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. 14

Meeting Date: October 12, 2004

Subject/Title: Approve a Resolution Adopting the 2004 Revision to the Residential Growth Management Program and Dissolving the RGMP Council Subcommittee

Submitted By: John Stevenson, City Manager
______________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution adopting the 2004 Revision of the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), directing staff to begin processing all unallocated projects through this updated program, and dissolving the RGMP Council Subcommittee.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On February 13, 2001, the City Council directed the City Council Housing Subcommittee and staff to move forward with preparation of the RGMP.

On June 27, 2001, the City Council Housing Subcommittee and staff recommended and the Council adopted the RGMP through Resolution No. 2326.

On September 14, 2004, the City Council asked staff to amend the proposed 2004 RGMP to address Council concerns.

BACKGROUND
At the July 13, 2004 Council meeting, during discussion regarding the RGMP allocations for DeNova Homes, Councilmember Gutierrez commented that most of the allocations had been given for this year, and that she didn’t want to see any more applications before the Council until the program was revised to slow growth.

Staff was already well into the rewrite at that time and had been testing this revised program to make sure it will accomplish the intent of the Council. Staff understands Council’s intent of this revision to be:

1. Slow residential growth to a manageable and sustainable level over the next 15-20 years.
2. Control building permit activity as well as Tentative Map lot allocations.
3. Improve the scoring criteria to remove subjectivity, thereby allowing staff to score the projects, and removing the necessity for a Council Subcommittee review.
4. Elevate the quality of Brentwood residential developments.

This rewrite accomplishes all of these goals. It also sets up an annual review of the numeric goals by the Council and establishes a process by which the staff can annually make recommendations to improve the program.

In addition, this 2004 RGMP addresses the concerns voiced by the Council at the September 14th Council meeting; most notably, a concern by the Council that this program made development of small subdivisions (5 -20 lots) uneconomical and unable to compete with the larger 100-plus lot subdivisions.

Staff tested this theory by first analyzing the costs associated with the development of small, medium, and large subdivisions as listed in Exhibit “A”. Cost estimates were provided by the developers’ engineers to eliminate any City-introduced errors. Interestingly, the small subdivisions were the least costly to develop, followed by the large subdivisions. The most expensive subdivisions were the medium-sized ones (50-60 lots) because they typically have to put in substantial infrastructure and they don’t have the lots to spread the cost over the way the larger ones do.

Staff then scored two small subdivisions – a 9-lot subdivision and a 12-lot subdivision. Scoring these two projects proved difficult for staff, since they aren’t accustomed to thinking in terms of small infrastructure, but both projects exceeded the RGMP threshold score with the same ease/difficulty that larger projects did. This was an excellent and valuable test to run, since it eliminated the need in the program for an exemption for small projects (5-16 lots). This testing also afforded staff additional opportunities to fine-tune the system, which proved valuable.

Staff has also included the first annual recommendation from senior staff regarding allocations for calendar year 2005. That recommendation is for Alternate “B” or 433 units available for allocation. Senior staff’s reasoning can be found in Exhibit “B”.

FISCAL IMPACT
The program calls for 100% cost recovery for processing RGMP allocations, therefore there should be no negative fiscal impact. There should be a positive financial impact by way of increasing property values due to elevated development requirements. There should also be a substantial positive financial impact on the City of from $1-3 million per year if the annual allocations are set at a number that requires the development community to compete for allocations.

Attachments:
Resolution
Exhibit “A” – Average Construction Cost per Lot
Exhibit “B” – First Annual RGMP Allocation Recommendation
2004 RGMP

RESOLUTION NO.


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE 2004 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING STAFF TO BEGIN PROCESSING ALL UNALLOCATED PROJECTS THROUGH THIS UPDATED PROGRAM, AND DISSOLVING THE RGMP COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE


WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the original RGMP through adoption of Resolution 2326 on June 27, 2001; and

WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), is to moderate the effects of growth, and synchronize residential growth with infrastructure, and municipal and public safety services, and total population available under the City’s General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the RGMP is one of the growth management techniques contained in the General Plan Update, which is intended to help achieve the above stated purpose and intent; and

WHEREAS, The RGMP Annual Allocation of housing units which may be granted each fiscal year will be consistent with the annual number of dwelling units necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare by maintaining the small town character and quality of life of Brentwood, and its open spaces and generally low density of population, and to help ensure growth at an orderly, well planned and deliberate pace; and

WHEREAS, the RGMP is also intended to ensure the adequate provision of vital life safety public services including fire and paramedic protection per the “Fire Protection Services for the City of Brentwood Strategy for the Future” report dated December 1998; and

WHEREAS, overly rapid growth adversely impacts public resources, services and facilities, such as parks, open space, police and fire service, roads and utilities; and

WHEREAS, adoption of the RGMP is determined to be covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In this case, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), in that the RGMP will only serve to advance prudent growth controls and management, and promote better forms of development; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP establishes an annual review of the program just like the CIP, Development Fee Program and Budget; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP sets up a staff RGMP Evaluation Committee which is a five-member team consisting of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Parks and Recreation Director, Police Chief, and Assistant City Manager or their designees as approved by the City Manager, which will make recommendations to the Council in January of each year on the proposed number of annual allocations; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP controls the release of both Tentative Map allocations and building permit releases; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP raises the bar for development in Brentwood by requiring a higher score and stricter scoring such that developers will have to stretch a little further to reach the threshold; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP sets up competition between developers for the right to develop which will further raise the bar; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP accomplishes the Council’s direction to staff of slowing residential growth, removing subjectivity from the scoring system to the maximum extent possible, and removing the need for Council Subcommittee review prior to consideration by the entire Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby adopts the 2004 Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), and directs staff to begin processing all unallocated projects through his updated program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RGMP Council Subcommittee is hereby dissolved.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of October 2004, by the following vote:

Exhibit “A”

Average Construction Cost per Lot

Small Projects listed projects do not include frontage or off-site improvements
# of Construction Cost
Project # Lots Grading Improvements Total Cost/Lot
8722 14 $ 17,056.60 $ 328,682.20 $ 345,738.80 $ 24,695.63
8180 15 $ 35,695.00 $ 353,567.26 $ 389,262.26 $ 25,950.82
7865 16 $ 15,290.00 $ 175,178.30 $ 190,468.30 $ 11,904.27
8608 9 $ 22,085.80 $ 255,568.00 $ 277,653.80 $ 30,850.42
Average Cost/Lot Small Projects $ 23,350.28

Medium Projects listed projects include frontage & off-site improvements
# of Construction Cost
Project # Lots Grading Improvements Total Cost/Lot
8408 55 $ 114,718.00 $ 3,047,868.59 $ 3,162,586.59 $ 57,501.57
8421 54 $ 243,482.80 $ 1,995,075.21 $ 2,238,558.01 $ 41,454.78
8352 60 $ 293,370.00 $ 2,010,899.00 $ 2,304,269.00 $ 38,404.48
8661 45 $ 138,083.00 $ 2,046,687.01 $ 2,184,770.01 $ 48,550.44
Average Cost/Lot Medium Projects $ 46,477.82


Large Projects listed projects include frontage & off-site improvements
# of Construction Cost
Project # Lots Grading Improvements Total Cost/Lot
8469 137 $ 406,010.00 $ 5,269,467.89 $ 5,675,477.89 $ 41,426.85
8424 252 $ 820,000.00 $ 7,715,000.00 $ 8,535,000.00 $ 33,869.05
8416 133 $ 271,000.00 $ 3,035,000.00 $ 3,306,000.00 $ 24,857.14
8413 113 $ 220,000.00 $ 3,734,000.00 $ 3,954,000.00 $ 34,991.15
Average Cost/Lot Large Projects $ 33,786.05

Exhibit “B”

First Annual
RGMP Allocation Recommendation

Presented by: RGMP Allocation Recommendation Committee:
Pamela Ehler / Howard Sword / Bailey Grewal

Date: October 12, 2004

This first annual RGMP Allocation report and recommendation is intended to meet the minimum number of units necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare, maintain the small-town character and quality of life Brentwood is known for, and in particular, this first annual recommendation is intended to slow the current rapid growth rate and firmly establish a competition for the available allocations.

