Brentwood City Hall


Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 16

Meeting Date: October 23, 2001

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: Consideration of Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) allocations

Submitted by: Mitch Oshinsky, Community Development Director/Erik Nolthenius, Associate Planner

Approved by: Jon Elam, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
The RGMP Committee recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ____, granting an allocation for 36 dwelling units to Braddock & Logan Services, Inc.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The RGMP Committee met on September 10, 2001, and again on October 18, 2001, to consider project revisions, and formulated a recommendation to the City Council regarding the three applications that were submitted for this cycle.

BACKGROUND
Three applications were submitted by the deadline of July 30 to be considered during the first cycle of the RGMP, as follows:

(1) A request by Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. for the allocation of 31 dwelling units located at the northeast corner of Central Boulevard and Fairview Avenue

(2) A request by DeNova Homes for the allocation of 53 dwelling units located between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, just east of the Brentwood Park Apartments

(3) A request by The DeSilva Group for the allocation of 104 dwelling units for the first phase of a 528-lot project to be built in six phases, located south of Sunset Road, approximately 1/3 mile west of Sellers Avenue

The applications were rated by the RGMP Committee based on awarding points to a set of 10 criteria that were established as part of the RGMP. A project needs a minimum of 100 points to receive an allocation. Staff initially reviewed the applications and provided a recommendation to the RGMP Committee, which met on September 10, 2001 (a copy of Staff's memo to the Committee is attached). When the Committee met to consider Staff's recommendation, two changes were made. The first was to take 2 points away from Braddock & Logan under Criteria 2 (on/off-site amenities), leaving that applicant with a total of 45 points. The second was to add 20 points to DeNova under Criteria 4 (energy efficiency) based on the submittal of a letter detailing what would be provided on the day of the meeting, leaving that applicant with a total of 83 points. No changes were made to the recommended points for the DeSilva application.

It should be noted that the Committee indicated it would be in favor of additional points for both the Braddock & Logan and DeNova applications if certain revisions to those projects were made. With regards to Braddock & Logan, it was stated that more points could be awarded if the project was "flipped" with the proposed Catholic church site so that the church would be on the corner of Central and Fairview, and if the residential developer was willing to build the infrastructure along both of those streets. With regards to DeNova, the Committee discussed the ideas of gating the community to provide additional security and/or providing some form of economic development assistance to the City, either one or both of which may warrant the granting of additional points.

DeSilva has indicated that it is withdrawing its application for consideration in this cycle of the RGMP. According to the applicant, the project as submitted does not support the associated on and off-site infrastructure costs. The applicant is attempting to resolve the problem and is hopeful that a solution can be reached so that an application can be submitted in time for consideration in the next cycle of the RGMP (the deadline is November 30).

ANALYSIS
Since the original Committee meeting on September 10, Staff has been in contact with each of the applicants regarding the status of and potential revisions to their respective projects. Staff has recently received letters from each of the applicants that state their positions (copies attached).

Braddock & Logan has indicated that its project will indeed be "flipped" with the church site, allowing the church to be built at the more prominent corner location and resulting in a more aesthetically pleasing development of an important location within the City. Braddock & Logan has also indicated that its project will include not only the necessary improvements along its frontage on Central Boulevard, but also those along the church frontage on both Central and Fairview. By changing the location of its project, Braddock & Logan has created an additional 5 lots to the originally proposed 31, for a total of 36 that they are now requesting. Braddock & Logan believes that with the revisions to the project, as stated, the application can achieve the required total of 100 points to receive the requested allocation. The RGMP Committee considered the revisions to the project on October 18, 2001. At that time, the Committee revised its original recommendation so that the project would receive a total of 100 points and thereby the requested allocation. The revised recommendation was made, however, with the stipulation that Braddock & Logan provide $5,000 per lot for the 5 additional ones that were created to be used for embellished landscaping around the corner of Central and Fairview as part of the church project. Additional points should thus be awarded to Braddock & Logan under Criteria 2 (on/off-site amenities for a total of 30 points), Criteria 8 (innovative design for a total of 10 points), and Criteria 9 (area prioritized for development for a total of 15 points), to bring them to 100 points.

