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. 12

Meeting Date: September 9, 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 Sub-Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution granting an allocation for 311 dwelling units to Braddock and Logan Services, Inc.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The RGMP Committee met on February 27, 2003, April 17, 2003 and May 22, 2003 to consider this allocation request and formulated the above recommendation to the City Council regarding this application. On August 12, 2003, the Council continued this item to this meeting to allow time to address the resident’s questions.

BACKGROUND
At the August 12, 2003 City Council meeting staff presented the report recommending that the Council approve the 311 unit allotment for Braddock and Logan Services, Inc. over a two year period. At that meeting several residents living around the proposed project site submitted a list of concerns that they had with this proposed project and wanted to find out how these concerns would be dealt with. Following is a list of the residents concerns and staff’s response to the concerns:

1. What is the current zoning and General Plan designation and what is the current Density Transition Policy?

Response: The General Plan policy for this 135 acre area is to provide compatible uses adjacent to the existing larger lots along the easterly and southerly boundaries of this project. 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) – roughly 100 acres (100 - 500 du, midrange of 300 du)
• Very Low Density Residential (1 – 3 du/ac, midrange 2 du/ac) – roughly 35 acres (35 – 105 du, midrange of 70 du)

The General Plan’s midrange unit per acre count would allow for a total of 370 units, the applicant is proposing to build 311 units or 59 units under the midrange.

The Zoning designation for this area is as follows:

• R-1-E (Single Family Residential Estate) Zone – (roughly 35 acres) allowing for a permitted density of 2 units per gross acre or conditionally permitted density not to exceed 3 units per gross acre and a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet.

• R-1-10 (Single Family Residential)Zone – (roughly 100 acres) allowing for a permitted density of 3.5 units per gross acre or conditionally permitted density not to exceed 6 units per gross acre and a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

When the applicant files a TSM submittal for this project it will have to include a rezone to change it from R-1-10 and R-1-E to a PD which would allow them flexibility to change the minimum lot sizes providing that they adhere to the General Plan Mid-range density. In any case the applicant will have to adhere to the General Plan density transition policy for minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet when any one of their proposed lots abuts an existing ½ or 1 acre lot, respectively.

2. Request that all proposed houses on lots abutting existing homes be single story plans and that no house be built higher than 25 feet. What elevations will the proposed lots be graded to and how will this grading affect the existing homes?

Response: In the past the Planning Commission has reviewed this single story concern and placed restrictions on lots requiring single story plans. Staff does not feel that every lot would warrant a single story plan however this issue will be looked at when a Design Review application is submitted to the City for review. Typically single story plans range from 20 to 25 feet high while the two story plans would range from 30 to 35 feet high. Most, if not all of our residential PD’s have a 30 foot maximum height limit. Until a grading plan has been submitted it is very hard to determine what elevation each lot will be graded to and how it might affect the existing homes. The Engineering Department will review the grading plans to insure that any runoff is conveyed properly to the storm drain system that will be put in place by this developer.

3. Request that all sewer and water lines and other infrastructure use the existing easements in place.

Response: The Engineering Department will review this, however there may be the need to acquire additional easements if the existing easements are not adequate for the proposed infrastructure.

4. Request that a masonry wall be constructed between the existing homeowners and this proposed subdivision.

Response: This is something that would be reviewed during the Design Review process. In the past the developer has stepped up and gone ahead and installed a masonry wall or the Planning Commission has conditioned the developer to do so only if there is existing agricultural uses abutting the new residential subdivision. Staff does not feel that this request is unreasonable.

5. Will disclosures, indicating the raising of farm animals take place on the existing lots, be presented to the future homeowners.

Response: Yes, a standard Real Estate disclosure statement is issued to all new homebuyers indicating all of the issues that may take place in and around the neighborhood they are buying into.

6. Will all of the current utilities be moved underground?

Response: All of the current utilities that abut this proposed development will be put underground. However the City will work with the developer to make sure that if additional utilities can be placed underground they will.

7. Request that the existing residents be involved in any and all further discussions concerning access and cul-de-sacing of Old Sand Creek Road or Gracie Lane.

Response: The residents will be notified when this project is gong before the Planning Commission during the Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map process, at which time such road issues will be considered. They can also contact the Community Development or Engineering Departments anytime for questions or concerns.

