funding can be available to finance needed and/or desired infrastructure improvements. Rationale The City s existing agreement with Nevada County does not provide the level of funding needed to finance the transportation infrastructure improvements required to support infill development and to retain the desired low level of traffic standards. The County could benefit from a potential increase in sales and property taxes that may result from a change in the tax share agreement that supports more public investment in the Glenbrook Basin. 6.2 OTHER AREA SPECIFIC REVITALIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS Other area-specific recommendations that will improve the Glenbrook Basin s business climate and help sustain the area s economy are described below (See Figure 8 for the Summary). RECOMMENDATION #10 Prepare a vision plan for Southwest Glenbrook (Planning Area #5), that will explore the feasibility of adjusting parcel lines, consolidating driveways, and reconfiguring and connecting parking areas to provide more cohesion and allow for more amenities. The vision plan could also include a Façade and Site Improvement pilot program that encourages collaboration among property owners to improve their access, parking site amenities, wayfinding, and facades to create a sense of place in the heart of this area. The vision plan can also demonstrate how property owners can work together to improve the functionality and ambiance of their business environment. Rationale A plan to improve the physical environment of Southwest Glenbrook will increase property values and attract new real estate investment for more intensive commercial uses.

46 41 RECOMMENDATION #11 Prepare a concept plan for the New Brunswick Strip (Planning Area #7) to consolidate driveways, interconnect the parking areas, and provide a circulation loop behind the buildings as a common access driveway that would serve all businesses. One goal of the plan is to expand parking, reduce the points of conflict with multiple driveways onto Nevada City Highway, and improve the streetscape and façades facing Nevada City Highway. The New Brunswick Strip may also be a pilot project area for the Façade and Site Improvement program. Rationale The vision plan to improve the physical environment will increase property values and attract new real estate investment for more intensive commercial uses. RECOMMENDATION #12 The City should allow the Fowler Shopping Center (Planning Area #10) owner to reduce the size of the landscape buffer from 30 feet to 10 feet and encourage employees to park behind the shopping center buildings. The physical and management improvements will free up parking spaces for customers, which will allow new retail space to be developed on a pad with frontage to Nevada City Highway. Rationale Reducing the buffer and creating parking behind the shopping center will encourage more intensive commercial development at the Fowler Shopping Center. RECOMMENDATION #13 The City should initiate streetscape improvements in front of the Glenbrook Plaza shopping center at the Sutton Way intersection. The property owner s lack of interest in streetscape improvements requires the City to lead changes to the sub-area s urban design. Rationale New streetscape and urban design investments will make the Glenbrook Plaza shopping center more attractive to consumers, which may expand retail sales. 6.3 SITE SPECIFIC INFILL RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended policy changes and implementation actions that the City should initiate are summarized in Figure 9. The site-specific recommendations will guide the City to facilitate infill development and redevelopment of the ten opportunity sites within the Glenbrook Basin.

47 42 FIGURE 9 Site Specific Infill Development and Redevelopment Recommendations Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Planning Area #1 E. Plaza Drive Property Planning Area #2 Old Tunnel Road West Planning Area #3 Upper Sutton Way Vacant Parcels Planning Area #4 Union Property Planning Area #6 E. Main Street Residential Property Planning Area #7 Suburban Propane Site Planning Area #9 Sub-Areas C & F Planning Area #9 Sub-Area A Planning Area #9 Sub-Area H Planning Area #10 Car Wash Site Recommendation Encourage a new mixed-use development that would be dominated by residential uses The City should allow the property owner to develop a residential and office land use mix on this site The City should limit new development in this area to office or residential uses The City should allow the Brunswick Village assisted living facility to expand and absorb the vacant site The City should allow the property owner to expand residential uses on the site The City should allow the site to be redeveloped for more intensive commercial uses The City should partner with the property owner (Pendola) to develop this site as an apparel store anchored shopping center, or as a mixed-use urban village The City should allow this area to be developed for either office or residential uses The City should allow the mental health facility to develop more buildings on this site. More intensive office or residential uses should also be allowed The City should allow the property owner to redevelop the car wash for more intensive commercial uses Implementation Actions Pro-actively engage the property owner in preparing a feasible site development plan that will meet the City s land development goals and share in the costs of on-site and off-site improvements A mixed-use zoning overlay should be adopted for the Glenbrook Basin, which allows residential and office buildings to be developed next to each other. Plan for this area should minimize the grading and environmental impacts of development plan should connect to the Gold Country Shopping Center sewer line The recommended flexible zoning overlay should guide the development of this area. The allowed new development should be responsible for constructing a safe turnaround at the northern terminus of Sutton Way. A traffic study should not be required for proposed new offices or residential units on this site The recommended flexible zoning overlay should guide the development of this area. The allowed new development should be responsible for funding the frontage improvements and upgrades to the public road The recommended flexible zoning overlay should guide the development of this area. The allowed new development should fund frontage improvement upgrades and improved internal circulation. A traffic study should not be required for proposed new offices or residential units on this site City should wait to see what the property owner plans are for this site The City should partner with the property owner to prepare a concept or vision plan for two alternative land uses. The mixed-use urban village concept would include limited retail uses, office, and residential. The recommended flexible zoning overlay should guide the development of this area. The City s traffic policy should be modified before development of this site will be financially feasible The recommended flexible zoning overlay should guide the development of this area The recommended flexible zoning overlay should guide the development of this area The City should partner with the property owner to analyze the feasibility of developing an access road that connects the back of the car wash site with West Olympia Avenue

