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

 

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 17

Meeting Date: March 9, 2004

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: Consideration of Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) allocations for the Vineyards at Marsh Creek project located south of Brentwood in Special Planning Area (SPA) J.

Submitted by: Community Development Department (Oshinsky/Zilm)

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
The Council’s Housing /RGMP Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution granting an allocation for 725 allotments to The Vineyards at Marsh Creek.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The RGMP Committee met on February 19, 2004 to consider this allocation request and formulated the above recommendation to the City Council.

BACKGROUND
This represents the eighth cycle for the RGMP since it became effective on July 1, 2001. The Vineyards at Marsh Creek is one of three RGMP allocation applications for this cycle submitted by the November 30th deadline. The other two RGMP projects (Western Pacific Housing for 113 allotments and DeNova Homes for 548 allotments) will be presented to the Council at a later date, because of issues that have not been fully worked out between the City and the applicant. Attached to this report is a chart showing the status of the previously approved and proposed future RGMP allotments. The RGMP submittal is as follows:

• A multi-year 1450-unit allocation with a 5-year anticipated build-out period (2004 – 2008) as follows: 228 allotments in 03/04, 300 allotments in 04/05, 300 allotments in 05/06, 300 allotments in 06/07 and 322 allotments in 07/08. The entire project will produce 1754 allotments, however 304 of those allotments are for affordable housing and are exempt from the RGMP allotment.

If this project was a typical non-age restricted development the above mentioned allotments per year would be correctly reflected. However, this is an Active Adult development and age restricted units are allotted at a 2 to 1 ratio, based upon the reasoning that the City’s Development Fee Program has determined that Active Adult units have approximately a 60% impact on citywide roadways and utilities as compared to unrestricted single family units. Based upon this rational the RGMP submittal would be as follows:

• The applicant is requesting a multi-year 725-unit allocation with a 5-year anticipated buildout (2004-2008) as follows: 114 allotments in 03/04, 150 allotments in 04/05, 150 allotments in 05/06, 150 allotments in 06/07 and 161 allotments in 07/08.8

This application was rated by the RGMP Sub-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 reviewed the applications and provided a recommendation to the RGMP Sub-Committee, which met on February 19, 2004 (a copy of Staff's memo to the Committee with a detailed evaluation is attached).

The General Plan policy for this area states that development shall occur in a compact urban form in order to encourage pedestrian and transit use with close proximity of housing to jobs, shopping and community facilities such as schools, parks, and day care centers. Residential development shall provide a range of densities and housing types from apartments to entry level affordable ownership units to large executive homes. Commercial and professional office facilities in this SPA shall be developed to meet the daily service needs of the residents and business parks shall be developed in an attempt to bring the City’s overall Jobs/Housing balance ratio to 1.5 jobs per household.

Development within the planning area shall comply with the applicable community design goals and policies in the General Plan with specific emphasis given to the following:

• Attain a Jobs/Housing balance at a minimum of 2.0 jobs per household within the SPA.

• Locate employment generating uses adjacent to the Highway 4 Bypass planned interchanges at Marsh Creek Road and Walnut Boulevard.

• Phase development to correspond to the availability of public services and facilities.

• Permanently protect City designated open space areas identified within the SPA through irrevocable conservation easements and plan these areas for recreational uses, agricultural uses and wildlife habitats for protected species.

The suggested land use breakdown with density for the area inside the Urban Limit Line (ULL), as stated in the General Plan, is as follows:

• Ranchette Estate Residential (RE, 0 – 1 du/ac, midrange .5 du/ac) – roughly 35 acres (0 – 35 du, midrange 17.5 du)
• Very Low Density Residential (VL, 1 – 3 du/ac, midrange 2 du/ac) – roughly 209 acres (209 – 627 du, midrange 418 du)
• Low Density Residential (L, 1 – 5 du/ac, midrange 3 du/ac) – roughly 101 acres (101 – 505 du, midrange 303 du)
• Business Park (BP) – roughly 41 acres
• Urban Reserve (UR) – roughly 95 acres

Development of the entire 5,500 acres in SPA “J” would have allowed for roughly 3000 nits requiring roughly 7,400 jobs. Since the UL has been pulled in, the size and scope of the residential and commercial developments in SPA J has been significantly reduced, and a General Plan Amendment is necessary to reconcile this matter.