As of the writing of this report, there are approximately 342 RGMP allocations being processed. Allocations are recommended to be granted in February and August with 50% proposed for each allocation period. In order to assure a healthy and spirited competition, the first allocation period in February should not provide all of the allocations requested, and should clearly set up further competition for the August period. Staff has just become aware of an additional application being prepared for submittal, which will increase the lot applications being processed to approximately 478.

The RGMP Allocation Recommendation Committee recommends an initial allocation for 2005 of 433 lots, which is Alternate “B”. This allocation volume will not only set up a spirited competition for allocations in February, but also assure the same in August. Previous entitlements will assure far more than the 450 building permits in 2005 necessary for bond repayment schedules. The Committee is concerned, however, that allocating fewer units than Alternate “B” may depress the commercial development momentum in the City and be counter-productive to the program rather than helpful.

We do not have any recommended revisions or updates at this time to the program, but may return to Council at the first meeting in January with possible updates, or fine-tuning in order to continually improve and perfect the program.

Recommended by the RGMP Allocation Committee:

___________________________________ ______________
Pamela Ehler Date
____________________________________ ______________
Howard Sword Date
____________________________________ ______________
Bailey Grewal Date

Proposed 2004 Revised
Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP)

Table of Contents

Section Page

Purpose/Intent 2

Applicability 2

Exemptions 2

Prohibition of Allocation Transfer to Another Parcel 4

Subdivision Agreements, Conditions of Approval and Phasing Plans 4

Voided or Unused Allocations 4

Minimum Threshold Score 4

RGMP Process 5

Unused Fee Credits 8

Allocation Evaluation Criteria 8

RGMP Annual Allocation Schedule 15

Filing for Discretionary Permits 16

Appeal Process 16

Appendices:
1. Alternate “A,” “B,” and “C” 18
2. Universal Application Form 21
3. Construction Unit Costs 25
4. RGMP Score Sheet 28
5. Applicant’s Guide 31
6. Enabling Legislation: 32
7. Staff Report 37
8. Resolution 39
Exhibit “A” – Average Construction Cost per Lot 41
Exhibit “B” – First Annual RGMP Allocation Recommendation 42

2004 Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP)


PURPOSE/INTENT:

The purpose and intent of the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) is to maintain a consistent and sustainable rate of growth over the next 15 to 20 years. Additionally, the intent is to better synchronize growth with public infrastructure and facilities. Specifically this program controls and meters the allocation of Tentative Map lots, and then places controls on the phasing and timing of construction of those lots. The City Council updated the City’s General Plan Land Use, Growth Management and Circulation Elements in 2001. The 1993 General Plan provided for a population of over 95,000 at buildout. The 2001 General Plan reduced the buildout population to approximately 75,000. This reduction was considered in conjunction with certain growth management techniques to determine the amount, type and rate of development desired by the community. The RGMP is one of those Growth Management techniques approved by the City Council to control the City’s growth rate. This 2004 Revision refines that system to make it work better for the City in that it introduces controls that were missing in the first edition, and makes it more customer friendly.

APPLICABILITY:

The RGMP applies to all non-exempt residential development in the City, including subdivision maps. No residential development, other than that exempted below, shall be undertaken, and no building permits shall be accepted for processing or issued, unless the development has been approved in accordance with the RGMP, and has received an allocation in accordance with the RGMP. This RGMP is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, require the City Council or any advisory body acting under authority of the Council to grant, or recommend the granting of, any allocations available in any given year or any allocations at all. The City Council reserves its right to withhold any or all of the allocations that may be available in a given year if it finds that doing so would promote the intent of this Program, provide for the public health and safety, provide for the more orderly development of the City, or otherwise promote the public interest.

EXEMPTIONS: (units not counted in annual allocation)

The following are exempt from the Allocation Process, and will not be subtracted from the total dwelling unit allocation available, unless otherwise indicated:

1. Affordable housing units covered under the City’s affordable housing program.

2. Projects that have an approved Tentative or Final Map, Building Permit, development agreement, other City entitlement, or are in the Garin Ranch Specific Plan area south of Chestnut Street, prior to the date of adoption of this update of the RGMP.

3. Replacement housing on a one for one basis (i.e., one unit replaced for each legally existing unit destroyed or demolished) or modifications to existing properties that do not increase the net number of dwelling units. These units will NOT be deducted from the Annual Allocation Schedule because no additional units are being created.
4. Residential care facilities with units that are non-self-sufficient units; that is, they do not include kitchen facilities. (If a project includes both self-sufficient and non-self-sufficient units, only the latter are exempt. Non-self-sufficient residential care units will NOT be deducted from the Annual Allocation Schedule because they do not have the same demands on the public infrastructure as a typical dwelling unit.)

5. Density Bonus Units - If a residential development receives an Annual Allocation and all other City entitlements to develop, and that development, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915, is subject to a State or City mandate that the City provide the developer a density bonus, the bonus units over and above the permitted mid-range density will NOT be deducted from the Annual Allocation Schedule.

EXEMPTIONS AND PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS: (units counted in annual allocation)

The following are exempt from the Allocation Process, or partially exempt, but will be subtracted from the total dwelling unit allocation available prior to Council evaluation of allocations, unless otherwise indicated:

1. Parcel Maps for up to four units. (Exempt)

2. Development of up to four new dwelling units on an existing residential lot of record. (Exempt)

3. A residential Second Unit (as defined by State law) on an existing residential lot, subject to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. (Exempt)

4. Projects that were originally submitted prior to January 1, 2004, or projects that have processed through the old RGMP to the point of being reviewed by the Council RGMP Subcommittee, or projects that have their land development (Tentative Map) application deemed complete prior to the Council consideration of the 2004 RGMP (9/14/04) are exempt from the part of this new RGMP program that restricts Council action to the second regularly scheduled meeting in February or August only. Those projects, if analyzed by staff to have sufficient points under this new program, may be forwarded to the full Council under the new program at the first available regularly scheduled Council meeting. (Partially exempt)

5. Projects that have filed a complete Vesting Tentative Map application prior to the date of this 2004 RGMP is submitted to the Council for consideration will be subject to the previous RGMP. Scoring will be by the RGMP Staff Evaluation Committee, then forwarded to the full Council for possible allocation at the first available Council meeting. (Partially exempt)

6. Each multi-family unit counts as .7177 single family unit.

7. Each active adult unit counts as .6039 single family unit.

PROHIBITION OF ALLOCATION TRANSFER TO ANOTHER PARCEL:

Allocations are made based on a specific development at a given site; allocations cannot be moved to another site. However, allocations can be transferred to another owner at that given site. Allocations run with the specific project approved for allocation.

SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PHASING PLANS:

Any proposed residential development consisting of 50 units or more must incorporate language in the Subdivision Agreement, and Conditions of Approval, that stipulates exactly how many building permits may be pulled in any one calendar year. The project must also be accompanied by a Phasing Agreement which will depict the location of the phases and sequencing of the phases. No more than 100 building permits may be pulled in any one year by any one project. Building permits not pulled in one year may be rolled over to subsequent years. Borrowing of building permits from future years is not allowed.

VOIDED OR UNUSED ALLOCATIONS:

If the City does not ultimately approve the proposed project, its allocation(s) shall be deemed voided. Council may choose whether or not to reallocate them, except as otherwise may be provided by a Development Agreement.

MINIMUM THRESHOLD SCORE:

The minimum threshold score required to award an allocation in February of 2005 is 120 points. As the program develops and matures over the years, this minimum threshold score will increase to at least 140 points. The schedule for this evolution is as follows:

Minimum Threshold Score
2005 February 120
August 125
2006 February 130
August 135
2007 February 140
August 140

The Finance Director, Community Development Director and City Engineer may make proposed revisions in the minimum threshold score along with other program changes at the first meeting in January of each year. In addition, the Council may choose to increase the minimum threshold score required to award allocations at any semi-annual allocation meeting in order to meet the needs of the community. It is the intent of this program to establish a spirited competition for allocations which will result in developers offering amenities to the community in order to increase their score and thereby secure allocations.

