CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 14
Meeting Date: September 11, 2001
Subject/Title: Amendment of the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP)
Submitted by: Mitch Oshinsky, AICP, Community Development Director
Approved by: Jon Elam, City Manager
That Council amend Resolution No. 2326, to revise the RGMP as discussed below.
On July 1, 2001, Council adopted Resolution No. 2326, adopting the RGMP
As adopted, the RGMP provides for a multi-step review and approval process for the granting of allocations for residential development. This process is to be repeated three times per year. This process has the following steps:
1. Staff reviews all applications submitted for allocations against the criteria in the Program, and makes a recommendation to the RGMP Committee (consisting of two Council members and two Planning Commissioners), as to whether allocations should be granted.
2. The Committee reviews the applications and makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
3. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council.
4. The Council holds a public hearing and makes a final determination as to the granting of allocations.
The Mayor has requested that Council amend the RGMP to delete step 3, the Planning Commission review of the allocations because the four step process will be lengthy, and a number of the criteria to be evaluated involve financial issues, which are outside the purview of the Planning Commission.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2326, A RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2326, adopting a Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), to moderate the effects of growth, and synchronize residential growth with infrastructure, and municipal and public safety services, and total population available under the City’s General Plan.
WHEREAS, the RGMP is one of the growth management techniques contained in the General Plan Update, which is intended to help achieve the above stated purpose and intent.
WHEREAS, The RGMP Annual Allocation of housing units which may be granted each fiscal year will be consistent with the annual number of dwelling units necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare by maintaining the small town character and quality of life of Brentwood, and it’s open spaces and generally low density of population, and to help ensure growth at an orderly, well planned and deliberate pace.
WHEREAS, the RGMP is also intended to ensure the adequate provision of vital life safety public services including fire and paramedic protection per the “Fire Protection Services for the City of Brentwood Strategy for the Future” report dated December 1998.
WHEREAS, the RGMP provides for a multi-step review and approval process for the granting of allocations for residential development. This process is to be repeated three times per year. This process has the following steps:
5. Staff reviews all applications submitted for allocations against the criteria in the Program, and makes a recommendation to the RGMP Committee (consisting of two Council members and two Planning Commissioners), as to whether allocations should be granted.
6. The Committee reviews the applications and makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
7. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council.
8. The Council holds a public hearing and makes a final determination as to the granting of allocations.
WHEREAS, The Mayor has requested that Council amend the RGMP to delete step 3, the Planning Commission review of the allocations because the four step process will be lengthy, and a number of the criteria to be evaluated involve financial issues, which are outside the purview of the Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, the City Council considered the request of the Mayor to delete the Planning Commission from the RGMP review process.
WHEREAS, revision of the RGMP is determined to be covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In this case, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), in that the RGMP will only serve to advance prudent growth controls and management, and promote better forms of development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood, hereby finds and determines as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals and staff report statements are found and determined to be true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council adopts the Revised Residential Growth Management Program, effective September 11, 2001, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto.
PASSED AND ACCEPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at their regular meeting of September 11, 2001 by the following vote:
Michael A. McPoland, Sr., Mayor
Karen Diaz, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Dennis Beougher, City Attorney
Effective July 1, 2001
Adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2326, on July 6, 2001
Amended by City Council Resolution No. , September 11, 2001
The purpose and intent of the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), is to moderate the effects of growth, and synchronize residential growth with infrastructure, and municipal and public safety services, and total population available under the City’s General Plan. Due to concerns with rapid development and growth, the City Council has directed an Update of the City’s General Plan Land Use, Growth Management and Circulation Elements. The 1993 General Plan provides for a population of over 95,000 at buildout. The General Plan Update currently underway proposes to reduce the buildout population to approximately 75,000. This reduction is being considered in conjunction with certain growth management techniques to determine the amount, type and rate of development desired by the community. The RGMP is one of those Growth Management techniques.
The RGMP applies to all residential development in the City’s Planning Area, including subdivision maps. No residential development, other than that exempted below, shall be undertaken, and no building permits shall be accepted for processing or issued, unless the development has been approved in accordance with the RGMP, and received an Allocation in accordance with the RGMP. Projects subject to the RGMP may file applications for required discretionary approvals, which may be concurrently processed, with the allocation application. This RGMP is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, require the City Council or any advisory body acting under authority of the Council to grant, or recommend the granting of, any allocations available in any given year or any allocations at all. The City Council reserves its right to withhold any or all of the allocations that may be available in a given year if it finds that doing so would promote the intent of this Program, provide for the orderly development of the City, or otherwise promote the public interest.
To the extent that there are projects that (i) have allocation applications pending and (ii) have achieved at least 100 points, the City Council shall not refuse to award the annual allocations available in a given year unless the City Council by majority four-fifths vote adopts a resolution making a finding that such action is necessary to prevent a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.