48 43 The primary funding will be locally generated, but some State funds may be leveraged for improvements 7. Funding Project Area Improvements The City s goal is to attract private investment to develop the Glenbrook Basin infill sites. Funding for transportation, streetscapes, and urban design improvements will help attract private infill commercial real estate investment. However, only a small portion of the private sector s mitigation fees will fund area improvements; the majority of improvements will require accessing sources of public funding summarized in Figure 10 and described below. 7.1 AVAILABLE LOCAL FUNDING Capital Improvement Fund Grass Valley has a Roadway Capital Improvement Program with $900,000 of projected funding that may be available for signal improvements at the New Brunswick Road and Nevada City Highway intersection. Grass Valley faces a situation common among small cities, which typically have little money available to dedicate for capital improvement budgets. Future capital improvement budgets are expected to decline with the ongoing recession.

49 44 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing (TIF) The Glenbrook Basin will be annexed into the Redevelopment Agency on July 1, At that time, the Agency will be able to borrow against a portion of the projected tax increment revenues by issuing bonds to fund the non-housing projects and programs consistent with the Implementation Plan. The RDA can financially participate in private development projects within the Redevelopment Project Area, and the Agency usually provides assistance for a portion of a project s public infrastructure obligation. Tax increment financing (TIF) allows the Redevelopment Agency to borrow for project area improvements by issuing bonds or other debt service obligations that are secured by the projected tax increment revenues; this can provide a variety of assistance, as described below. Development of new industrial and commercial uses in the project area Commercial building and property renovation and improvement projects Rehabilitation and expansion of the community's existing private housing stock Writing down the cost of land when it is sold to a developer or owner participant (in accordance with an approved development agreement providing adequate assurances that the project would be completed) Providing low-interest loans or tax-exempt financing to reduce financing costs through certificates of participation, lease revenue bonds, industrial development bonds, or various forms of tax-exempt notes. 7.2 OPTIONS FOR CREATING LOCAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Business Improvement Districts (BID) and Property Based Business Improvement Districts (PBID) The formation of a business improvement district in the Glenbrook Basin could create a regular source of local funding for marketing, special events, and urban design improvements. A BID or a Property Based Business Improvement District (PBID) is a self-help organization that property owners and businesses can create to fund physical and organizational improvements. Allowed under California law since 1994, funds to support BIDs and PBIDs are raised in 15 See Appendix C for Project Area map

50 45 the form of additional assessments or fees that are reinvested back into a commercial area for beautification efforts, increased maintenance, additional security, local promotion, special events, and other improvement efforts. A BID is a merchant-based entity organized with the cooperation of local government. Typically, BID funds are used for smaller, more retailoriented revitalization, and economic development programs in downtowns and commercial corridors, including farmers markets. Their ability to raise funds is often limited to approximately $10,000 per year. In most communities, the BIDs are renewed on an annual basis and merchants typically see their money go to work for them quickly. A PBID is a property-based assessment district, with sufficient resources to supplement the services provided by municipal government. PBIDs can raise funds by directly assessing property owners who have a longterm stake in the area s vitality. Some of the advantages that may accrue by creating a PBID rather than a standard BID are listed below. A PBID allows a wide range of service options, including security, maintenance, marketing, economic development, and special events, among others; The PBID is designed and created by those who will pay the assessment; The PBID is governed and implemented by those who pay through a property and business owner advisory board that supervises operations and submits a yearly service plan. PBIDs are established for a set term determined by those who pay the assessment, and must be reestablished by those who pay through a new petition process. [This space intentionally left blank]