RGMP PROCESS:

Applications for dwelling unit allocations will be accepted, and allocations made on a calendar year basis. No entitlement applications (including Tentative Map Applications) may be submitted or accepted by the City until the Council awards the project an allocation under this program. The City Council may award none, or any portion of the annual allocation available at the second regularly scheduled meeting in February, and up to the remainder of the annual allocation at the second regularly scheduled meeting in August. The intent is to award full projects, not cut them in half. Following review by the Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee, projects will be listed in descending order by numeric score for Council consideration and award of any allocations. Borrowing from future allocations is acceptable; however, borrowing is limited to only that required to include an entire project. Any borrowing of allocation lots from future allocation periods shall be subtracted from those future available allocations.

Allocation Borrowing:

1. The target allocation goal for each 6-month period is 50% of the annual allocation.
2. Borrowing may occur if the project that triggers borrowing has a score within 5 points of the project above it on the list that did get an allocation, and if the project triggering the allocation has a score at least 10 points above the minimum threshold score for receiving an allocation.
3. Borrowing may occur if a majority of the Council feels that the project triggering the need for borrowing is of community-wide importance and has a score higher than the minimum threshold score for award of an allocation, whether the project complies with item #2 above or not; however, it would be staff’s recommendation to follow the criteria of Item #2.

Example of Borrowing:

If at the second meeting in February, the annual allocation for that year is set at 450 units, then the 50% target of 225 allocations is set for that meeting. The projects being considered are listed numerically in order, highest-scoring projects on top and lowest-scoring projects on the bottom.

Subdivision # of Lots Point Score
Sub. J 74 147
Sub. D 107 141
Sub. Q 145 129
Sub. B 82 118
Sub. Z 229 112
Sub. L 62 93

Assuming the Council wishes to proceed with allocations for this 6-month period, Subdivisions “J” and “D” would get allocations. That would mean a total of 181 lots had been allocated. The Council could stop there and roll the remaining 44 allocations over to the next 6-month period (August), or go ahead and award Subdivision “Q” its 145 allocations, which would reduce the number of allocations available in August from 225 to 124.

The decision should be made based on the quality of the subdivision (score). If the score is within 5 points of the project above it (in this case it isn’t) which was awarded allocations, and it is at least 10 points above the minimum threshold line (in this case it isn’t) for awarding allocations, then the borrowing is authorized by the program. If the project does not meet these two litmus tests, the Council may still award the allocations; however, the presumption will be that the allocations will roll over for award in August unless in the opinion of a majority of the Council the project is of community-wide importance and has more than the required minimum score.

RGMP applications will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation process described below. Application materials that must be filed are specified in the RGMP Submittal List. The applicant shall also submit the fee specified in the Planning Division’s fee schedule for RGMP Applications, and shall provide for 100% cost recovery for the City’s review of the application.

1. Planning Division staff will evaluate for completeness each Allocation application that has been filed.
2. The staff planner along with the City staff Development Engineer will then review each application with the Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee.
3. The Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee and the staff Planner and Engineer, with cost estimating assistance from the Developer’s engineer, will score the project.
4. The Staff Planner will review the score with the developer and make possible suggestions or changes that might be made to the development to increase the score. All changes to the project are the responsibility of the developer, not City staff. Staff’s comments are intended as help only to enhance the score of the project, and elevate the project’s value to the community.
5. The developer may add elements to the intended development and have the project rescored until the deadline dates of December 1st and/or June 1st, prior to being presented to the City Council for award of allocations by the City Council. Additional processing fees may be necessary in order to continue processing for an extended period, or for more than two changes.
6. Staff will post current projects and scoring in the lobby of the Community Development Department. All scores are final on December 15th and May 15th to allow time for developers to prepare appeals if appropriate. Projects may NOT be changed during the appeal process. An appeal will not be evaluated by either the staff or Council for a project that has been revised or changed after December 1st or June 1st, and will automatically be evaluated for the following evaluation period.
7. All projects being submitted to the Council for allocation must have their RGMP account paid in full by the end of the business day on the Friday preceding the Council Evaluation meeting. It is the developer’s responsibility to make sure the account is paid in full. Projects that have unpaid balances will not be forwarded to Council for allocations.
8. The Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee and Staff Planner will then forward the application and score to the City Council at the second regularly scheduled meeting in February and/or August listed in descending point scoring order. Highest scoring projects on the top of the list, and lowest scoring projects on the bottom. A line will be drawn at the minimum threshold score. No project with a score less than the minimum threshold score will be presented to the City Council for award of an allocation by the Council, but will be depicted as a project that is processing but not yet eligible.
9. The City Council will evaluate the list of applications, and if it is the desire of the Council to approve allocations for the period in question, shall award allocations to projects receiving the highest scores first, working down the list numerically to lower scored projects until the desired number of semi-annual allocations has been awarded or the list is exhausted, or the Council chooses to stop at that point for any reason. It is the intent of this program to further meter annual allocations to 50% ± at the February Council meeting and 50% at the August Council meeting, or reasonably close percentages based on project size in order to include entire projects. Borrowing from future allocations is allowed to include a whole project which is on the line. Smaller, lower scoring projects will not be taken ahead of larger higher scoring projects in order to come close to 50%. No more than the Council-allowed annual allocation of residential units may be approved for allocation in any calendar year (except to include an entire project and then future allocations must be reduced accordingly), and no more than 100 building permits may be pulled by any development under this 2004 RGMP in any one calendar year which will be specified in the subdivision agreement and conditions of approval. Each proposed development must have a detailed accounting of how many building permits will be pulled in any particular calendar year as a part of the project’s subdivision agreement, and conditions of approval. This requirement is intended to incorporate the phasing plan and 100 units/year cap on building permit activity into these documents.
10. There will be a 2-week minimum turnaround for re-evaluating RGMP scoring when a developer alters a project.
11. The deadline for alterations to projects being processed in order to have the revisions considered at the next Council allocation consideration is December 1st for the February allocation and June 1st for the August allocation meeting.
12. Revisions submitted after the deadline will be considered at the next available meeting. Example: Revisions to projects submitted after December 1, 2004 will be considered at the August 2005 meeting, not the February 2005 meeting.
13. Projects that are unaltered, and not amended for two consecutive Council allocation meetings will have their application automatically expire at the conclusion of the 2nd Council consideration meeting.
14. All scores to be evaluated by Council are final at the end of the first Council meeting in February and August. Project scoring will not take place at the allocation award meetings.

The Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee is a 5-member committee that will be comprised of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Parks and Recreation Director, Police Chief, and Assistant City Manager or their designees as approved by the City Manager. The staff RGMP Evaluation Committee has the authority to interpret the intent of this document in order to score projects as accurately as possible to facilitate Council’s decisions.

The City Council will evaluate the Allocation applications at the specified Council meetings and make its decision regarding how far down the list to grant allocations.

Projects receiving scores of less than the minimum threshold score may continue to work with the Staff Planner, staff engineer and RGMP Evaluation Committee on ways to elevate their score in order to be reconsidered at the next Council allocation period.


UNUSED FEE CREDITS

If excess fee credits are carried by the developer from construction of a previous project by the developer, all or part of the excess fee credits may be utilized to satisfy all or part of the reimbursable and/or non-reimbursable portion of the infrastructure category to qualify for points. In the event that excess fee credits remain unused following the above application, they may be applied as non-reimbursable amenities and scored for points as such. Any fee credits utilized for points in these manners shall be considered paid in full by the City.