8. Will Braddock and Logan build out this development and can this be guaranteed? What will the timing of the phases be on this development?

Response: As far as staff knows Braddock and Logan will build the entire subdivision however there is no way to guarantee that this will happen. When a complete application is submitted staff will require the applicant to submit a phasing map and timing of that phasing.

9. Request that all construction traffic be limited to certain City streets and that no construction traffic occur on Old Sand Creek, Lone Oak or Gracie Lane.

Response: Staff does not see an issue with this request as access to this project most likely will occur from Grant Street and the future extension of O’Hara Avenue. This can be a condition of the subdivision approval.

10. What improvements will the existing homeowners be given?

Response: Typically the City will work with the developer on providing the surrounding homeowners with City sewer and water extensions up to their individual property lines, storm drain access, and street signs.

11. What changes would occur to the existing ECCID irrigation lines that run through and around this proposed project site?

Response: The only changes that might occur are the possible undergrounding and upgrading the existing system or realigning of the existing irrigation lines.

12. Will an Mitigated Negative Declaration or a Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this proposed project.

Response: Staff has from day one recommended that the developer do an Environmental Impact Report not a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project to fully analysis all of the impacts that may affect the surrounding properties.
The Council wanted the applicant to get together with the residents and try to work out their concerns before the Council would act upon the approval of the RGMP application for the 311 unit allotment. That meeting did take place and many of these issues were discussed. However this project is still a long way from receiving any approval and the residents will have many more opportunities to present any formal subdivision or design review issues that they may have to the developer and the City before it will receive final approval. Some of the residents have come down to the Community Development Department to find out a little more about the project and how it may affect their property.

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact to the City would be positive. The economist for the General Plan believes we need to grow to our build out population in order to attract quality 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 and provide on a more timely basis a future elementary school site in this area of the City.

ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Staff Report from the August 12th City Council meeting
3. Memorandum from Staff to the RGMP Committee dated February 27, 2003.
4. Table showing Status of RGMP Allocated Units
5. Master Site Plan Map

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD FOR AN ALLOCATION OF 311 DWELLING UNITS, OVER A 2 FISCAL YEAR PERIOD, TO BRADDOCK AND LOGAN, SERVICES, 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 Braddock and Logan Services, Inc., for 311 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 February 27, 2003, April 27, 2003 and May 22, 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 100 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 August 12, 2003 and September 9, 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 Braddock and Logan Services, Inc., has achieved 100 total points which is the minimum required total and grants the requested allocation of 311 dwelling units, over a two year period, in accordance with its application and the following proposed off-site improvements:

1. Provide the School District with enough acreage for the required number of buildings needed to construct an elementary school and provide a finished school site (i.e pad, roads, sewer and water) in order to meet the School District’s construction timetable,

2. Redesign the map to eliminate the road which would have created a short cut through this development between the extension of Grant Street and the new O’Hara Avenue,

3. Relocate Anderson Lane along the easterly property line of this project and to serve as the main entrance road for the school site,

4. Create a four acre park site, east of O’Hara Avenue and a one acre park site, west of O’Hara Avenue,

5. Provide for a trail along the railroad tracks and provides several links to it from the subdivision,

6. Provide for enough reserved open space to allow for the future under crossing of the railroad tracks for Grant Street,

7. Provide pedestrian access from within the subdivision to the school site.

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 September 9, 2003, by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.

Meeting Date: August 12, 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 311 dwelling units to Braddock and Logan Services, Inc.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The RGMP Committee met on February 27, 2003, April 17, 2003 and May 22, 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, by Pinn Brothers Construction for 580 units, was approved by the City Council on February 25, 2003. The second one submitted by Braddock and Logan for 311 units was originally before the Housing Subcommittee on February 27, 2003. At this meeting the Subcommittee had some concerns about the submittal and wanted to see a revised map before recommending the project to the Council. Braddock and Logan was back before the Subcommittee on April 17, 2003 and after several changes the project was finally given the go ahead to move forward to the Council, by the Subcommittee, on May 22, 2003.

The Braddock and Logan RGMP submittal is as follows:

• A request by Braddock and Logan Services, Inc. for the allocation of 311 dwelling units located south of the future Grant Street extension, west of Lone Oak Road and east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The allocation requested is for a 2-year build-out period (2003-2004) as follows: 191 dwellings in 2003 and 120 dwellings in 2004.