51 46 FIGURE 10 Funding Sources Available to Implement Roadway and Streetscape Improvements in the Glenbrook Basin Area Available Local Funding Funds Available Status 1. Capital Improvement Program 2. Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing City s capital improvement program projects a limited amount of funding to be made available for traffic signals and roadway improvements in the Glenbrook Basin The Glenbrook Basin will be annexed into the Redevelopment Agency, which will allow the Agency to borrow for project area improvements by issuing bonds or other debt service obligations that are secured by the projected tax increment revenues Capital improvements could be used to fund additional roadway widening and intersection improvements in the Glenbrook Basin, but it would need to compete against other capital improvements elsewhere in the City The Glenbrook Basin is scheduled to become a Redevelopment Project Area on July 1, At that time the Agency will have the power to borrow against future tax increment to fund improvement projects Options for Creating Local Funding Opportunities 3. Business Improvement District (BID) 4. Special Assessment Districts such as Landscape and Lighting or Parking Districts 5. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) 6. Property Based Business Improvement District (PBID) 7. Revenue Bond Financing State And Federal Grants That Can Help Fund Downtown Improvements 8. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Description A BID is a merchant-based entity used to fund small-scale improvements. A BID s ability to raise funds is often limited to approximately $10,000 per year. BIDs are renewed on an annual basis and merchants typically see their money go to work for them quickly Special Assessment Districts can raise significant funds through property tax assessments and fees for streetscape and parking improvements in the Glenbrook Basin Grass Valley is not an entitlement City, which means that the City must apply for CDBG grants from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City received a Planning Grant to fund this study, but no CDBG funds have been received for physical and infrastructure improvements in the Glenbrook Basin A PBID is a property-based assessment district, with sufficient resources to supplement the services provided by municipal government. PBIDs can raise funds by directly assessing property owners who have a long-term stake in the area s vitality City can issue revenue bonds to fund project area improvements. Funds Available California received $46 billion of funding for various economic recovery programs, including community and economic development funds that could be used for roadway and streetscape improvements Status The Grass Valley Downtown Association is a BID that is a successful model to copy in the Glenbrook Basin. Area merchants could learn from the GVDA and the best practices of other downtown BIDS There has been no discussion of creating a new Special Assessment District in the Glenbrook Basin, which would require property owner approval The City will need to apply for a new CDBG grant to partially fund streetscape, roadway and intersection improvements in the Glenbrook Basin PBID funding could be used for security, maintenance, marketing, economic development, special events, and other Glenbrook Basin improvements This funding tool is not appropriate because transportation and streetscape improvements do not generate a stream of revenue that can pay back revenue bonds. Status This funding source is no longer available for new initiatives that may be identified for the Glenbrook Basin

52 47 A PBID is usually established for up to five years and is often used for larger districts with higher budget requirements. However, the process of forming a PBID takes from 9-12 months. In most cities, organizers just need to prove they have contacted every property owner within the proposed district. If a majority agrees, then each owner pays a special assessment on their property tax. Landscape, Parking, Lighting and other Special Assessment Districts (SAD) Grass Valley currently manages three Special Assessment Districts, and could create a fourth property tax assessment SAD to fund streetscape, roadway, intersection, and urban design improvements. 16 A new SAD for the Glenbrook Basin would require approval by the majority of property owners. To date, there has been no proposal to create a new assessment district. Community Development Block Grants Grass Valley is not a CDBG entitlement community, and the City must submit applications to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to fund infrastructure improvement projects. In general, CDBG funds can be used for the following types of activities: Real property acquisition, relocation, or demolition Residential or commercial building rehabilitation Construction of public facilities and improvement systems such as water, sewer, and neighborhood centers Public services delivery Energy conservation Business Assistance Program income from reinvesting CDBG grants can also be used to make transportation infrastructure improvements in the basin. Revenue Bond Financing The City of Grass Valley has not issued bonds in several years, but revenue bonds could be issued to fund Glenbrook Basin improvements. In order to receive funding, the City must analyze the feasibility of each project and demonstrate that it can earn sufficient revenues to repay bond investors. Unfortunately, revenue bonds are not an appropriate tool to 16 The City has the following assessment districts: (1) Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No for Whispering Pines and Litton Business Park; (2) Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No for Morgan Ranch, Ventana Sierra and Scotia Pines (LLD); and (3) Assessment District No for On-going Maintenance of two storm drainage detention basins in Morgan Ranch Unit 7 (AD)

