City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

City Administration

2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City Council Members | Calendar of Events | Elections
eNotification | Sub-Committees| Pledge of Allegiance Sign Ups | Invocation Sign Up
Live Streaming Council Meeting | Streaming PC Help |
Streaming Mac Help |

Current Council Agenda and Past Meeting Information

Past Agendas

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 18


Meeting Date: February 25, 2003

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

Submitted by: Community Development Department (Oshinsky/Zilm)

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager



RECOMMENDATION
The RGMP Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution granting an allocation for 580 dwelling units to Pinn Brothers Construction, Inc.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The RGMP Committee met on February 6, 2003 to consider this allocation request and formulated the above recommendation to the City Council regarding this application.

BACKGROUND
There were two RGMP applications submitted for consideration during the fifth cycle of the RGMP. The first one was by Braddock and Logan for 305 units, however, the RGMP Subcommittee had some concerns about the submittal and wanted to see a revised map before recommending the project to the Council. Braddock and Logan is scheduled back before the Housing Subcommittee on February 27, 2003. The second RGMP submittal is as follows:

• A request by Pinn Brothers Construction, Inc. for the allocation of 580 dwelling units located north of Dainty Avenue, west of the railroad tracks and east of Griffith Lane. The allocation requested is for a 4-year build-out period (2003-2006) as follows: 250 dwellings in 2003, 133 dwellings in 2004, 137 dwellings in 2005 and 60 dwellings in 2006.

This application was rated by the RGMP Committee based on a set of 10 evaluation criteria that were established as part of the RGMP. A project needs a minimum of 100 points to receive an allocation. This project was awarded more than 100 points. Staff initially reviewed the applications and provided a recommendation to the RGMP Committee, which met on January 16, 2003 (a copy of Staff's memo to the Committee with detailed evaluation of each project is attached). When the Committee met to consider Staff's recommendation. The main concern was the density of this project along its southern boundary. The application originally had a density of 4.5 units per acre in this area. The Subcommittee was concerned that because this area backs up to existing older houses with a density of 3.0 units per acre, this new project had to be more in line with the existing density. The applicant reworked this area and by eliminating 11 units the density has been reduced from 4.5 units per acre to 3.5 units per acre, with lot sizes that are now equal to or greater than the existing lots abutting this project. This seems to be an acceptable transition.

The General Plan policy for this area is to provide compatible uses adjacent to the existing larger lots along the Marsh Creek channel and Griffith Lane by buffering them from higher density residential development in the eastern portion of Special Planning Area “C”, which the project is located in. Higher residential densities are planned in this SPA in order to take advantage of the areas proximity to downtown jobs and services and due to the close proximity of the Walnut Boulevard and Central Boulevard arterial roadways, and the future potential e-Bart station to the east. The suggested land use breakdown with density, as stated in the General Plan, is as follows:

• Low Density Residential (1–5 du/ac, midrange 3 du/ac) – 20 acres (20-100 du, midrange 60 du) 
• Medium Density Residential (5-11 du/ac, midrange 8 du/ac) – 38 acres (190-418 du, midrange 304 du)
• High Density Residential (11-20 du/ac, midrange 15 du/ac) – 19 acres (209-380 du, midrange 285 du) 

The General Plan’s midrange unit per acre count would allow for a total of 649 units, the applicant is proposing to build 580 units or 69 units under the midrange. 

The project was awarded 115 points by the RGMP Committee and received the bulk of its points in the evaluation categories of affordable /special housing needs, amenities and infrastructure improvements both on-site and off-site, infill development, and design quality. In addition, the project includes roughly 9 acres of park area, generous pedestrian corridors that contribute to a high quality walkable project design and a pedestrian link to the future E-Bart transit station on the east side of the railroad tracks. 

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact to the City would be positive and is estimated to be threefold. One, the economist for the General Plan believe we need to grow to our buildout population toattract economic development, jobs and businesses. This development would help to reach the buildout population of the General Plan and increase the overall economical viability of the City. Two, since this development is located in close proximity to the downtown it would bring residents to patronize and shop the downtown area. Three, this “smart growth” development is located adjacent to the future E-Bart station and would provide a pedestrian link to the station for easy access to the public transit system. Bringing higher densities closer to downtown and transit facilities is good planning, and has been promoted in our General Plan for manly years. Having higher density near the potential e-Bart station will increase the chance of he station being built. This would be very positive for economic development. 

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 
2. Memorandum from Staff to the RGMP Committee dated January 16, 2003.
3. Table showing Status of RGMP Allocated Units
4. Master Site Plan
5. Design Booklet
6. Project Information Booklet










RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD FOR AN ALLOCATION OF 580 DWELLING UNITS, OVER A 4 FISCAL YEAR PERIOD, TO PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (RGMP) FOR THE CYCLE ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2002.