The project was awarded 149 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, and design quality.

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact to the City would be positive. This development would help to reach the buildout population of the General Plan and increase the overall economical viability of the City. This development will provide for a winery site helping to increase the economical viability of the local agricultural suppliers. The winery will provide employment for seasonal and full-time workers and administration. The on-site facilities will also provide employment for regular and event-oriented staff, as well as require the goods and services of local suppliers.

This development will provide a site for cultural, social and entertainment events for the community. When the nearby college becomes operational, it is hoped the winery and college might jointly develop a vinticultural/culinary curriculum. The vineyards and winery operation represents not only a cultural amenity in the community, but also an appropriate, credible link to the agricultural heritage of the City of Brentwood.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
2. Memorandum from Staff to the RGMP Committee dated February 19, 2004.
3. Table showing Status of RGMP Allocated Units
4. Design Booklet
5. Full Size Map and Plan Sets

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD FOR AN ALLOCATION OF 725 ALLOTMENTS, OVER A 5 FISCAL YEAR PERIOD, TO THE VINEYARDS AT MARSH CREEK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (RGMP) FOR THE CYCLE ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2003.

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 The Vineyards at Marsh Creek, for 725 allotments on November 24, 2003; 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 19, 2004, 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 149 points; and

WHEREAS, the deals points agreed to which helped the applicant achieve the 149 point total, will be addressed in the Development Agreement between the City of Brentwood and the applicant; 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 March 9, 2004, 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 The Vineyards at Marsh Creek, has achieved 149 total points or 49 points over the minimum required total of 100 points and grants the requested allocation of 725 dwelling units in accordance with its application.

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 March 9, 2004, by the following vote:

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 19, 2004

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

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

SUBJECT: Evaluation of the Vineyards at Marsh Creek RGMP Application - Cycle Ending
November 30, 2003

Background

This represents the eighth cycle for the RGMP since it became effective on July 1, 2001. The Vineyards at Marsh Creek is one of three RGMP allocation applications for this cycle submitted by the November 30th deadline. The other two RGMP projects (Western Pacific Housing for 113 units and DeNova Homes for 548 units) will be presented later. Attached to this report is a chart showing the status of the previously approved and proposed future RGMP allotments.

The proposed project is located southwest of existing Concord Avenue and northeast of Marsh Creek Road..

The suggested land use breakdown with density, as stated in the General Plan, is as follows:

• Ranchette Estate Residential (RE, 0 – 1 du/ac, midrange .5 du/ac) – roughly 35 acres (0 – 35 du, midrange 17.5 du)
• Very Low Density Residential (VL, 1 – 3 du/ac, midrange 2 du/ac) – roughly 209 acres (209 – 627 du, midrange 418 du)
• Low Density Residential (L, 1 – 5 du/ac, midrange 3 du/ac) – roughly 101 acres (101 – 505 du, midrange 303 du)
• Business Park (BP) – roughly 41 acres
• Urban Reserve (UR) – roughly 95 acres

The applicant is requesting a multi-year 1223-unit allocation with a 5-year anticipated build-out period (2004 – 2008) as follows: 228 dwellings in 03/04, 300 dwellings in 04/05, 300 dwellings in 05/06, 300 dwellings in 06/07 and 95 dwellings in 07/08. The entire project will produce 1527 units however 304 of those units are for affordable housing and would not count towards the RGMP allotment.