53 48 fund roadway, intersection, streetscape and urban design improvements as these do not generate a stream of revenue that can pay back the bonds. 7.3 GRANT FUNDING In past years, federal and state funds have been made available for transportation, streetscape, and urban design improvements. Such funding is not available at this time, and no similar funding is anticipated for FY However, additional federal economic stimulus could possibly fund numerous improvements within the Glenbrook Basin. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 The ARRA economic stimulus was an unprecedented funding event that is no longer available to make improvements in Grass Valley. California Transportation Improvement Funds (STIP) Nevada County. Approximately $70 million per year is available to fund Nevada County transportation improvement projects. In order to use this funding for the Glenbrook Basin, the City of Grass Valley must include local projects on the list of five-year improvement projects that are submitted to the State and are updated every two years. The majority (75 percent) of STIP funding is allocated to regional programs, and the remaining 25 percent goes toward inter-regional projects. * * *

54 49 APPENDIX A: TABLES Table 1: Population by Age California, Nevada County and Neighboring Counties, Western Nevada County and Grass Valley 2009 Table 2: Population Growth Trends California, Nevada County and Neighboring Counties, Western Nevada County and Grass Valley Table 3: Household Growth Trends California, Nevada County and Neighboring Counties, Western Nevada County and Grass Valley Table 4: Average Household Income Trends California, Nevada County and Neighboring Counties, Western Nevada County and Grass Valley Table 5: Summary of Built Commercial Space Within the Glenbrook Basin Sub-Areas Table 6: Supply of Occupied Retail Space Within the Glenbrook Basin Sub-Areas Table 7: Retail Sales Earned by Business Establishments in Grass Valley (City Total) and the Glenbrook Basin Table 8: Grass Valley's Spending Leakages, 2010 Table 9: Restaurant and Fast Food Spending Leakages in Glenbrook Basin, 2010 Table 10: Project Trip Generation: AM and PM Peak Hour

55 50 Table 1 Population By Age California, Nevada County and Neighboring Counties, Western Nevada County and Grass Valley 2009 Population Estimates Age < 18 Age California 9,586,600 7,040,600 10,700,500 3,900,500 4,253,800 35,482,000 Sacramento County 370, , , , ,500 1,425,300 Placer County 76,400 82,300 97,500 60,400 51, ,000 Nevada County 17,700 21,100 26,100 15,600 9,300 89,800 All Western Nevada County Tracts (1-9) 14,200 18,600 20,600 13,400 14,300 81,100 Grass Valley Census Tracts (5.01, 5.02, 6) 3,600 7,700 4,100 2,000 2,400 19,800 Age Age Percent Distribution by Age Group California 27% 20% 30% 11% 12% Sacramento County 26% 24% 28% 10% 11% Placer County 21% 22% 26% 16% 14% Nevada County 20% 23% 29% 17% 10% All Western Nevada County Tracts (1-9) 18% 23% 25% 17% 18% Grass Valley Census Tracts (5.01, 5.02, 6) 18% 39% 21% 10% 12% Data Sources: Claritas and the US Census American Community Survey Estimates Analysis: Wahlstrom & Associates Notes: (1) Western Nevada County includes Nevada County Census Tracts 1-9 (2) Grass Valley includes Census Tracts 5.01, 5.02 and 6 (3) Numbers are rounded the nearest 100 Age 65 + Total

56 51 Table 2 Population Growth Trends California, Nevada County and Neighboring Counties, Western Nevada County and Grass Valley Geographic Area Annual Growth Rate Annual Growth Rate California 29,760,021 33,871, % 38,292, % Sacramento County 1,041,219 1,223, % 1,423, % Placer County 172, , % 339, % Nevada County 78,510 92, % 95, % Western Nevada County 69,509 77, % 82, % Grass Valley 14,823 16, % 17, % Data Sources: Claritas and the US Census American Community Survey Estimates Analysis: Wahlstrom & Associates Notes: (1) Western Nevada County includes Nevada County Census Tracts 1-9 (2) Grass Valley includes Census Tracts 5.01, 5.02 and 6 (3) 2009 estimates are rounded the nearest 100 Table 3 Household Growth Trends California, Nevada County and Neighboring Counties, Western Nevada County and Grass Valley Geographic Area Annual Growth Rate Annual Growth Rate California 10,381,206 11,502, % 12,176, % Sacramento County 394, , % 527, % Placer County 64,101 93, % 127, % Nevada County 30,758 36, % 38, % Western Nevada County 27,444 31, % 34, % Grass Valley 6,540 7, % 7, % Data Sources: Claritas and the US Census American Community Survey Estimates Analysis: Wahlstrom & Associates Notes: (1) Western Nevada County includes Nevada County Census Tracts 1-9 (2) Grass Valley includes Census Tracts 5.01, 5.02 and 6 (3) 2009 estimates are rounded the nearest 100