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, and on November 26, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2752 amending Resolution No. 2326, of 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, an application was submitted by Pinn Brothers Construction, Inc., for 580 dwelling units on November 27, 2002; and

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

WHEREAS, Staff prepared a memorandum to the RGMP Committee including the recommended point total and corresponding rationale for awarding said points based in part on information submitted by the applicant in support of its application; and 

WHEREAS, the RGMP Committee conducted a noticed public meeting on January 16, 2003, to consider Staff's recommendation after reviewing the memorandum from Staff and all available information related to the application; and

WHEREAS, the RGMP Committee recommended to the City Council that the application receive a total of 115 points; and

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

WHEREAS, on February 25, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing and reviewed all available information, including the application, correspondence from the applicant, 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 this application 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 an allocation for dwelling units will need to be followed by an appropriate Tentative Subdivision Map application to receive an actual entitlement, including the appropriate level 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 Pinn Brothers Construction, Inc., has achieved 115 total points or 15 points over the minimum required total of 100 points and grants the requested allocation of 580 dwelling units in accordance with its application and the following proposed off-site improvements:

1. Provide a pedestrian link between this project and the future proposed E-Bart station to the east.

2. Off-site improvements to Central Boulevard and Griffith Lane.

3. Complete the improvements to the east side of Griffith Lane, north of Dainty Avenue. 

Section 3. 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 February 25, 2003, by the following vote:



























COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


DATE: January 16, 2003October 3September 26, 2002

FROM: Mitch Oshinsky, Community Development Director
Mike Leana, Chief of Planning
Winston RhodesJeff Zilm, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: Evaluation of Pinn Brothers RGMP Application July 30

Background

This represents the fourthifth cycle for the RGMP since it became effective on July 1, 2001. During fiscal year 2001/2002 100 allocations (47 for Braddock & Logan – TSM 8661 and 53 for DeNova Homes TSM 8574) were approved An allocation application for this cycle were submitted by Pinn Brothers Construction Inc. prior to the July November 30th deadline. waSignature Properties Pinn Brothers asked for the allocation of 177580 (108 apartments and 472 single family) units, located on west of the railroad tracks and east of Griffith Lanethe north side of Sycamore Avenue, just east of Windsor Way. 

Project – Signature PropertiesPinn Brothers 

The proposed project is located on the Bonnickson property, which was annexed into the City in November 2001west of the railroad tracks, east of Griffith Lane and fronts Central Boulevard. The property has a Low Density Residential GenerSpecial Planning Area C General Plan designation. and is zoned for 

The General Plan policy for this area is to provide compatible uses adjacent to the existing larger lots along the Marsh Creek channel and Griffith Lane by buffering them from higher density residential development in the eastern portion of the SPA. Higher residential densities are planned in this SPA in order to take advantage of the areas proximity to downtown jobs and services and due to the close proximity of the Walnut Boulevard and Central Boulevard arterial roadways. The suggested land use breakdown with density, as stated in the General Plan, is as follows:

• Low Density Residential (1–5 du/ac, midrange 3 du/ac) – 20 acres (20-100 du/ac, midrange 60 du/ac) 
• Medium Density Residential (5-11 du/ac, midrange 8 du/ac) – 38 acres (190-418 du/ac, midrange 304 du/ac)
• High Density Residential (11-20 du/ac, midrange 15 du/ac) – 19 acres (209-380 du/ac, midrange 285 du/ac) 

The General Plan’s midrange unit per acre count would allow for a total of 649 units, the applicant is proposing to build 580 units or 69 units under the midrange. 

PD-45 as a “shell” planned development at 3 du/ac. ThThe applicant is requesting a multi-year 580-unit allocation with a 4-year anticipated build-out period (2003–2006) as follows: 250 dwellings in 2003, 133 dwellings in 2004, 137 dwellings in 2005, and 59 dwellings in 2006. 





Analysis

Staff has reviewed this application with respect to the evaluation criteria that were adopted as part of the RGMP. The application received a certain number of points for each criterion and the total is shown at the end of the narrative. Staff's intent in reviewing the application was to maintain consistency with the review of previous applications relative to the following criteria:

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 108 market rate rental apartments and 7% or 40 affordable housing units. The 7% inclusionary housing units will be for families with low incomes as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and by the California Housing and Community Development Department for Contra Costa County. The applicant would like to participate in an in-lieu of Housing Fee for the remaining 3% or 17 units providing that the City Council approves of an in-lieu of fee. If the in-lieu of fee is not approved then the remaining 17 units must be built. Staff recommends 450 points 

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 is proposing to improve offsite landscaping along Central Boulevard, street improvements and linear park along Marsh Creek, 2.6 acre infiltration pond and park, 9,500 linear feet of trail and landscaping along the north, west and east property lines, street improvements along Griffith Lane, Dainty Avenue and Walnut Boulevard, and build 3 tot lots with barbeques, picnic tables and benches. T1.17 smoreparkland than required This proposal would account for 7.1 total acres of park area. Out of the 7.1 acres, the .5-acre pocket park is fee creditable. The 1.6 acres of lineal park is not fee creditable because the space is less than 100 feet wide. Of the 2.6 acre Pond/Park area only the park is fee creditable. Of the 2.4 acre central Park/Pool area only the park is fee creditable not the pool. Therefore, it appears that approximately 3.5 acres of park space is fee creditable leaving this project well under the required park space. Staff recommends 20 points however 30 points would be awarded if the applicant would bring up the park space acreage and provide future assurance for a pedestrian crossing over or under the railroad tracks providing access to the potential future E-Bart train station if built. 