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 Active Adult single family, Senior apartments, Executive single family residential, Multi-family apartments and a mix of Congregate Care/ Assisted Living facilities. The affordability requirement is a minimum of 10% for low or very low income households however the applicant will be entering into an Infrastructure Funding District which requires that 20% of the project be built with moderate, low and very low affordable housing. The applicant is building or dedicating the land to the City to construct 304 affordable units thereby meeting this goal of 20%. Staff recommends 50 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 project provides for a number of amenities such as the Winery and Amphitheater, the Village Center with a central Village Green Park, Wine and Roses B&B site, the Affordable housing and executive housing sites, roughly 3.5 miles of new roadways, new water and storm water and park facilities. An Active Adult Recreation Center will be constructed for the use of the Active Adult residents only. Staff recommends 25 points. If the Active Adult Recreation Center was to be made available to all of the Executive single family residents then staff would consider giving the applicant the maximum 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)

Staff recommends 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 they would be undersizing the streets to help minimize the amount of paved area within the project and the roofs for the project are proposed to be light terracotta tones. The landscaping plans and plant lists include shade trees for streets, parks, and individual lots. The tree plantings have been spaced to create as much shade as possible while allowing optimal canopy development for each tree. The plant list for the individual lots include deciduous trees and vines for trellises and walls that are used to shade south facing glazing. Trees have been selected on the basis of their drought tolerance and adaptability to local conditions. Staff recommends 9 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 610 full time jobs between the Village Center Commercial and Residential uses, the Recreation Center and Winery. Staff recommends 30 points. If the project is phased to so that the Village Center Commercial uses are built along with the residential units staff would consider giving the applicant the maximum 40 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 northeast side only by the existing Summerset development. The project site does not meet the criterion for a site to be considered an in-fill. Staff recommends 0 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 317 acres of productive (Class 1 and Class 4) agricultural land within the City. The proposed project would create approximately 90 acres of vineyards and olive groves as part of the Winery construction. The vineyards would extend into the public right-of-ways and common spaces between the residential areas. This would still result in a net loss of 227 acres of prime agricultural soil. Staff recommends 5 points. If the applicant pays the Agricultural Mitigation Fee on the remaining acreage staff would consider give the full 15 points.

8. Does the project demonstrate high quality, innovative design and product type, demonstrate maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use, and reflect progressive planning principles such as Smart Growth, Neotraditional design, and/or the Ahwanee Principles; and has the developer exhibited a high level of past performance in the quality of their development projects? (20 points possible)

The entire project is linked via a network of multi-purpose paths and trails including sidewalks, golf cart paths, paths for jogging or hiking and enhanced narrower streetscapes. The network has been viewed in the larger context of surrounding development to provide great linkage within the Vineyards at Marsh Creek, but also to surrounding developments including Summerset, Deer Ridge and Shawdow Lakes. The developer has been involved in the past building quality homes as is evident in their Summerset Project. Staff recommends 20 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)

The project would help extend infrastructure to an undeveloped area of the City and help implement the City’s Circulation Plan by extending Fairview Avenue. 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 10 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 0 points.

Rating Criterion & Maximum Points Available Project
The Vineyards
1. Affordable / Special Housing Needs – 50 50
2. Amenities and Infrastructure – 30 25
3. Housing Rehabilitation – 20 0
4. Energy Efficiency – 20 9
5. Job Generation – 40 30
6. Infill Development – 20 0
7. Agricultural Enterprise – 15 5
8. Design Quality – 20 20
9. Development Priority – 15 10
10. Ongoing Project –10 0
TOTAL 149

STATUS OF RGMP ALLOCATED UNITS

2001/02 FY 2002/03 FY
Braddock and Logan 36 Braddock and Logan 11

DeNova Homes 53 Terra Nova Dev. 48
Signature Homes 30
APPROVED TOTAL---------89
Pinn Brothers 250
Braddock and Logan 191

APPROVED TOTAL-------530

2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY
Signature Homes 80 Signature Homes 67

Pinn Brothers 133 Pinn Brothers 137

Braddock and Logan 120 APPROVED TOTAL-------204

APPROVED TOTAL--------333 VMC 150
VMC 114 DeNova 201
DeNova 146 WPH 56

WPH 57 Potential Total 611

Potential Total 650

2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY
Pinn Brothers 60 VMC 150

APPROVED TOTAL---------60

VMC 150 2007/08 FY
VMC 161
DeNova 201

Potential Total 411

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