57 52 Table 4 Average Household Income Trends California, Nevada County and Neighboring Counties, Western Nevada County and Grass Valley Real Income Change Real Income Change California $75,900 $81,700 $80,100 $5,800 -$1,600 Sacramento County $65,200 $69,800 $73,200 $4,600 $3,400 Placer County $75,800 $91,300 $90,500 $15,500 -$800 Nevada County $65,100 $74,000 $78,200 $8,900 $4,200 All Western Nevada County Tracts (1-9) $63,600 $71,500 $74,800 $7,900 $3,300 Grass Valley Census Tracts (5.01, 5.02, 6) $46,400 $51,900 $51,200 $5,500 -$700 Data Sources: Claritas and the US Census American Community Survey Estimates Analysis: Wahlstrom & Associates Notes: (1) Western Nevada County includes Nevada County Census Tracts 1-9 (2) Grass Valley includes Census Tracts 5.01, 5.02 and 6 (3) 1990 and 2000 income data are adjusted for the consumer price index to $2009 (4) Numbers are rounded the nearest 100

58 53 Table 5 Summary of Built Commercial Space Within the Glenbrook Basin Sub-Areas Type of Use Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2 Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4 Total Retail 150, ,900 38, , ,900 Restaurants & Fast Food 13,300 33,000 21,100 21,500 88,900 Personal Service Establishments 2,200 9,300 21,900 17,500 50,900 Auto Repair & Maintenance Services 4,100 32,800 36,900 Rental Establishments 9,500 4,800 12,200 26,500 Office 47,700 27,700 69,400 73, ,700 Other Uses 7,400 15,300 18,000 40,700 Vacant Retail 12,200 21,800 4,300 38,300 Total Built Space 223, , , , ,800 Percent total built space by subarea 23% 26% 24% 27% Percent total retail space by subarea 32% 33% 8% 27% Subarea Vacancy Rates 0% 5% 9% 2% 4% Source: Wahlstrom & Associates Field Survey Notes: (1) Data does not include space occupied by motor vehicle dealers, gas stations, the Best Western Motel and other miscellaneous commercial uses (2) Quadrant (1) includes the Gold Country Shopping Center (Safeway, CVS) located east of Highway 20 and north of Brunswick Road (3) Quadrant (2) includes the Fowler Shopping Center (Save-Mart, B&C True Value) located west of Highway 20 and north of Brunswick Road (4) Quadrant (3) is located west of Highway 20 and south of Brunswick Road to Joerschke Drive (5) Quadrant (4) includes the Glenbrook Shopping Center (Grocery Outlet, Staples, Rite-Aide) located east of Highway 20 and south of Brunswick Road