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 100 points by staff. Staff initially reviewed the application and provided a recommendation to the RGMP Committee, which met on February 27, 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, they felt that Braddock and Logan had not provided enough to warrant a score of one hundred points and felt that in order to reach one hundred points Braddock and Logan would have to address the following concerns in order to meet the minimum 100 point requirement:

• Provide the School District with enough acreage for the required number of buildings needed to construct an elementary school and provide a finished school site (i.e pad, roads, sewer and water) in order to meet the School District’s construction timetable,
• Redesign the map to eliminate the road which would have created a short cut through this development between the extension of Grant Street and the new O’Hara Avenue,
• Relocate Anderson Lane along the easterly property line of this project and to serve as the main entrance road for the school site,
• Create a four acre park site, east of O’Hara Avenue and a one acre park site, west of O’Hara Avenue,
• Provide for a trail along the railroad tracks and provides several links to it from the subdivision,
• Provide for enough reserved open space to allow for the future under crossing of the railroad tracks for Grant Street,
• Provide pedestrian access from within the subdivision to the school site,
• Provide cul-de-sac access for the six existing lots along the old Sand Creek Road, located on the southern border of this project.

On May 23, 2003 Braddock and Logan returned to the Subcommittee with a new map addressing all of the Subcommittee’s previous concerns and was given the approval to proceed to the full City Council for final RGMP allotment approval.

The General Plan policy for this area is to provide compatible uses adjacent to the existing larger lots along the easterly and southerly boundaries of this project. 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) – roughly 100 acres (100 - 500 du, midrange of 300 du)
• Very Low Density Residential (1 – 3 du/ac, midrange 2 du/ac) – roughly 35 acres (35 – 105 du, midrange of 70 du)

The General Plan’s midrange unit per acre count would allow for a total of 370 units, the applicant is proposing to build 311 units or 59 units under the midrange.

The project was awarded 100 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. The applicant is providing a 12 acre site for the Elementary School District within the subdivision. They have also committed to provide the needed infrastructure (access roads, sewer, water and utilities) for the school site and to meet the School District’s construction timetable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact to the City would be positive. The economist for the General Plan believes we need to grow to our build out population in order to attract quality 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.

ATTACHMENTS
6. Resolution
7. Memorandum from Staff to the RGMP Committee dated February 27, 2003.
8. Table showing Status of RGMP Allocated Units
9. Master Site Plan Map

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD FOR AN ALLOCATION OF 311 DWELLING UNITS, OVER A 2 FISCAL YEAR PERIOD, TO BRADDOCK AND LOGAN, SERVICES, 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 Braddock and Logan Services, Inc., for 311 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 February 27, 2003, April 27, 2003 and May 22, 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 100 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 August 12, 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 Braddock and Logan Services, Inc., has achieved 100 total points which is the minimum required total and grants the requested allocation of 311 dwelling units in accordance with its application and the following proposed off-site improvements:

8. Provide the School District with enough acreage for the required number of buildings needed to construct an elementary school and provide a finished school site (i.e pad, roads, sewer and water) in order to meet the School District’s construction timetable,

9. Redesign the map to eliminate the road which would have created a short cut through this development between the extension of Grant Street and the new O’Hara Avenue,

10. Relocate Anderson Lane along the easterly property line of this project and to serve as the main entrance road for the school site,

11. Create a four acre park site, east of O’Hara Avenue and a one acre park site, west of O’Hara Avenue,

12. Provide for a trail along the railroad tracks and provides several links to it from the subdivision,

13. Provide for enough reserved open space to allow for the future under crossing of the railroad tracks for Grant Street,

14. Provide pedestrian access from within the subdivision to the school site,

15. Provide cul-de-sac access for the six existing lots along the old Sand Creek Road, located on the southern border of this project.

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 August 12, 2003, by the following vote:

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 27, 2003

TO: Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) Committee:
Brian Swisher, Mayor
Bill Hill, City Councilman
Bob Brockman, Planning Commission Vice-Chairman
Chris Becnel, Planning Commissioner

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

SUBJECT: Evaluation of RGMP Applications - Cycle Ending November 30, 2002

Background

This represents the fifth cycle for the RGMP since it became effective on July 1, 2001. Two allocation applications for this cycle were submitted by the November 30th deadline. Project 1 is from Pinn Brothers for the allocation of 580 (108 apartments and 472 single family) units, located on west of the railroad tracks and east of Griffith Lane. Project 2 is from Braddock and Logan for the allocation of 305 lots, located east of the railroad tracks, south of Grant Street and west of Lone Oak Road. Attached to this report is a chart showing the status of the previously approved and proposed future RGMP allotments.