DeNova has indicated that its project will exceed the open space requirements as specified in the Zoning Ordinance by 555% and is requesting that the maximum of 30 points be awarded under Criteria 2 (on/off-site amenities). The requested additional points would put the project at a total of 113 points, more than enough to receive an allocation. The RGMP Committee considered this request on October 18, 2001, and recommended that no additional points be awarded since the project has not been revised per the direction it gave during the meeting of September 10.

FISCAL IMPACT
None
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. ____
2. Letter from Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., dated October 10, 2001
3. Letter from DeNova Homes, dated October 8, 2001
4. Letter from The DeSilva Group, dated October 10, 2001
5. Memorandum from Staff to the RGMP Committee, dated September 7, 2001

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD GRANTING AN ALLOCATION FOR 36 DWELLING UNITS TO BRADDOCK & LOGAN SERVICES, INC. AND DENYING THE GRANTING OF AN ALLOCATION FOR 53 DWELLING UNITS TO DENOVA HOMES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (RGMP) FOR THE CYCLE ENDING JULY 30, 2001.

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2326 adopting a Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) to provide for the review and evaluation of residential growth in the City of Brentwood on July 6, 2001, and effective July 1, 2001; and

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2363, amending Resolution No. 2326, the RGMP; and

WHEREAS, the RGMP provides for the submittal of applications for dwelling unit allocations in three separate cycles during the fiscal year, beginning in July, with the first submittal deadline being July 30; and

WHEREAS, three applications were submitted by the filing deadline, including ones by Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. for 31 dwelling units, DeNova Homes for 53 dwelling units, and The DeSilva Group for 104 dwelling units; and

WHEREAS, Staff reviewed said applications with respect to the criteria established by the RGMP and recommended specific point totals be awarded; and

WHEREAS, Staff prepared a memorandum to the RGMP Committee including the recommended point totals and corresponding rationale for awarding said points based in part on information submitted by the applicants in support of their applications; and 

WHEREAS, the RGMP Committee conducted a noticed public meeting on September 10, 2001, to consider Staff's recommendation after reviewing the memorandum from Staff and all available information related to the applications; and

WHEREAS, the RGMP Committee recommended to the City Council that the following point totals be awarded for the respective applications: 45 points for Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., 83 points for DeNova Homes, and 118 points for The DeSilva Group; and

WHEREAS, a minimum of 100 points is needed to receive an allocation and each applicant was notified of the point totals recommended by the RGMP Committee; and

WHEREAS, a letter dated October 10, 2001, was submitted by Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. indicating substantial changes to its application, per the request of the RGMP Committee, and requesting additional points in an attempt to achieve a minimum total of 100; and

WHEREAS, a letter dated October 8, 2001, was submitted by DeNova Homes requesting additional points based on the provision of a certain amount of private open space in an attempt to achieve a minimum total of 100; and

WHEREAS, a letter dated October 10, 2001, was submitted by The DeSilva Group indicating that it is withdrawing its application from this cycle of the RGMP; and

WHEREAS, the RGMP Committee conducted a second noticed public meeting on October 18, 2001, to consider revisions to the application filed by Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. as well as a request for additional points submitted by DeNova Homes and recommended that the total points for Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. be changed to 100 and that the total points for DeNova Homes remain unchanged; and

WHEREAS, on October 23, 2001, the City Council held a public hearing and reviewed all available information, including the three applications, correspondence from the applicants, Staff's memorandum to the RGMP Committee, the report prepared by Staff to the Council on the recommendation of the RGMP Committee, and public testimony; and

WHEREAS, consideration of these applications 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 any granting of allocations for dwelling units will need to be followed by appropriate Tentative Subdivision Map applications to receive actual entitlements, including appropriate levels of environmental review in compliance with CEQA.

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 finds that Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., has achieved the minimum required total of 100 points and grants the requested allocation of 36 dwelling units in accordance with its application, revisions to its application as detailed in its letter dated October 10, 2001, and the stipulation that it provide $5,000 per lot for the 5 additional ones that were created to be used for embellished landscaping around the corner of Central and Fairview as part of the Catholic church project.