59 54 Table 6 Supply of Occupied Retail Space Within the Glenbrook Basin Sub-Areas Consumer Products Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2 Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4 Total APPAREL Clothing Stores 5,400 3,240 8,600 Shoe Stores 3,300 3,300 GENERAL MERCHANDISE GROUP General Merchandise 7,875 7,900 Drug Stores 33,750 16,708 50,500 SPECIALTY RETAIL GROUP Cosmetic & Beauty Stores 1,620 1,600 Health Supplement Stores 2,592 2,600 Sewing & Needlework Stores 3,375 3,400 Hobby, Toy & Game Stores 19,116 19,100 Musical Instruments 2,700 2,700 Florists 1,296 1,800 3,100 Pet Supplies 2,250 6,750 9,000 Smoke Shop 1,575 1,600 Used Merchandise 7,560 7,600 FOOD STORES AND RESTAURANTS Supermarkets & Grocery Stores 54,000 61,200 24, ,500 Convenience Stores 1,620 3,120 2,700 7,400 Liquor Stores 4,725 4,700 HOME FURNISHINGS GROUP Furniture, Home Furnishings & Office Supplies 4,500 3,150 5,132 24,128 36,900 Household Appliances and Electronics 16,800 2,925 16,560 36,300 BUILDING MATERIALS Building Materials 79,200 2,700 81,900 Nurseries & Garden Centers 6,750 6,800 Paint Shops 10,800 10,800 AUTOMOTIVE GROUP Auto Parts and Accessories 9,450 9,000 11,203 29,700 Total Occupied Retail Commercial Space 150, ,900 38, , ,000 Source: Wahlstrom & Associates Field Survey, January 2010 Notes: (1) Data does not include space occupied by motor vehicle dealers, gas stations, the Best Western Motel and other miscellaneous commercial establishments (2) Quadrant 1 includes the Gold Country Shopping Center (Safeway, CVS) located east of Highway 20 and north of Brunswick Road (3) Quadrant 2 includes the Fowler Shopping Center (Save-Mart, B&C True Value) located west of Highway 20 and north of Brunswick Road (4) Quadrant 3 is located west of Highway 20 and south of Brunswick Road to Joerschke Drive (5) Quadrant 4 includes the Glenbrook Shopping Center (Grocery Outlet, Staples, Rite-Aide) located east of Highway 20 and south of Brunswick Road

60 55 Table 7 Retail Sales Earned by Business Establishments in Grass Valley (City Total) and the Glenbrook Basin Store Category Grass Valley Glenbrook Basin Percent Glenbrook Basin Sales APPAREL Clothing Stores $6,160,000 $2,600,000 42% Shoe Stores $2,220,000 $820,000 37% GENERAL MERCHANDISE GROUP Discount & General Merchandise $49,640,000 $1,630,000 3% Drug Stores $27,810,000 $26,060,000 94% SPECIALTY RETAIL GROUP Gifts and Novelties $3,670,000 $0 0% Sporting Goods $6,000,000 $0 0% Florists $980,000 $800,000 82% Camera & Photo Supplies $1,050,000 $0 0% Books and Music $6,750,000 $0 0% Jewelry $1,580,000 $0 0% Used Merchandise $860,000 $500,000 58% Misc. Specialty Retail $15,140,000 $9,730,000 64% FOOD STORES & RESTAURANTS Supermarkets & Grocery Stores $191,330,000 $91,610,000 48% Specialty Foods $2,170,000 $0 0% Convenience Stores $10,250,000 $2,080,000 20% Liquor Stores $1,780,000 $1,560,000 88% Fast Food, restaurants, bars, bakeries & coffee shops $42,730,000 $30,620,000 72% HOME FURNISHINGS GROUP Furniture, Home Furnishings & Office Supplies $20,320,000 $14,160,000 70% Household Appliances and Electronics $8,840,000 $7,110,000 80% BUILDING MATERIALS Building Materials $45,020,000 $28,080,000 62% Nurseries & Garden Centers $4,910,000 $4,880,000 99% Paint shops $5,640,000 $3,520,000 62% AUTOMOTIVE GROUP Auto Parts and Accessories $17,190,000 $11,230,000 65% Totals $472,040,000 $237,000,000 50% Data Sources: Sate Board of Equalization and the City of Grass Valley, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, Corporate 10K Reports, Wahlstrom & Associates Analysis: Notes: Wahlstrom & Associates (1) Column (1) estimates are based on sales per square foot data published in Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, and on data collected from corporate 10K reports. Estimates are benchmarked to the 2009 taxable sales data published by the California Board of Equalization (2) Column (2) estimates are based on built space estimates (Table 5) adjusted by sales per square foot data and corporate 10K reports.