The proposed project is located east of the railroad tracks, south of Grant Street and west of Lone Oak Road.

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) – roughly 100 acres (100 - 500 du, midrange of 300 du)
• Very Low Density Residential (1 – 3 du/ac, midrange 2 du/ac) – roughly 35 acres (35 – 105 du, midrange of 70 du)

All proposed lots that would backup to or side onto existing lots larger than one acre will be a minimum of 20,000 square feet in size, which is consistent with the density transition policy. This project site will include a 11-acre school site, which the School District will purchase from Braddock and Logan.

The applicant is requesting a multi-year 311-unit allocation with a 2-year anticipated build-out period (2003 – 2004) as follows: 191 dwellings in 2003, and 120 dwellings in 2004.

Analysis

Staff has reviewed both applications with respect to the evaluation criteria that were adopted as part of the RGMP. The applications 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 13 different homes ranging in size from 2,100 sq. ft. to 3,800 sq. ft. This proposed project does fall within the City’s Redevelopment Area and is already required to have a minimum of 15% or 8 of the 52 units be priced at levels affordable to low income households. The applicant has agreed to provide the 8 units. Since this is already required, staff was conservative with the points granted. Staff recommends 25 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 set aside 10 acres for a future elementary school and an adjoining 5-acre park. This project will provide for the extension of O’Hara Avenue and Grant Street creating an additional north-south and east-west link for the community. Staff recommends 30 points.

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. Staff recommends 5 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 proposed project would provide for roughly 60 jobs for teachers, administrators, maintenance workers, etc. to help staff the new elementary school. Staff recommends 20 points.

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 east, west and south sides by existing large lot homes and smaller lot subdivision homes. There is also an approved subdivision that has not be built located along the northern property line. The project site meets the criterion for a site to be considered an in-fill. Staff recommends 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 proposed project would result in a loss of approximately 135 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)

The applicant proposes homes that would be of high quality design, utilizing the skills of one of the State’s leading architectural design firms and provide attractive contemporary exterior elevations and use quality building materials. However, those are standard provisions for subdivisions. Staff recommends 0 points, however the maximum 20 points could be earned if the applicant would agree to realign Anderson Lane, extend Grant Street, provide additional land for the School District, and provide additional trail access.

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 project would help extend infrastructure to an undeveloped area of the City and help implement the City’s Circulation Plan by making improvements to O’Hara Avenue and Grant Street. However, the project is not located in an area, which has been particularly prioritized for development or redevelopment. The project will add traffic to existing collector roadways but would provide alternative routes. Based on this review, Staff recommends 5 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.

Rating Criterion & Maximum Points Available Project
Braddock & Logan
1. Affordable / Special Housing Needs – 50 20
2. Amenities and Infrastructure – 30 30
3. Housing Rehabilitation – 20 0
4. Energy Efficiency – 20 5
5. Job Generation – 40 20
6. Infill Development – 20 20
7. Agricultural Enterprise – 15 0
8. Design Quality – 20 0
9. Development Priority – 15 5
10. Ongoing Project –10 0
TOTAL 100

STATUS OF RGMP ALLOCATED UNITS


2001 FY 2002 FY
__________________________ __________________________
Braddock and Logan 36 Braddock and Logan 11
DeNova Homes 53 Terra Nova Dev. 48
Signature Homes 30
ANNUAL TOTAL----------------89
SUBTOTAL 89
Pinn Brothers 250 Braddock and Logan 191

SUBTOTAL 441

ANNUAL TOTAL---------------530

2003 FY 2004 FY
__________________________ __________________________
Signature Homes 80 Signature Homes 67

SUBTOTAL 80 SUBTOTAL 67

Pinn Brothers 133 Pinn Brother 137
Braddock and Logan 120
SUBTOTAL 137
SUBTOTAL 253
ANNUAL TOTAL----------------204
ANNUAL TOTAL----------------333
 


2005 FY 2006 FY
__________________________ __________________________
Pinn Brothers 60

SUBTOTAL 60

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