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 that 0 points be awarded for this criterion since it is not applicable 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 all of the proposed homes would include features, which meet PG&E’s “Comfort Home” Program criteria that exceed Title 24 energy conservation standards. The proposed features include high-efficiency furnaces, super-efficient air conditioners, tightly sealed air ducts and energy saving windows. The applicant has also indicated that drought-tolerant landscaping will be utilized in all common areas. In addition, high reflective High Albedo pavement is proposed within portions of the proposed development. Staff has reviewed the proposed energy savings from these features and recommends 1310 points. Staff is receptive to providing more points if additional energy savings features are proposed 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 did not respond to this criterion and Staff recommends that 0 points be awarded for this criterion since it is not applicable to this project.

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 proposed site is bordered on the west and south by an already developed residential area and vacant land with no planned projects along the northern property line. Consequently, the project site meets the criterion for a site to be considered an in-fill. Staff recommends 17 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 proposed project would result in a loss of approximately 68 acres of productive agricultural land within the City. The applicant did not respond to this criterion and Staff recommends that 0 points be awarded for this criterion since no project benefits for agricultural enterprise are proposed. 

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)
–Mention 40 foot pedestrian trail along the ECCID Canal
The applicant has indicated that the proposed homes will include 17 different plans with 45 elevations creating several distinct neighborhoods. The architectural solutions are attempting to create choices for the Brentwood buyer. There are 3 to 4 elevation styles depending one each plan. An extensive trail system connects with the new proposed parks and the proposed residences internally to the rest of the community and regionally in a north/south direction. A generous landscaping buffer is proposed along Marsh Creek and the new proposed frontage road. Parks, landscape, open space, trails infiltration pond/park and public access will provide permanent windows to the open space and agricultural land to the east. There are street frontages and cul-de-sacs, which provide pedestrian access from various neighborhoods to the proposed new regional trail system. The project is consistent with Smart Growth and Ahwanee principles because it is an in-fill development, includes features that encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, contains neighborhood open space that is placed so as toas to encourage the attention and presence of people throughout the day. Staff recommends 15 points.

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)

near a prominent future corner (Sycamore at Garin Parkway) within the City and would help extend both Sycamore and Garin Parkway,The project would help extend infrastructure to an undeveloped infill area of the City and help which are needed to implement the City’s Circulation Plan by making improvements to Central Boulevard, Dainty Avenue and Griffith Lane. However, the project is located along the eastern edge of the present City limits and is not located in an area, which, which has been particularly prioritized for development or redevelopment. The project will add traffic to existing collector roadways without providing alternative new routes. connection between Staff believes that it is in an area that will help facilitate infrastructure improvements in the Downtown and Northeast identified as being particularly prioritized for development. Based on this review, Staff recommends 110 points. 


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 proposed project is not a continuing project and, therefore, Staff recommends that 0 points be awarded for this criterion. 
The proposed project is part of Planned Development 30. Approved single-family development within the area is contingent upon approval of the development design for this project site. 


PROJECT 1 - TOTAL POINTS = 120
PROJECT 2 - TOTAL POINTS = 120
Recommendation

Staff recommends that the RGMP Committee award 115 points for the allocation application based on this applicant’s proposal and the evaluation of the criteria as stated above. By awarding a minimum of 100 points for this application, the Committee would be recommending that the City Council approve the allocation of 250 of the 650 annual available units during this RGMP cycle.


Recommended Project Point Summary

Rating Criterion & Maximum Points Available Project – Pinn Bros. 
1. Affordable / Special Housing Needs – 50 40 
2. Amenities and Infrastructure – 30 20 
3. Housing Rehabilitation – 20 0 
4. Energy Efficiency – 20 13 
5. Job Generation – 40 0 
6. Infill Development – 20 17 
7. Agricultural Enterprise – 15 0 
8. Design Quality – 20 15 
9. Development Priority – 15 10 
10. Ongoing Project –10 0 
TOTAL 115 
































STATUS OF RGMP ALLOCATED UNITS

2001 *FY 2002 FY 2003 FY

Braddock & Logan 36 Braddock & Logan 11 Signature Homes 80
DeNova Homes 53 Terra Nova Dev. 48 SubTotal 80
Total 89 Signature Homes 30 
SubTotal 89 

Pinn Bros. 250 Pinn Bros. 133
Braddock & Logan 191 Braddock & Logan 114
SubTotal 441 SubTotal 247

Annual Total 530 Annual Total 327


2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY

Signature Homes 67 
SubTotal 67 

Pinn Bros. 137 Pinn Bros 60 
SubTotal 137 Total 60 

Annual Total 204 Annual Total 60


City Administration
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5440
Fax (925) 516-5441
E-mail allcouncil@brentwoodca.gov