ALLOCATION EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The City staff and City Council shall evaluate each Allocation application against the following Allocation Evaluation Criteria, and rate each on a point basis, in order to determine whether to grant an Allocation. In the event that more units and/or projects are proposed than allocations available (which is the intent), the higher scored projects shall be awarded allocations over lower scored projects. Each project shall achieve a minimum threshold score to be considered by the Council to receive an allocation (initial threshold score is 120). Scoring is in accordance with the following criteria:

1. Affordable Housing: Does the project exceed the Affordable Housing Requirements?
25 points are available through the Affordable Housing program, and are available as follows:

a. 2.5 points for each percentage point above the affordable requirement in the Affordable Housing Ordinance or above the affordable requirement in Community Redevelopment Law (maximum of 15 points).
b. 2 points for each percentage point above the affordable requirement in the Affordable Housing Ordinance for existing residences in the City rehabilitated through the Affordable Housing Program (maximum of 10 points available).
c. 5 points for each additional percentage point above the affordable requirement in the Affordable Housing Ordinance for providing low income rental units dedicated to the City’s Affordable Rental Program (maximum of 15 points available).
d. 5 points if the very low income units are constructed as opposed to paying in-lieu fees (construction may be onsite or offsite). Dedicated units do not qualify under “d”.
e. 1 point for each $300 times the number of units in the subdivision spent on public improvements to the Village Drive, Davis Camp, or other areas as targeted by staff. These moneys do not include a project’s in-lieu fee.

2. Infrastructure: Does the project provide on-site and/or off-site (not abutting the subdivision boundary) Master Plan level infrastructure and/or improvements (other than standard [developer responsibility] requirements and improvements) in addition to required facilities, which are desirable for the City as a whole? (Up to 50 points). Off-site reimbursable items through the Development Fee Program and eligible for points need not be funded solely from Developer funds. Points are allocated at a rate of 1 point for each $350 construction cost times the number of residential units in the subdivision attributable to off-site public infrastructure constructed that is eligible for reimbursement through the City’s Development Fee Program (maximum of 40 points). 1 point for each $350 construction cost times the number of residential units in the subdivision attributable to onsite or public infrastructure constructed normally eligible for reimbursement for which the developer agrees not to be reimbursed (maximum of 10 points). Infrastructure is defined as Master Plan level roadways, wet and dry utilities, lighting, landscaping, irrigation, and parks or trails included in the Development Fee Program. An example for a reimbursable item eligible for points could be: additional park acreage over and above the 5-acre per 1,000 population benchmark that the developer agrees not to be reimbursed for. Land cost is included in the cost calculation for parks and trails if dedicated to the City.

3. Amenities: Does the project provide on-site and/or off-site amenities (non-reimbursable) over and above required facilities, which are desirable for the City as a whole? (Up to 25 points) Points are allocated at a rate of $350 construction cost times the number of residential units in the subdivision = 1 Point, or $400 financial contribution towards specific item. Acceptability of amenities for this category is at the discretion of the RGMP Evaluation Committee. Amenities eligible for points must be non-development fee creditable items. Cost of land is included in parks and trails eligible costs if dedicated to the City.

Examples of amenities include but are not limited to:
a. Upgrades to existing community facilities
b. Major sculptures or other artwork for the City Art in Public Places Program
c. Bicycle bridges
d. Adding trees, park benches and lighting creeks or trails
e. Adding lighted crosswalks or pedestrian signals at major roadway/trail crossings
f. Donation of upgraded technical equipment for maintenance of public facilities
g. Major contributions of books and/or technical hardware or software to the Brentwood Library or school districts
h. Construction of facilities for the community college
i. Major improvements in terms of Safe Routes to School
j. Major donations of equipment or technology to the Brentwood Police Department, Public Works Department or Information Systems Division
k. Restoration work at the John Marsh House
l. Traffic safety improvements (off-site)
m. Dedication of property for fire stations
n. Construction for the Village Community Resource Center
o. Bus turnouts and/or shelters where lacking throughout the City
p. Construction of non-fee creditable off-site traffic signals
q. Financial contributions toward construction of priority community buildings as specified by the Council, such as libraries, community centers or senior centers
r. Other

Note: This listing is included as food for thought only. It is far from complete, and is included to illustrate the breadth of areas and items available for points. Hot topics for inclusion in the list will evolve over time.

Think outside the box!

4. Energy Efficiency: Does the project incorporate energy efficient design, layout, landscaping, construction and materials of an active or passive nature, which exceed those otherwise required by Title 24 (as specifically detailed below)? (Up to 25 points total of both 4A and 4B together)

4A (14 point maximum) Subdivision Design

a. Solar Oriented Development: 7 points
Does the project maximize the number of East-West streets (oriented within 30 degrees of true east/west axis)? This will allow for a majority of “solar oriented” homes. The goal is to 1) minimize east- and west-facing window area, 2) maximize south-facing window area, and 3) ensure sufficient roof area with southerly exposure to accommodate passive and active solar systems. Solar orientation requirements vary with density as follows:
i. < 10 units/acre: 80% of the housing units must be solar oriented
ii. 10 – 25 units/acre: 65% of the housing units must be solar oriented
iii. > 25 units/acre: 50% of the housing units must be solar oriented

[Exemptions: steep slopes, existing streets or grading requirements, significant loss of units, physical constraints (e.g. streams), conflicts with other required design guidelines.]

b. High Albedo (Reflectivity) Paved Surfaces: 2 points
Does the project use light-colored surfacing with albedos (reflectivity) equal to or greater than 20 percent for streets, sidewalks, and driveways?

c. Minimize Street Pavement: 2 points
Does the project minimize paved area relative to standard practices? (i.e., narrowest streets that are safe, curb pop-outs to narrow the streets, assist in traffic calming and promote tree canopying of the streets)

d. Pavement Shading: 3 points
Does the project include a landscape plan to shade the paved street and non-street surfaces by greater than 50% within 15 years under such conditions as when the sun is directly vertical overhead of the paved surface.**

** The landscape plan must specify drought tolerant species for shading purposes noted above. The plan must also demonstrate that steps have been taken that ensure any plantings will receive adequate water until established.

4B (20 point maximum) Building Design

Note: Projects can only earn points for measures that were NOT used to achieve Title 24 compliance.

a. Whole Building Energy Use: 4 - 7 points

Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached Developments:

i. Do all the homes meet PG&E Comfort Home specifications, including field verification of installed measures by a certified HERS rater? 4 points
OR

ii. Do all the homes meet or exceed “PG&E Energy Star, Comfort Home” specifications and field verification requirements? 7 points
OR

For Multi-Family Developments:
i. Does the project exceed Title 24 minimum requirements by at least 15%? 7 points
b. Solar-ready Homes (Domestic Hot Water) 2 points
Are the homes “solar-ready” for solar water heaters? Do all homes include pre-plumbing for a solar hot water system and roofing which is engineered to support the system weight?
c. Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating 5 points
Do 25% of the homes include a solar hot water system which delivers 50% of the hot water energy needs?
d. Cool Roofs 1 point
Do all homes use high albedo (light-colored, highly reflective) roofing per the CEC “cool roof” requirements as specified in Title 24, Part 1 Section 10-113 (new section)?
e. Whole House Fans 7 points
Do all homes in the subdivision have whole house fans?

Non-Title 24 Related Features

a. Energy Star Outdoor Lighting 1 point
Are all outdoor lighting fixtures (affixed to the building) Energy Star labeled (porch lights, etc.)?
b. Solar Electricity (Photovoltaic) installation 5 points
Do 10% of the homes include a grid-connected photovoltaic system capable of delivering at least one (1) kW?
c. Energy Star Indoor Lighting 1 point

Are all the following interior lighting fixtures Energy Star labeled?
i. All kitchen lighting fixtures (except for up to two fixtures that are not general lighting as defined in the Residential Manual for Title 24) ;
ii. All bathrooms lighting fixtures (except for heat lamp fixtures, if any)
iii. At least one general lighting* fixture in each of the utility, laundry room, and garage; and
iv. Each bedroom shall be provided with at least one general lighting* fixture.

