Brentwood Council Punts Decision on Vineyards at Marsh Creek Project

On Tuesday, the Brentwood City Council punted any decisions on the potential vineyards at Marsh Creek Event and Amphitheater project.

The move came as the council the project is now facing a $5.7 million deficit in project funding as staff is citing inflation along with cost increases in fuel, materials and labor. The project stands at $14.4 million with a budget of $8.1 million.

The project, which was first brought forward in 2004, would bring a 1,000 seat amphitheater with theatrical support space, an event promenade, lawn, box office, restroom facilities, parking, and an identified location for a future art/event center to Brentwood sitting on a 31-acre site between John Marsh Historic House site just off Vineyards Parkway and Trilogy at the Vineyards. Additionally, the project may include a wedding venue and sculpture garden / adventure playground for children.

However, with the increased project cost, the council took no action and directed staff to continue forward with its current EIR, however, they also directed staff to come up with new ideas while finding ways to shrink the project and what it would look like.

The Council was presented with three options Tuesday:

1. Continue forward with the project as currently scoped with an option to:
   • • Complete the SEIR process and place the project on hold until such time that additional funding to meet the estimated $14.4M required is identified to complete Phase I, or
     • Pause the SEIR process, place the project and SEIR on hold until such time that additional funding is identified for Phase I.
2. Revisit and revise the project scope for an amphitheater, reducing it to fit the current remaining total budget of approximately $8.7M. This would require completion of the SEIR, additional redesign costs, and a significantly smaller amphitheater with less capabilities, and potential off-setting revenue opportunities.
   1. 1. Optional – downsize the amphitheater from 750 seats to 450 seats and reduce parking stalls down from 250 to 150 while no box office, reduce open lawn and playground, and no wedding space. This is estimated to reduce the current scope to meet remaining budget of $8.6 million.
3. Revise the project scope to build a park/trail or other neighborhood amenity on the property with input from the Park and Recreation Commission and public, potentially utilizing some or all of the developer- provided funding of approximately $3.7M and explore repurposing of any balance, including the Development Impact Fee funds and investment interest earned, towards another City project(s), and/or location(s). These funding options will require additional legal review, and can be explored if the Council directs.

Public Comments

• Rita DeTar, a Trilogy resident, shared she had concerns over traffic and if there had been thoughts of speed bumps to prevent speeding and sideshows.  She also asked for more consideration of traffic going through the area.
• Mark Windsor, a Trilogy resident, expressed concerns that alternatives are needed in the EIR report, even with a reduced project or no project alternative. He shared residents have concerns over the environmental effects of the project—including noise and traffic concerns.
• Brian Oftedal shared he was initially in support of the project and liked the tax base coming into the city, but now has concerns over the changes. There were a lot of concerns over traffic and getting in and out of the community when there is an event. Concerns over sounds from the events. Safety and security of not yet having the 5^th beat in place.
• Carolina Villaseca called the 400 vehicles during an event is a big impact on the area.  She also suggested looking at grants to help offset the costs. She did call it a great opportunity for Brentwood and something they did not have.
• Meanwhile, Joe Young submitted a 5 page public comment out lining several concerns.

Latest Renderings of the project as of 03/31/2022

Council Discussion

During council discussion, Councilmember Jovita Mendoza said she didn’t want to kill the project, but rather take items out of the project so the city could afford it.

“I don’t want to see this killed. It’s a huge asset for our community and our economic development in the long run. I think there is mitigations we could put in place for the traffic,” stated Mendoza who had concerns on if they didn’t do this amphitheater, there could be housing build. “I would rather see this any day than housing… it’s something we have been promising for over 20-years.”

She believed they should not go into debt just to build it, but rather some day when they can afford it, add to it or if they get grants, attach it to the project. She believed there could be a happy medium.

Councilmember Tony Oerlemans had concerns over the approximate $400k annual operating costs via the general fund which was confirmed by staff if they tweaked the project the annual cost would be reduced.

City Manager Tim Ogden shared they are looking at zoning to confirm if housing was allowed on the property, but noted if they shrunk the facility it reduces the revenue and acts that could perform which would impact the revenue projections to help maintain and keep up the standards of the facility.

Vice Mayor Susannah Meyer questioned the revenue projections which staff said they would have to go back and look as the study is 5-years old—stating it to be a viable cost recovery amphitheater it had to be larger in size of 1,000 seats while fitting character of neighborhood. It did not meet the feasibility to be cost recovered.

Bruce Mulder, Parks & Recreation Director shared that by shrinking it down even more, it makes it more “niche market” and programing that would go in there while limiting ability to cost recover—they would have to go back and look at revenue projections but cited even at size now it would be difficult to be 100% cost recovered.Meyer highlighted the project would still be a community benefit if shrunk down. Staff agreed.

Meyer also requested more information on the 400 vehicles. Mulder shared with 450 seats, a smaller amphitheater would not be 400 cars which would be 250 cars. The community also wanted more parking. It also did not show an impact on traffic because the release of vehicles would be later and after hours when traffic is much less. A lot of the events are also on the weekends and evenings—which is why no impacts were identified.

Councilmember Pa’tanisha Pierson called it “sad” that they had to decide whether to kill a project, change it, amend it as it was a project she was most excited about it.