Section 3. The City Council finds that DeNova Homes has not achieved the minimum required total of 100 points and denies granting the requested allocation of 53 dwelling units in accordance with its application.

Section 4. The City Council finds that The DeSilva Group has withdrawn its application for consideration in this cycle of the RGMP and therefore has not considered its application.

Section 5. The City Council finds that this action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and directs Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.

PASSED AND ACCEPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at their regular meeting of October 23, 2001, by the following vote:


AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

____________________________
Michael A. McPoland, Sr., Mayor


ATTEST:

__________________________
Karen Diaz, CMC, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


__________________________
Dennis Beougher, City Attorney

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 7, 2001

TO: Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) Committee
Mike McPoland, Mayor
Bill Hill, City Councilman
Ray Shipley, Planning Commission Chairman
Bob Brockman, Planning Commissioner

FROM: Mitch Oshinsky, Community Development Director
Mike Leana, Chief of Planning
Erik Nolthenius, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: Evaluation of RGMP Applications - Cycle Ending July 30, 2001


This represents the first cycle for the RGMP since it became effective on July 1, 2001. Three applications were submitted by the July 30 deadline, which are summarized as follows:

(1) A request by Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. for the allocation of 31 lots located at the northeast corner of Central Boulevard and Fairview Avenue.

(2) A request by DeNova Homes for the allocation of 53 lots located between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, just east of the Brentwood Park Apartments.

(3) A request by The DeSilva Group for the allocation of 104 lots for the first phase of a 528-lot project to be built in six phases, located south of Sunset Road, approximately 1/3 mile west of Sellers Avenue.

Staff has reviewed these applications with respect to the evaluation criteria that were adopted as part of the RGMP. Staff looked at each application independently and has provided the Committee with a narrative and a matrix for comparison. Each application received a certain number of points for each criterion and the totals are shown in the matrix. Staff's intent in reviewing the applications was to maintain consistency with each project relative to the criteria.

BRADDOCK & LOGAN SERVICES, INC. - 31 LOTS

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? (50 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project would provide homes of varying sizes, providing for "a range of incomes and lifecycles". Staff recommends 5 points based on that rationale, however, the project does not provide specifics on how this range will be achieved, and the minimum of 10% of affordable housing as stated in the criterion.

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? (30 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the purchase of the site from the Catholic Archdiocese will provide a portion of the funds necessary for the church to move forward with development plans on the remainder of the site. Staff recommends 2 points based on the fact that the project would include badly needed street improvements for both Central Boulevard and Fairview Avenue, although they would not be over and above standard City requirements. Additional points are not recommended since the project does not include any on or off-site amenities as stated in the criterion. More points could be given if the project was "flipped" with the church site so that the church would be on the corner and/or if full street improvements were to be provided along both Central and Fairview.

3. Does the project propose to rehabilitate existing units in the City and make them available for very low or low-income households? (20 points possible)

The applicant did not respond to this criterion and Staff recommends 0 points since it does not apply to this project.

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? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that 70% of the lots would be solar oriented (i.e. north-south), paved areas can be paved with light-colored surfaces, street widths can be reduced, the homes will be constructed to meet PG&E Comfort Home and Energy Star specifications, and drought-tolerant landscaping can be provided to minimize water usage. Staff has reviewed the Energy Efficiency Specifications that allow for a total of 36-39 points and recommends 20 points for this criterion based on what the applicant has stated will be provided for the project.

5. Does the project propose to develop job generating land uses, or otherwise assist economic development, in conjunction with the development of dwelling units? (40 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project would provide short-term construction jobs and long-term jobs to serve the future residents of the subdivision. Staff does not consider the build-out of a residential subdivision to be a job generating land use as the criterion clearly states "in conjunction with the development of dwelling units". Staff therefore recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

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 housing allocation? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project is located in an area generally surrounded by existing development. The site is in fact surrounded on three sides by existing subdivisions, including Solana to the north, Diablo Ranch to the south, and Apple Hill to the west. Staff considers this project to be a clear example of in-fill development and thus recommends that the maximum of 20 points be given for this criterion.