*General lighting must provide a sufficient light level for basic tasks and provide a uniform pattern of illumination. A luminaire that is the only lighting in a room will be considered general lighting. General lighting shall be controlled by a switch on a readily accessible lighting control panel at an entrance to the room. Excerpt from Title 24 Standards, Section 150 (k)

d. South Glazing Shading 1 point
Does the project include a landscape plan that demonstrates plantings to shade the south facing glazing with deciduous plants and trees?**
e. East and West Glazing Shading 2 points
Does the project include a landscape plan to shade the east and west facing glazing of houses?**

** The landscape plan must specify drought tolerant species for shading purposes noted above. The plan must also demonstrate that steps have been taken that ensure any plantings will receive adequate water until established.

5. Jobs: Does the project propose to develop or facilitate the development of job-generating land uses through the reservation of land and construction of public infrastructure to serve that job-generating land, or otherwise assist economic development, in conjunction with the development of dwelling units? (Up to 40 points) Reference to jobs is defined as FTE (full-time equivalent).
• 40 points if the project provides 1.5 jobs (non-construction) per home constructed
• 30 points if the project provides 1.0 jobs (non-construction) per home constructed
• 20 points if the project provides 0.5 jobs (non-construction) per home constructed
• 1 point for each $350 times the number of residential units in the subdivision contributed to the City’s Planned Employment Center Fund (PEC)
• 5 points for mixed use/commercial and residential development together

6. Ag Enterprise: Does the project preserve productive soils for agricultural use on sites within the City, or otherwise provide benefits for agricultural enterprise. (Up to 30 points)
a. 10 points if the project’s LLD incorporates 10% of the project acreage or a minimum of 5 acres harvestable crops such as olives and/or grapes that are set up through development of the project to be harvested in a manner similar to the Vineyards Project, not including public parkways.
b. Payment of additional Ag mitigation fees at a rate of $350 times the number of residential units in the subdivision contributed to Brentwood’s Ag Mitigation Fund = 1 Point.
c. 1 point for each TAC credit purchased and utilized on the project.
d. 3 points for each acre of land preserved in the Ag core through a permanent Ag easement.
e. 4 points for each acre of planted land preserved through a permanent Ag easement in the Ag core.

7. Housing Design: Does the project demonstrate high quality, innovative housing design and product type, and reflect progressive planning principles?

Single Family Projects (13 points maximum):
a. Does the project provide usable front porches averaging at least 100 square feet coupled with streetscapes that encourage neighbor-to-neighbor conversations while walking around the neighborhood on a minimum of 75% of the homes, to encourage neighborhood interaction? (3 points)
b. Does the project provide at least 15% of the lots with exclusive side or turned garages (no garage doors facing the street), or increased garage setbacks that hide part of the living space of the house, to enhance streetscape appearance? (2 points)
c. Does the project provide at least 4 architecturally distinct elevations per housing product type? (2 points)
d. Does the project provide for a minimum of one floor plan for every 20 market-rate lots? (2 points)
e. Does the project contain more than 25% single story homes? If so, the project gets 2 points for each 5% (above the 25% minimum to a maximum of 35% or 4 points).

Multiple Family Projects (each multi-family unit equals .7177 units for allocation purposes – 25 points maximum):
a. Does the proposed development include at least two recreation amenities per 50 units for use by project residents? Examples include, but are not limited to, tot lots, basketball courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, barbecue areas, fitness centers, volleyball courts, and open space areas. (3 points)
b. Does the proposed development include at least one non-recreation amenity per 50 units for use by project residents? Examples include, but are not limited to, community gardens, fountains, private car wash/detailing areas, libraries or computer rooms, high-speed internet service, and duck ponds. (2 points)
c. Does the proposed development include an on-site child care facility? (5 points)
d. Does the proposed development include useable front patios or porches for ground floor units and balconies for upper stories that measure at least 5’ x 10’? (2 points)
e. Is the proposed development within 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) of a public school or commercial services? (3 points)
f. Does the proposed development include fully enclosed garages for at least one vehicle per unit, as well as separate private storage areas for each unit? (2 points; one-half point for carports at a minimum rate of one per unit)
g. Does the proposed development include washers and dryers within at least 50 percent of the proposed units? (3 points)
h. Does the proposed development include a mix of unit sizes throughout the complex (i.e. studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three or more bedrooms)? (2 points)
i. Does the proposed development provide a link to public transit or is it located within 800 feet of an existing or planned transit stop? (3 points)
j. All multiple family projects get an automatic 10 points minimum.

8. Location: Is the project proposed for a location, which has been identified by the City as being particularly prioritized for development or redevelopment? The Downtown and Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan areas are the only areas currently qualifying in this category. (20 points) Any project proposed in the Downtown or Brentwood Boulevard Specific Planning areas receives an automatic 20 points.

9. Continuing Project: Is the project a second or later phase of a continuing project? A continuing project is defined by whether the Planning Commission or City Council was shown this and other phases as a part of an earlier approval.

OR

Is the project immediately adjacent to a developer’s previous project which has the same zoning, the same size lots, the house models are carried over, and infrastructure fee credits are carried over from the earlier adjacent phases to satisfy portions of this phase’s fee responsibility (purchased fee credits don’t qualify)?

OR

Is the project an infill project? Infill is defined as having development on 3 of the 4 contiguous sides that reasonably matches the ultimate buildout zoning of the City.

Automatic 10 points for any one of these three descriptions.

10. Incorporating Existing Properties: Does the project incorporate existing residential or developed properties fronting on major collectors and arterials that would need to be purchased or condemned by the City as a part of a current or future Capital Improvement Program to widen that major collector or arterial? Automatic 10 points per developed/residentially occupied property incorporated into the project and/or 5 points for acquisition of the ultimate right-of-way from each undeveloped property and transfer of this ultimate right-of-way to the City at no cost. 5 points for each developed/residentially occupied property included in the subdivision that dedicates right-of-way to the City for local road extensions (maximum of 25 points).

11. Estate Homes: Does the project incorporate and develop Estate Home lots of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet or more? These Estate Home lots shall be subject to the City’s individual home design review process. No elevation shall be duplicated within the Estate Home lot area. The expectation and intent of this condition is that each of these Estate Home lots will take on a custom home appearance, even though the interiors may be similar. One point for each 20,000 square foot lot, or one point for every two 15,000 square foot lots to a maximum of 10 points.

12. Redevelopment: Does the project propose to expend its project’s affordable housing in-lieu fees in the purchase, demolition, and/or extensive reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing substandard housing in Davis Camp or other similar housing area within the Redevelopment Area? 10 points for projects within Davis Camp and 5 points for projects within the rest of the Redevelopment Area (this item is not subject to the prohibition on receiving points from more than one category).

13. Reduced Density: Does the project propose to develop under the mid-range density? 5 points if the project is 10% under the mid-range density. 1 additional point for each additional 2% reduction in the mid-range density.

14. Subdivide Land Only: For subdivisions of 15 lots or fewer, does the project propose to subdivide land only, selling lots to a home builder but the homebuilder is unknown at the time of processing. The initial threshold score is 90 points as some of the criteria from numbers 4 and 7 are unavailable for scoring. This threshold score shall go up point for point with the master program threshold score as it escalates over time. Numerical and sequential listing for the Council allocation meeting will be the numerical score of the project plus the average of the other projects’ scores from housing or building portions of criteria numbers 4 and 7.

15. Existing Homes (maximum of 15 points) – If a subdivision incorporates an existing home that was the original home of the landowner, and the lot that covers that original home is included in the subdivision’s LLD and CFD, the subdivision will get credit for 20 years of that home’s LLD and CFD payments. (Maximum of 10 points) Calculations are as follows:

(Annual LLD Payment + Annual CFD Payment) x 20
$350 x number of lots in subdivision

Does the project connect the old original home into the City sewer and water system, not just provide stubs? (5 points)

16. Subdivision Design: Does the project demonstrate high quality innovative subdivision design, and reflect progressive planning principles? (16 points maximum)
a. Are at least 75% of proposed lots less than 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) from an existing or proposed transit stop and/or less than 660 feet (1/8 mile) from a park or trail? (3 points)
b. One extra point for each percent of the project site gross acreage reserved as open space (non-fee creditable), over and above the 5 acres/1,000 population standard, for wildlife habitat (must be planted and part of the project LLD), or recreational facilities
c. Does the project include traffic calming features that discourage high speed traffic (i.e. curb returns at all corners of intersections that extend into the street – similar to the Downtown – to decrease the length of pedestrian crossing paths and increase the ability of trees to form a canopy, curvilinear streets, etc.)? (5 points)
d. Does the project provide integrated pedestrian or bicycle only facilities that connect dwellings to destinations? (3 points)
e. Does the project have 2 points of access or less than 25 units for a single access? If not, the project loses 10 points.