“When I first came onto the council, I was disappointed in the size already so to reduce the size it makes me more sad to consider that option,” said Pierson.

She stated she reached out to residents and received feedback from several residents including:

• Multipurpose space – outdoor lighting, seating and eating area similar to food truck parks to encourage community engagement and tax revenues.
• Conference Center
• Senior Center location

“One of the things I am not excited about is another park. It just wouldn’t generate income. We have enough parks and we are building the Sand Creek Sports Complex so why would we build another park space,” stated Pierson. “My thoughts here, I’d love to see if staff could go back and give us some ideas about what we could do in that space, what revenue generating it would provide if reduced. Parks, I know we are looking at revenues, parks generate joy. I’d like to find out if we do reduce the size, maybe taking away the playground area, maybe taking away the barn and size what type of revenue generating income we could anticipate seeing.”

She also echoed the concerns over what happens in the winter months and will it be taken care of, will there be weeds or other issues. She also wanted other options they had other than an amphitheater and if it could accommodate students or theater groups to do small performances with a smaller amphitheater or even make it a youth center—stating there were enough resources to build the youth center.

Lastly, she asked if it was possible as another option if they could break the project into three phases and over a stretch of time its still useable but takes longer to build. She also asked about grants and partnerships for the space, as well as sponsorships for the site.

Meyer discussed the idea in starting the project but reduce costs with choices like gravel parking lot versus a paved parking lot and items like that.

“At the end of the day, our end user is the resident which is why we need a budget subcommittee to get into the line items, where do we cut, where are we overspending and not spending enough. At the end of the day, how do we best help our residents,” stated Mendoza. “I just think this is such an asset, any other city would be dying to have the opportunity to do it. We have been waiting a long time for this.”

In response, Pierson shared she believed there was consensus that they did not want to kill the project. She then made a motion.

Mayor Joel Bryant shared he lived in a community where something similar was designed and it’s a great asset to the community that everyone was happy to have.

“We have a really good handle on what the original project impacts and costs are going to be. I’d like to see if we could find some of the alternatives and recommendations and find out what the differences would be, timeline differences. I am concerned with the public safety aspect of this as well, and on going cost in the budget,” stated Bryant. “At the same time, this is a resource for the community and an opportunity we could really use as a focus point to bring different cultural things together.”

He was seeking a viable project where they can balance the impacts versus the benefits so they could make a better decision.

Mendoza clarified they would still continue with the EIR process while also seeking alternatives.

Pierson made a motion to complete EIR process under the current project in place, but also to look into alternative projects or a smaller amphitheater—what the ideas and funding would look like, address public safety concerns and revenue it could generate. They also asked staff to look into grants and partnerships to fund this project.

The item is anticipated to return to the city council within a month to six weeks.

Previous Stories

• Jan 22, 2024 – Brentwood to Receive Update on Vineyards at Marsh Creek Project

Previous Actions:

• On April 13, 2004, the City Council approved the Environmental Impact Report, the Development Agreement, the General Plan Amendment and the Rezone for The Vineyards at Marsh Creek Project.
• On January 11, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 886, approving the first amendment to the Development Agreement for The Vineyards at Marsh Creek Project.
• On December 11, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 908, approving the second amendment to the Development Agreement for The Vineyards at Marsh Creek Project.
• On November 16 and 17, 2017, the City Council held workshops to discuss, deliberate and direct staff on City Council priorities and the allocation of financial resources for the development of a two-year City of Brentwood Strategic Plan. Direction was provided to initiate the amphitheater feasibility study in Fiscal Year 2017/18.
• On January 23, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-07, the City Council amended the 2017/18 Operating Budget and approved the recommended mid-year budget adjustments, including an amendment of $100,000 for funding of the Vineyards amphitheater feasibility study.
• On May 8, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-47, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager or designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with C.H.Johnson Consulting, Inc., to perform an amphitheater feasibility study in an amount not to exceed $99,920.
• On August 13, 2019, the City Council accepted an informational report regarding the amphitheater feasibility study and provided initial direction to staff, with further City Council direction regarding possible implementation and prioritization to be provided during the upcoming Strategic Planning Process.
• On February 25, 2020, by Resolution No. 2020-24, the City Council approved and authorized the use of the design-build methodology for the bidding process of The Vineyards at Marsh Creek – Event Center / Amphitheater, CIP Project No. 337-37231.
• On February 9, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-19, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager to execute an Agreement for Architectural Design Services with DLR Group in the amount of $362,950, plus a 10% contingency of $36,295, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $399,245, for The Vineyards at Marsh Creek – Event Center / Amphitheater, CIP Project No. 337-37231.
• On May 25, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-59, the City Council adopted the City’s 2021/22 – 2025/26 Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”), which included the Vineyards at Marsh Creek – Event Center/Amphitheater, CIP Project No. 337-37231.
• On December 14, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-149, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager to execute an Agreement for Environmental Services with Raney Planning & Management, Inc. for preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report in the amount of $169,420, plus a 10% contingency of $16,942, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $186,362, for The Vineyards at Marsh Creek – Event Center/Amphitheater, CIP Project No. 337-37231.