7. Does the project preserve prime soils for agricultural use on sites within the City, or otherwise provide benefits for agricultural enterprise? (15 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project would require payment of the basic mitigation fee. Payment of this fee is a standard requirement for all projects within the City and the applicant is not proposing anything above and beyond that requirement. Staff therefore recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the proposed homes would be of a quality design, pedestrian and bicycle access would be maximized by providing sidewalks and bike lanes, the project is consistent with Smart Growth principles because it is in-fill, and the two previous projects it has worked on in the City (Town & Country and a portion of Apple Hill) included a high level of quality. Staff believes that while the homes will likely be of a quality design, the project does not necessarily demonstrate innovative design or product type. The provision of sidewalks and bike lanes is a standard requirement and the applicant is not proposing anything to "maximize" pedestrian or bicycle use. In addition, Staff believes that points should be given for in-fill on Criterion 6 and not for Smart Growth principles with this criterion. Finally, the Building Division has indicated that the Town & Country subdivision had some problems related to quality. Based on the above, Staff recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (15 points possible)

The applicant did not provide a response for this criterion. In Staff's review of the project, the site is not within one of the areas prioritized for development or redevelopment, and therefore recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (10 points possible)

The applicant did not provide a response for this criterion. The project is not a continuing project and, therefore, Staff recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

TOTAL POINTS = 47

DENOVA HOMES - 53 LOTS

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? (50 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project would provide a unique style of housing that should reach a buyer with a little less buying power than average and that chooses to live in a community that emphasizes group open space. Staff recommends 5 points based on that rationale, however, the project does not provide the specifics or the minimum of 10% of affordable housing as stated in the criterion.

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? (30 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project will provide a number of on-site amenities, almost all of which are associated with significant amounts of usable open space, including large front porches, private yard areas, and a large central park. Based on the number of lots in the project, the applicant would be required to provide 0.74 acres of park land and open space, while a total of 0.88 acres are provided. Staff recommends 3 points based on the fact that the project exceeds the required acreage. Additional points are not recommended since the project does not include any significant on or off-site amenities as stated in the criterion.

3. Does the project propose to rehabilitate existing units in the City and make them available for very low or low-income households? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project does not rehabilitate any existing buildings and Staff recommends 0 points since it does not apply to this project.

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? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that maximizing the amount of points in this criterion is desirable, however, no additional information has been provided. Points can and should be awarded if the applicant demonstrates compliance with the energy efficiency specifications as detailed on the application, however, Staff recommends that no points be awarded at this time.

5. Does the project propose to develop job generating land uses, or otherwise assist economic development, in conjunction with the development of dwelling units? (40 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project does not provide for any permanent job growth and Staff therefore recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

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 housing allocation? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project is definitely in-fill, with existing development on all four sides. In actuality, the site is surrounded on two sides by already developed projects, including the Brentwood Park Apartments to the west and Liberty High School to the south. Properties directly north and east of the project site have not yet been approved for development but projects are "pending". Nonetheless, the project meets the definition of in-fill as stated in the criterion and Staff recommends awarding the maximum 20 points.

7. Does the project preserve prime soils for agricultural use on sites within the City, or otherwise provide benefits for agricultural enterprise? (15 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project does not preserve any soil for agricultural uses and is not proposing anything above and beyond the requirement to pay the established City mitigation fee. Staff therefore recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project is extremely friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists and is designed to promote neighborhood interaction, while the architecture is very progressive and of the highest quality. The applicant has also indicated that the project consists of a Smart Growth urban design that will work for the City. Staff agrees with the applicant on all counts, noting especially the innovative design related to garages at the rear of the homes (with access provided by alleys) and the large central open space feature that is provided. The applicant has not built any projects previously in the City, so that portion of the criterion cannot accurately be judged. Based on the design of the project, Staff recommends that the maximum 20 points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (15 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project is considered Downtown and will upgrade an area that has been heavily developed with rental units. Staff concurs with the applicant that the site can be considered to be in the Downtown area and is also on the East Side, and therefore recommends the maximum 15 points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (10 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project will be completed in one phase. The project is not a continuing project and, therefore, Staff recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