61 56 APPAREL Store Category Table 8 Grass Valley's Spending Leakages, 2010 Western Nevada County Household Spending (1) Sales Captured From Households (2) Spending Leakages (3) Percent Leakage (4) Regional Capture (5) Clothing Stores $28,716,000 $6,156,900 $22,559,100 79% $0 Shoe Stores $6,829,000 $2,221,000 $4,608,000 32% $0 GENERAL MERCHANDISE GROUP Discount & General Merchandise $99,161,000 $49,638,700 $49,522,300 50% $0 Drug Stores $26,702,000 $27,814,800 $0 $1,112,800 SPECIALTY RETAIL GROUP Gifts and Novelties $2,583,000 $3,665,200 $0 $1,082,200 Sporting Goods $5,769,000 $5,995,200 $0 $226,200 Florists $474,000 $982,300 $0 $508,300 Camera & Photo Supplies $862,000 $1,045,400 $183,400 Books and Music $4,499,000 $6,745,200 $0 $2,246,200 Jewelry $4,342,000 $1,577,300 $2,764,700 65% $0 Used merchandise $1,619,000 $856,900 $762,100 50% $0 Misc. Specialty Retail $10,629,000 $15,144,900 $0 $4,515,900 FOOD STORES & RESTAURANTS Supermarkets & Grocery Stores $100,963,000 $191,328,100 $0 $90,365,100 Specialty Foods $3,564,000 $2,172,700 $1,391,300 39% $0 Convenience Stores $5,135,000 $10,252,500 $0 $5,117,500 Liquor Stores $7,322,000 $1,777,300 $5,544,700 74% $0 HOME FURNISHINGS GROUP Furniture, Home furnishings & Office 35% $31,095,000 $20,315,700 $10,779,300 Supplies $0 Household appliances and electronics $13,251,000 $8,843,700 $4,407,300 33% $0 BUILDING MATERIALS Building Materials $10,424,000 $18,004,300 $0 $7,580,300 Nurseries & Garden Centers $2,408,000 $1,964,000 $444,000 17% $0 Paint shops $291,000 $2,254,500 $0 $1,963,500 AUTOMOTIVE GROUP Auto Parts and accessories $4,581,000 $9,260,000 $0 $4,679,000 Totals $371,203,000 $387,967,000 $102,736,000 $126,052,000 Data Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Spending Surveys, US Census of Retail Trade, Wahlstrom & Associates Analysis: Wahlstrom & Associates Notes: (1) Data does not include sales, spending or sales leakages information for motor vehicle dealers & gas stations (2) Spending and leakages at fast food establishments and restaurants is not included (3) Column (1) Measures Total Consumer Spending by Store Type Among Residents of Western Nevada County, except for the Lake of the Pines area (4) Column (2) Measures Actual (Not Taxable) Sales Captured by Grass Valley's Commercial Business Establishments (5) Column (3) Measures Net Spending Leakages by Store Type (6) Column (4) Measures the Net Amount of Sales Captured by Grass Valley Businesses among Consumers that live outside of Western Nevada County

62 57 Table 9 Restaurant and Fast Food Spending Leakages in the Glenbrook Basin, 2010 Western Nevada County household spending Grass Valley household spending available to Glenbrook Basin Spending by Glenbrook Basins daytime workforce $80,214,000 (a) $34,196,000 (b) $2,085,200 (c) Total Spending Available to Glenbrook Basin Establishments $36,281,200 Sales Earned by Glenbrook Basin Restaurants and Fast Food Establishments $30,620,000 (d) Restaurant and Fast Food Spending Leakages $5,661,200 Data Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Spending Surveys, US Census of Retail Trade, Wahlstrom & Associates Analysis: Wahlstrom & Associates Notes: (a) Row (1) measures total consumer spending by store type among residents of western Nevada County, except for the Lake of the Pines area (b) Row (2) subtracts household spending away from home at workplaces away from the Glenbrook Basin (c) Row (3) adds daytime spending by the estimated 1,600 people that work in the Glenbrook Basin (d) Data consistent with Table 7 Table 10 Project Trip Generation: AM and PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Rates Daily In Out Total In Out Total 35,000 SF Retail: Trip Rates ,000 SF Retail: Trip Generation 3, ,000 SF Retail: Pass-By 36% n/a n/a n/a n/a (55) (58) (113) Net New Trips (Primary Calculation) 3, ,000 SF Supermarket: Trip Rates ,000 SF Supermarket: Trip Gen. 2, ,000 SF Retail: Trip Rates ,000 SF Retail: Trip Generation 1, Supermarket & Retail: Trip Subtotal 4, Internal Capture Rate: 25% (20) (13) (33) (64) (63) (127) Pass-By Rate: 45% n/a n/a n/a (86) (84) (170) Net New Trips (Alternate Calculation) 4, Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Commercial-Retail "Shopping Center (land use #820), Pass-by rate of 36% based on ITE, Trip Generation Handbook, Shopping Center Pass-By Rates, Table 3, June 2004.

63 Glenbrook Basin Redevelopment Infill Study APPENDIX B: Grass Valley Project Area And Proposed Added Area Map 58