Note: No item (other than item #12) or facility may receive points from multiple categories. In other words, double counting is not allowed.


RGMP ANNUAL ALLOCATION SCHEDULE:

The RGMP Annual Allocation Schedule will run with the calendar year from January 1 to December 31. The Annual Allocation which may be granted each year will be consistent with the annual number of dwelling units necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare by maintaining the small town character and quality of life of Brentwood, and its open spaces, enabling Brentwood to grow at an orderly, well planned and deliberate pace. The proposed annual allocation and annual updates to this program will be presented to the City Council by the Finance Director, Community Development Director and the City Engineer at the first regularly scheduled Council meeting of each calendar year to assure that this program remains flexible and adjusts to the needs of the community as the community evolves. In no case shall the Directors recommend an annual allocation in excess of 600 units. The City’s Bond repayment schedules necessitate a minimum number of building permits per year of 450; therefore, a running 3-year average allocation of Tentative Map lots per year (after 2007) must be at least 450 units per year. It is allowable for a single year allocation after 2007 to be below the 450 figure if subsequent years make up the difference so the 3-year running average equals 450/year.

Schedule

• Applications may be filed any time.
• Deadline for submitting changes to projects is December 1st and June 1st.
• Scores are FINAL on December 15th and June 15th.
• Deadline for filing appeal to RGMP Evaluation Committee is December 26th and June 26th.
• RGMP Evaluation Committee appeal meeting is the first Wednesday of January and July.
• Deadline for filing an appeal to Council is 10 calendar days after the first Wednesday of January (for the February meeting) and July (for the August meeting).
• Council appeal hearing is the first meeting in February and August.
• Council award of allocations is the second meeting in February and August.


FILING FOR DISCRETIONARY PERMITS:

Once an allocation is granted by the City Council for a project, the applicant must file all required applications for all discretionary permits, including environmental review, with the Community Development Department, within 90 days from the date of the allocation by the Council. If an applicant fails to comply with this deadline, the allocation will be deemed denied without prejudice and the units will be returned to the allocation pool for potential reallocation, unless the City Council grants a one-time 6-month extension for an allocation. In determining whether to grant such extension, the RGMP Evaluation Committee will review the progress made, and forward a recommendation to the Council for consideration.


APPEAL PROCESS:

Developers with projects that have not received the threshold score of 120 or for any other reason wish to appeal the scoring of their project by the RGMP Evaluation Committee may do so. The appeal must include detailed numeric calculations based on the Development Fee Program construction unit cost, must include the completed RGMP score sheet, and must include a detailed explanation of how the original scoring by the RGMP Evaluation Committee of the project being appealed was not numerically correct as described in this program. A mistake made on other projects is not a reason to change the score on all projects, and is not a reason for appeal.

An example of what is not an appeal is,
“Dev. ‘A’ had a 100-lot subdivision and got a score of 143 points. My project is 112 lots and I only got 79 points; that’s not fair.”

An example of what is part of an appeal is,
“Dev. ‘A’ spent $437,500 on extending Fairview off-site from his project, the calculations by the RGMP Evaluation Committee showed that $137,500 of that was his/her responsibility and $300,000 was reimbursable. They had a 100-lot subdivision and received 8.6 points for that improvement. I am estimating that I’ll spend $516,250 on extending Balfour Road off-site. The Development Fee Program clearly states that my responsibility is $250,000; therefore $266,250 is reimbursable. I have a 70-lot subdivision and I think I should have received 7.6 points for that item, and you only awarded me 5. My total reimbursable infrastructure point count didn’t reach the 40-point total available, so I don’t know why I was short the 2.6 points.”

Appeals shall be submitted to the RGMP Evaluation Committee 10 calendar days prior to their biennial appeal meetings which will be the first Wednesdays of January and/or July, or the first working day thereafter if the first Wednesday is a holiday.

In the event that a developer is not satisfied with the result of the RGMP Evaluation Committee appeal, they may appeal within 10 calendar days of the RGMP Evaluation Committee appeal meeting in similar fashion and format to the full Council for an appeal hearing at the first Council meeting in February and/or August.

Appeal results, if any, will be used for full Council evaluation towards award of allocations. A Council appeal hearing follows an appeal to the RGMP Committee. No Council appeal will be heard without first going to the RGMP Committee.

No consideration of scores will occur at the Council allocation award meeting. All scores are FINAL on the first meeting in February and August.



Appendix 1

Alternate “A”

2004 RGMP 2004 RGMP Total RGMP1
Annual Allocations of TM Lots Annual Allocations of Building Permits Building Permits
Calendar Year 2005 333 units Calendar Year 2005 133 units 700 units
Calendar Year 2006 400 units Calendar Year 2006 300 units 650 units
Calendar Year 2007 451 units Calendar Year 2007 451 units 600 units
Calendar Year 2008 500 units Calendar Year 2008 509 units 550 units
Calendar Year 2009 550 units Calendar Year 2009 500 units 500 units


Alternate “B”
2004 RGMP 2004 RGMP Total RGMP1
Annual Allocations of TM Lots Annual Allocations of Building Permits Building Permits
Calendar Year 2005 433 units Calendar Year 2005 133 units 700 units
Calendar Year 2006 400 units Calendar Year 2006 350 units 700 units
Calendar Year 2007 451 units Calendar Year 2007 501 units 650 units
Calendar Year 2008 500 units Calendar Year 2008 509 units 550 units
Calendar Year 2009 550 units Calendar Year 2009 500 units 500 units


Alternate “C”
2004 RGMP 2004 RGMP Total RGMP1
Annual Allocations of TM Lots Annual Allocations of Building Permits Building Permits
Calendar Year 2005 600 units Calendar Year 2005 150 units 717 units
Calendar Year 2006 550 units Calendar Year 2006 650 units 1,000 units
Calendar Year 2007 500 units Calendar Year 2007 550 units 699 units
Calendar Year 2008 500 units Calendar Year 2008 500 units 541 units
Calendar Year 2009 500 units Calendar Year 2009 500 units 500 units

1 As of the writing of this document there are approximately 6,200 approved Tentative Map lots capable of pulling building permits. Of the 6,200, RGMP allocations have been awarded to 1,180; and exemptions given to 1,945 in the Northwest Quadrant to facilitate commercial development. All others were approved prior to the original RGMP document.

2 Previous Allocations were on a fiscal year basis. Conversion to calendar year was accomplished by dividing the previous allocation between the 2 calendar years equally.