TOTAL POINTS = 63 
THE DESILVA GROUP - 528 LOTS

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? (50 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project would include 10% of the 480 market rate lots (mid-range of the density under the General Plan), or 48 lots, as a density bonus and would set the 10% aside for families with low income as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. The applicant has indicated that the 48 lots would be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and that the units may include duplexes throughout or a combination of duplexes and single-family detached dwellings to satisfy the 10% requirement. In addition, the applicant has indicated that all affordable units will be subject to the 30-year deed restriction as specified in the RGMP. Staff believes that the project goes a long way towards meeting the intent of this criterion, however, it should be noted that the additional lots are being provided as part of a requested density bonus and therefore recommends that 40 points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (30 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project includes on and off-site amenities that are desirable to the City as a whole that are in excess of standard requirements, including most notably the construction of Sand Creek Road from Brentwood Boulevard (State Route 4) to Sellers Avenue, frontage improvements along the north side of Sunset Road adjacent to the existing sports park, and an excess of park and open space land. Based on the nature and significance of the proposed improvements, Staff recommends awarding the maximum 30 points for this criterion.

3. Does the project propose to rehabilitate existing units in the City and make them available for very low or low-income households? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project does not propose to rehabilitate existing units in the City and Staff recommends 0 points since it does not apply to this project.

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? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project does include energy efficient design, layout, landscaping, construction and materials which exceed those otherwise required by Title 24. These items include paved surfaces with a high albedo (reflectivity), minimal street pavement, construction meeting PG&E Comfort Home specifications, and appropriate landscaping. The applicant has requested a total of 13 points based on provisions of the project. Staff has reviewed the Energy Efficiency Specifications that allow for a total of 36-39 points and recommends awarding the requested 13 points for this criterion based on what the applicant has stated will be provided for the project.

5. Does the project propose to develop job generating land uses, or otherwise assist economic development, in conjunction with the development of dwelling units? (40 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project does not propose to develop job generating land uses and Staff therefore recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

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 housing allocation? (20 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project is proposed for a site that is considered to be in-fill and requests the maximum 20 points available. The site is bounded on the north by the existing Sunset Park and a portion of its west boundary is adjacent to the approved tentative subdivision map for DeNova Homes, the Applewood subdivision, and the developing Lyon Woodfield subdivision. Land adjacent to the east and south boundaries of the site has not yet been approved for development, with the land to the east being in fact designated Urban Reserve by the General Plan. In addition, approximately half of the land adjacent to the west boundary of the site has not yet been approved for development. Since the project does not completely meet the definition of in-fill, Staff recommends that 10 points be awarded for this criterion.

7. Does the project preserve prime soils for agricultural use on sites within the City, or otherwise provide benefits for agricultural enterprise? (15 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project does not preserve prime soils for agricultural use on sites within the City and is not proposing anything above and beyond the requirement to pay the established City mitigation fee. Staff therefore recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (20 points possible)
The applicant has indicated that the project demonstrates high quality, innovative design and product type, demonstrates maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use, and reflects progressive planning principles. The provisions include a diverse product type with 21 floor plans and 63 elevations, an extensive trail system, a landscape buffer on both sides of Garin Parkway, and a permanent view window to the urban reserve/agricultural area to the east of the project site. Staff believes that the project does maximize pedestrian and bicycle use and is of a quality design, however, there is not necessarily anything truly innovative. The applicant has not built in the City before and therefore past performance cannot accurately be judged. Based on the above, Staff recommends that 10 points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (15 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that the project has been identified by the City as being particularly prioritized for development in Northeast Brentwood. Staff concurs with the applicant that the site is considered to be Northeast Brentwood and therefore recommends the maximum 15 points be awarded for this criterion.

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? (10 points possible)

The applicant has indicated that this project is not a continuing project and Staff therefore recommends that no points be awarded for this criterion. The project is, however, proposed to be built in six phases that will develop out in a graduated fashion over a period of years. If this project receives an allocation for the entire 528 lots, the future year's phases will be deducted from the allocation counts in those future RGMP cycles.

TOTAL POINTS = 118

Top of Page