The following are exempt from the Allocation Process, and will not be subtracted from the total dwelling unit allocation available, unless otherwise indicated:
1. Affordable housing units.
2. Projects that have an approved Tentative or Final Map, Building Permit or other City entitlement, development agreement, are in the Garin Ranch Specific Plan area south of Chestnut Street, or have an application which has been deemed complete by the City, prior to the date of adoption of the RGMP.
3. Replacement housing on a one for one basis (i.e., one unit replaced for each legally existing unit destroyed or demolished) or modifications to existing properties that do not increase the number of dwelling units. These units will NOT be deducted from the Annual Allocation Schedule because no new units are being created.
4. Residential care facilities with units that are non-self-sufficient units; that is, they do not include kitchen facilities (if a project includes both self-sufficient and non-self-sufficient units, only the latter are exempt. Non-self-sufficient residential care units will NOT be deducted from the Annual Allocation Schedule because they are similar to a convalescent home and are not considered to be a dwelling unit).
5. If a residential development receives an Annual Allocation and all other City entitlements to develop, and that development, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 is subject to the State mandate that the City provide the developer a density bonus, the bonus units over and above the permitted mid-range density will NOT be deducted from the Annual Allocation Schedule.
6. Projects in the Northwest area, as shown on the map attached to this RGMP, and subject to approval of a tentative map within 18 months of adoption of this RGMP.
The following are exempt from the Allocation Process, but will be subtracted from the total dwelling unit allocation available, unless otherwise indicated:
1. Parcel Maps for up to four units;
2. Development of up to four new dwelling units on an existing residential lot of record;
3. Up to three additional units on a lot zoned to accommodate up to a maximum total of four units, and which already contains one existing unit;
4. A residential Second Unit (as defined by State law) on an existing residential lot, subject to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
TRANSFERABILITY OF ALLOCATIONS
Allocations are made based on a specific development at a given site; allocations cannot be moved to another site. However, allocations can be transferred to another owner at that given site.
If a project applicant proposes a Development Agreement (DA), the DA must accompany the application materials filed for an RGMP allocation. If an allocation is granted for a project which includes a proposed DA, that proposed DA shall also be submitted as part of the discretionary permit application package. If the proposed DA is not ultimately approved by the City Council and executed by the City and the applicant, the allocations shall be deemed expired and the allocation will be added back to the Annual Allocation Schedule.
BORROWING FUTURE ALLOCATIONS
The City Council may grant Multi-Year Allocations for projects with a build-out period stretching beyond one year, subject to a Development Agreement. Multi-Year Allocations reduce the Annual Allocations available in future years, accordingly.
VOIDED OR UNUSED ALLOCATIONS
If the City does not ultimately approve the proposed project, its allocation(s) shall be deemed voided. Voided or unused allocations shall be replaced in the annual allocation schedule, or as otherwise determined by a Development Agreement. When allocations are replaced in the annual allocation schedule, Council may choose whether or not to reallocate them, except as otherwise provided by a Development Agreement.
Applications for dwelling unit allocations will be accepted, and allocations made on a fiscal year, annual basis, three times per year, beginning in July. The City Council may award none, any portion of, or all of the annual allocation available during any of the annual allocation periods. Following is the general schedule for the RGMP Allocation Process:
1. July 30 – First filing deadline for Allocation applications.
2. September – RGMP Evaluation Committee review.
3. October – City Council public hearing to make allocations.
4. November 30 – Second filing deadline for Allocation applications.
5. January - RGMP Evaluation Committee review.
6. February - City Council public hearing to make allocations.
7. March 30 – Third filing deadline for Allocation applications.
8. May - RGMP Evaluation Committee review.
9. June - City Council public hearing to make allocations.
Applications for allocations will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation process described below. Application materials that must be filed are specified in the RGMP Submittal List. The applicant shall also submit the fee specified in the Planning Division’s approved fee schedule for an Allocation.
Planning staff will evaluate each Allocation application that has been filed. The Community Development Director will then review each application with an RGMP Evaluation Committee as appointed by the City Council, consisting of two Councilmembers and two Planning Commissioners. The Committee will then forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the application should receive an Allocation, and the number of dwelling units that should be granted.
The City Council will evaluate the Allocation applications at a public hearing and make it’s decision regarding whether a project should be granted an Allocation, and the number of dwelling units that shall be granted to that project.
ALLOCATION EVALUTION CRITERIA
The staff, Committee and City Council shall evaluate each Allocation application against the following Allocation Evaluation Criteria, and rate each on a point basis, in order to determine whether to grant an Allocation. A project would have to achieve a score of at least 100 points, out of the 240 total points available to receive an allocation:
1. Does the project provide housing for a range of incomes and lifecycles? Does it include a minimum of 10% of housing affordable to low or very low income households through inclusionary housing, and/or provide other assistance for affordable housing for low or very low income: families, the disabled; seniors; credentialed school teachers, East Diablo Fire Protection District firefighters, City of Brentwood public employees; and/or agricultural farm workers (Up to 50 points possible).