Meritage Seeno
2004/05 606 + 44 + 0 ÷ 2 = 325
2005/06 343 + 40 + 100 ÷ 2 = 242
2006/07 150 + 0 + 66 ÷ 2 = 108
2007/08 81 + 0 + 0 ÷ 2 = 41

2005 Previous Allocations = 04/05 + 05/06 = 567
2 2

2006 Previous Allocations = 05/06 + 06/07 = 350
2 2

2007 Previous Allocations = 06/07 + 07/08 = 149
2 2

2008 Previous Allocations = 07/08 + 08/09 = 41
2 2


Alternate “A”

Calendar Year Paper Lot Approvals Building Permit Activity Previous Allocations2 Total Allocations from 1st
and 2nd Edition RGMP1
2005 333
133 567 700


200
2006 400
100 300 350 650



300
2007 451
151 451 149 600


300
2008 500
209 509 41 550


291
2009 550
209 500 0 500

341
2010


Alternate “B”

Calendar Year Paper Lot Approvals Building Permit Activity Previous Allocations2 Total Allocations from 1st
and 2nd Edition RGMP1
2005 433
133 567 700


250
2006 400
100 350 350 700


50

300
2007 451
151 501 149 650


300
2008 500
209 509 41 550


291
2009 550
209 500 0 500

341
2010


Alternate “C”

Calendar Year Paper Lot Approvals Building Permit Activity Previous Allocations2 Total Allocations from 1st
and 2nd Edition RGMP1
2005 600
150 567 717


450
2006 550
200 650 350 1,000



350
2007 500
200 550 149 699


300
2008 500
200 500 41 541


300
2009 500
200 500 0 500

300
2010


Appendix 4

2004 RGMP SCORE SHEET

1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (25 points maximum): Total # of units in the project _____ Total # of affordable units required _____ Percentage of affordable units provided by the project _____ Percentage points above required Affordable = _____ _____(2.5 pts. per %) Percentage points above required Affordable for rehab. = _____ _____(2 pts. per %) Percentage points above required Affordable for dedicated units = _____ _____(5 pts. per %) Very low income units constructed as opposed to paying in-lieu fee _____(5 pts. if yes) Cost of infrastructure improvements in Village Drive area = _____ _____(1 pt. per $300 X # of units) TOTAL POINTS _____

2. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AGREED TO (40 points maximum):

• Roadways (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Wet and dry utilities (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Lighting (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Landscaping (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Irrigation (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Parks or trails (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AGREED NOT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR (10 points maximum):

• Roadways (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Wet and dry utilities (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Lighting (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Landscaping (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Irrigation (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Parks or trails (Total Reimbursable Construction Cost) = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

3. AMENITIES (25 points maximum):

• Total Construction Cost of amenities = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Total financial contribution towards a specific item = _____ _____(1 pt. per $400 X # of units)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

4. ENERGY EFFICIENCY (25 points maximum):

• Solar Oriented Development? _____(7 pts. if yes)
• High Albedo (Reflectivity) Paved Surfaces? _____(2 pts. if yes)
• Minimize Street Pavement? _____(2 pts. if yes)
• Whole Building Energy Use (4-7 pts.)
a) All homes meeting PG&E Comfort Home specifications? _____(4 pts. if yes)
OR
b) All homes meeting or exceeding PG&E Energy Star specifications? _____(7 pts. if yes)
OR (Multi-family developments)
a) Project exceeding Title 24 requirements by at least 15%? _____(7 pts. if yes)
• Solar-ready Homes (Domestic Hot Water)? _____(2 pts. if yes)
• Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating? _____(5 pts. if yes)
• Cool Roofs? _____(1 pt. if yes)
• Whole House Fans? _____(7 pts. if yes)
• Energy Star Outdoor Lighting? _____(1 pt. if yes)
• Solar Electricity (Photovoltaic) installation? _____(5 pts. if yes)
• Energy Star Indoor Lighting? _____(1 pt. if yes)
• Pavement Shading? _____(3 pts. if yes)
• South Glazing Shading? _____(1 pt. if yes)
• East and West Glazing Shading? _____(2 pts. if yes)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

5. JOBS (40 points possible):

• Total # of units in the project _____
• Total # of jobs (non-construction) created by the project _____
• Ratio of jobs per home constructed _____

• 1.5 jobs per home constructed? _____(40 pts. if yes)
• 1.0 job per home constructed? _____(30 pts. if yes)
• 0.5 jobs per home constructed? _____(20 pts. if yes)
• Contribution to City’s PEC fund = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Is project mixed-use (i.e. commercial and residential)? _____(5 pts. if yes)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

6. AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE (30 points maximum):

• Total # of acres in the project _____
• Total # of acres within the project dedicated to harvestable crops _____

• Percentage of project acreage dedicated to harvestable crops _____(10 pts. if 10% or min. of 5 acres)
• Additional contribution to the Agricultural Mitigation Fund _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)
• Total # of TAC’s purchased and utilized by the project = _____ _____(1 pt. per credit)
• Total # of acres preserved in the Agricultural Core = _____ _____(3 pts. per acre)
• Total # of planted acres preserved in the Agricultural Core = _____ _____(4 pts. per acre)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

7. HOUSING DESIGN

Single-family (13 points maximum):
• Usable front porches on homes? _____(3 pts. if at least 75%)
• Exclusive side or turned garages on homes? _____(2 pts. if at least 15%)
• Project providing at least 4 architecturally distinct elevations per housing product type? _____(2 pts.)
• Project providing at least 1 floor plan for every 20 market rate lots? _____(2 pts.)
• Project providing more than 25% single-story homes? _____(2 pts. for each 5%)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

Multi-family (25 points maximum):
• At least 2 recreation amenities per 50 units? _____(3 pts.)
• At least 1 non-recreation amenity per 50 units? _____(2 pts.)
• On-site child care facility? _____(5 pts.)
• Useable front patios or porches? _____(2 pts.)
• Project within 1,320’ of a public school or commercial services? _____(3 pts.)
• Fully enclosed garages for at least one vehicle as well as private storage areas? _____(2 pts.)
• Washers and dryers in at least 50% of the units? _____(3 pts.)
• Mix of unit sizes within the complex? _____(2 pts.)
• Provide link to public transit or located within 800’ of a transit stop? _____(3 pts.)
• Automatic points for multi-family projects _____(10 pts.)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

8. LOCATION (20 points maximum):

• Is project in the Downtown? _____(20 pts. if yes)
• Is project along Brentwood Boulevard? _____(20 pts. if yes)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

9. CONTINUING PROJECT (10 points maximum):

• Is project a continuing project (second or later phase of a multi-phase project)? _____(10 pts. if yes)
• Is project adjacent to a previous project with same zoning, lot sizes, etc.? _____(10 pts. if yes)
• Is project an infill project (i.e. having development on all contiguous sides)? _____(10 pts. if yes)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

10. INCORPORATING EXISTING PROPERTIES (25 points maximum):

• Is project incorporating existing residential or developed properties on major arterials? _____(yes or no)
• Total # of properties being incorporated _____(10 pts. per property)
OR
• Is project acquiring ultimate right-of-way from properties & transferring to City at no cost? _____(5 pts. if yes)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

11. ESTATE HOMES (10 points maximum):

• Is project incorporating estate home lots of 15,000 or 20,000 square feet? _____(yes or no)
• Total # of 15,000 square foot lots = _____ _____(1 pt. for every 2 lots)
• Total # of 20,000 square foot lots = _____ _____(1 pt. for each lot)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

12. REDEVELOPMENT (10 points maximum):

• Is project restoring the Davis Camp area? _____(10 pts. if yes)
• Is project within the Redevelopment Area? _____(5 pts. if yes)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

13. REDUCED DENSITY (10 points maximum):

• The project’s mid-range density is _____
• Is project 10% under the mid-range? _____(5 pts. if yes)
• Percentage points above 10% = _____ _____(1 pt. per 2% reduction)
• TOTAL POINTS _____

14. SUBDIVIDE LAND ONLY (threshold reduced to 90 points):

• Does project propose to subdivide land only and sell lots to an unknown builder? _____(90 pt. threshold if yes)

15. EXISTING HOMES (15 points maximum):

• Does project propose to incorporate existing home into subdivision’s LLD and CFD? _____(up to 10 pts.)
• Does project connect existing home to City’s sewer and water system? _____(5 pts. if yes)

16. SUBDIVISION DESIGN (16 points maximum):

• % of lots less than 1,320’ from a transit stop and/or less than 660’ from a park or trail _____(3 pts. if at least 75%)
• % of project reserved as open space in excess of 5 acres/1,000 population _____(1 pt. for each percent)
• Are traffic calming features included? _____(5 pts.)
• Project provides integrated pedestrian or bicycle facilities connecting to destinations? _____(3 pts.)
• Project providing 2 points of access or less than 25 units for single access? _____(if no, lose 10 pts.)