“Inclusionary Housing” is defined as affordable housing units that are reasonably dispersed throughout a project, and the units shall be comparable to market rate units in exterior appearance, materials and finished quality. However, affordable unit interior amenities need not be the same as market rate units. The affordable units shall consist of a reasonable mix of unit models. Affordable units shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with market rate units. If a project has been approved in phases, then the affordable units shall be provided equally within each phase. Affordable units shall be established by the developer through necessary legal steps to assure continued affordability over 30 years from initial occupancy, through deed restrictions, wrap-around financing, land sale of contracts, or other means acceptable to the City Attorney and Community Development Director.
For rental units, the affordable units shall be made available to very low and low-income households. For developments with for sale units, the affordable units shall be made available to low income households. Affordable unit sales price or rental rate shall be as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and as published by the California Housing and Community Development Department for Contra Costa County, where Very Low Income is defined as between 30% and 50% of the median income, adjusted for family size. Low Income is defined as between 50% and 80% of the area median income, adjusted for family size.
2. Does the project provide on-site and/or off-site amenities and or infrastructure (other than standard requirements and improvements) through a Development Agreement, in addition to required facilities, which are desirable for the City as a whole? (Up to 30 points possible).
3. Does the project propose to rehabilitate existing units in the City and make them available for very low or low-income households? (Up to 20 points possible).
4. Does the project incorporate energy efficient design, layout, landscaping, construction and materials of an active or passive nature, which exceed those otherwise required by Title 24 (as specifically detailed in Attachment 1) (Up to 20 points possible).
5. Does the project propose to develop job generating land uses, or otherwise assist economic development, in conjunction with the development of dwelling units? (Up to 40 points possible).
6. Is the project proposed for a site that is considered to be in-fill? That is, is the project site surrounded on at least two sides by either already developed or developing projects, or sites already approved for subdivision or development, or sites which have a population allocation? (Up to 20 points possible).
7. Does the project preserve prime soils for agricultural use on sites within the City, or otherwise provide benefits for agricultural enterprise. (Up to 15 points)
8. Does the project demonstrate high quality, innovative design and product type, demonstrate maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use, and reflect progressive planning principles such as Smart Growth, Neotraditional design, and/or the Ahwanee Principles; and has the developer exhibited a high level of past performance in the quality of their development projects? (Up to 20 points possible).
9. Is the project proposed for a location, which has been identified by the City as being particularly prioritized for development or redevelopment, such as the Downtown, Northeast Brentwood, or along the Highway 4 Bypass? (Up to 15 points possible).
10. Is the project a continuing project – a second or later phase of a multi-phase project where construction has begun on at least one previous phase and public improvements have been started? (Up to 10 points possible).
RGMP ANNUAL ALLOCATION SCHEDULE
The baseline date for the RGMP shall be July 2001 (the year the RGMP became effective). The RGMP Annual Allocation Schedule will run with the City’s fiscal year from July 1 to June 30. The Annual Allocation which may be granted each fiscal year will be consistent with the annual number of dwelling units necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare by maintaining the small town character and quality of life of Brentwood, and it’s open spaces and generally low density of population, and to grow at an orderly, well planned and deliberate pace. The RGMP is also intended to ensure the adequate provision of vital life safety public services including fire and paramedic protection per the Fire Protection Services for the City of Brentwood Strategy for the Future report dated December 1998. The RGMP Annual Allocation will be above the City’s appropriate share of the regional need for housing, now estimated by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as of April 2001, at 543 units average per year. The City’s specific housing programs and activities being undertaken to fulfill the requirements of the State Housing Element Law are set forth in the City’s Housing Element (as approved by the State), and those programs and activities are hereby incorporated by reference. The fiscal resources available to the City are contained within the City’s adopted General Budget and Capital Improvement Program Budget. The City’s environmental resources are listed in the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The Annual Allocation is set at 650 units per year.
FILING FOR DISCRETIONARY PERMITS
Once an allocation is granted by the City Council for a project, the applicant must file all required applications for all discretionary permits, including environmental review, with the Community Development Department, within 90 days from the date of the allocation by the Council. If an applicant fails to comply with this deadline, the allocation will be deemed denied without prejudice and the units will be returned to the allocation pool for potential reallocation, unless the City Council grants up to a one-year extension for an allocation. In determining whether to extend such extension, the City Council will consider what progress has been made toward filing the application, unforeseen circumstances beyond the applicant’s control which have delayed the project, and the likelihood of the project meeting the extended deadline.