CRITERION # OF POINTS POSSIBLE # OF POINTS EARNED
Affordable Housing 25
Infrastructure 50
Amenities 25
Energy Efficiency 25
Jobs 40
Agricultural Enterprise 30
Housing Design 25
Location 20
Continuing Project 10
Incorporating Existing Properties 25
Estate Homes 10
Redevelopment 10
Reduced Density 10
Subdivide Land Only (reduced threshold)
Existing Homes 15
Subdivision Design 16
TOTAL 336


Appendix 5

APPLICANT’S GUIDE
RGMP ALLOCATION PROCESS


Introduction

The City Council has adopted the 2004 Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) to manage the residential growth of the City, as provided for in Resolution No. ______.


Application Process

Applications may be filed with the Community Development Department any time during the calendar year. City Council allocations will be considered twice annually:

1. The second Council meeting in February.
2. The second Council meeting in August.

An application for an allocation must contain all of the following:

1. Completed Universal Application form.

2. Draft copy of the major components of a Development Agreement, if one is proposed.

3. Site Plan – 10 full size copies of scale drawn, detailed plans plus one reduced (8 ½ x 11) copy of the site plan.

4. Elevation Plan – 10 full size copies of scale drawn, detailed plans plus one reduced (8 ½ x 11) copy of the elevation plan.

5. Application fee, as specified in the Planning Division’s Universal Application form.

6. Written explanation of how your project clearly meets or complies with the Allocation Evaluation Criteria listed in the RGMP, which will be used by staff and City Council in the review and evaluation of your proposal.

7. Any other support materials or information that may assist the City in reviewing the proposed project in conjunction with the Evaluation Criteria listed in the RGMP.

Appendix 7

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. ______


Meeting Date: October 12, 2004

Subject/Title: Approve a Resolution Adopting the 2004 Revision to the Residential Growth Management Program and Dissolving the RGMP Council Subcommittee

Submitted By: John Stevenson, City Manager
____________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution adopting the 2004 Revision of the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), directing staff to begin processing all unallocated projects through this updated program, and dissolving the RGMP Council Subcommittee.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On February 13, 2001, the City Council directed the City Council Housing Subcommittee and staff to move forward with preparation of the RGMP.

On June 27, 2001, the City Council Housing Subcommittee and staff recommended and the Council adopted the RGMP through Resolution No. 2326.

On September 14, 2004, the City Council asked staff to amend the proposed 2004 RGMP to address Council concerns.

BACKGROUND
At the July 13, 2004 Council meeting, during discussion regarding the RGMP allocations for DeNova Homes, Councilmember Gutierrez commented that most of the allocations had been given for this year, and that she didn’t want to see any more applications before the Council until the program was revised to slow growth.

Staff was already well into the rewrite at that time and had been testing this revised program to make sure it will accomplish the intent of the Council. Staff understands Council’s intent of this revision to be:

5. Slow residential growth to a manageable and sustainable level over the next 15-20 years.
6. Control building permit activity as well as Tentative Map lot allocations.
7. Improve the scoring criteria to remove subjectivity, thereby allowing staff to score the projects, and removing the necessity for a Council Subcommittee review.
8. Elevate the quality of Brentwood residential developments.

This rewrite accomplishes all of these goals. It also sets up an annual review of the numeric goals by the Council and establishes a process by which the staff can annually make recommendations to improve the program.

In addition, this 2004 RGMP addresses the concerns voiced by the Council at the September 14th Council meeting; most notably, a concern by the Council that this program made development of small subdivisions (5 -20 lots) uneconomical and unable to compete with the larger 100-plus lot subdivisions.

Staff tested this theory by first analyzing the costs associated with the development of small, medium, and large subdivisions as listed in Exhibit “A”. Cost estimates were provided by the developers’ engineers to eliminate any City-introduced errors. Interestingly, the small subdivisions were the least costly to develop, followed by the large subdivisions. The most expensive subdivisions were the medium-sized ones (50-60 lots) because they typically have to put in substantial infrastructure and they don’t have the lots to spread the cost over the way the larger ones do.

Staff then scored two small subdivisions – a 9-lot subdivision and a 12-lot subdivision. Scoring these two projects proved difficult for staff, since they aren’t accustomed to thinking in terms of small infrastructure, but both projects exceeded the RGMP threshold score with the same ease/difficulty that larger projects did. This was an excellent and valuable test to run, since it eliminated the need in the program for an exemption for small projects (5-16 lots). This testing also afforded staff additional opportunities to fine-tune the system, which proved valuable.

Staff has also included the first annual recommendation from senior staff regarding allocations for calendar year 2005. That recommendation is for Alternate “B” or 433 units available for allocation. Senior staff’s reasoning can be found in Exhibit “B”.

FISCAL IMPACT
The program calls for 100% cost recovery for processing RGMP allocations, therefore there should be no negative fiscal impact. There should be a positive financial impact by way of increasing property values due to elevated development requirements. There should also be a substantial positive financial impact on the City of from $1-3 million per year if the annual allocations are set at a number that requires the development community to compete for allocations.

Attachments:
Resolution
Exhibit “A” – Average Construction Cost per Lot
Exhibit “B” – First Annual RGMP Allocation Recommendation
2004 RGMP

Appendix 8

RESOLUTION NO.


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE 2004 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING STAFF TO BEGIN PROCESSING ALL UNALLOCATED PROJECTS THROUGH THIS UPDATED PROGRAM, AND DISSOLVING THE RGMP COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE


WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the original RGMP through adoption of Resolution 2326 on June 27, 2001; and

WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), is to moderate the effects of growth, and synchronize residential growth with infrastructure, and municipal and public safety services, and total population available under the City’s General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the RGMP is one of the growth management techniques contained in the General Plan Update, which is intended to help achieve the above stated purpose and intent; and

WHEREAS, The RGMP Annual Allocation of housing units which may be granted each fiscal year will be consistent with the annual number of dwelling units necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare by maintaining the small town character and quality of life of Brentwood, and its open spaces and generally low density of population, and to help ensure growth at an orderly, well planned and deliberate pace; and

WHEREAS, the RGMP is also intended to ensure the adequate provision of vital life safety public services including fire and paramedic protection per the “Fire Protection Services for the City of Brentwood Strategy for the Future” report dated December 1998; and

WHEREAS, overly rapid growth adversely impacts public resources, services and facilities, such as parks, open space, police and fire service, roads and utilities; and

WHEREAS, adoption of the RGMP is determined to be covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In this case, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), in that the RGMP will only serve to advance prudent growth controls and management, and promote better forms of development; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP establishes an annual review of the program just like the CIP, Development Fee Program and Budget; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP sets up a staff RGMP Evaluation Committee which is a five-member team consisting of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Parks and Recreation Director, Police Chief, and Assistant City Manager or their designees as approved by the City Manager, which will make recommendations to the Council in January of each year on the proposed number of annual allocations; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP controls the release of both Tentative Map allocations and building permit releases; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP raises the bar for development in Brentwood by requiring a higher score and stricter scoring such that developers will have to stretch a little further to reach the threshold; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP sets up competition between developers for the right to develop which will further raise the bar; and

WHEREAS, the 2004 RGMP accomplishes the Council’s direction to staff of slowing residential growth, removing subjectivity from the scoring system to the maximum extent possible, and removing the need for Council Subcommittee review prior to consideration by the entire Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby adopts the 2004 Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), and directs staff to begin processing all unallocated projects through his updated program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RGMP Council Subcommittee is hereby dissolved.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of October 2004, by the following vote:

Exhibit “A”


Average Construction Cost per Lot

Small Projects listed projects do not include frontage or off-site improvements
# of Construction Cost
Project # Lots Grading Improvements Total Cost/Lot
8722 14 $ 17,056.60 $ 328,682.20 $ 345,738.80 $ 24,695.63
8180 15 $ 35,695.00 $ 353,567.26 $ 389,262.26 $ 25,950.82
7865 16 $ 15,290.00 $ 175,178.30 $ 190,468.30 $ 11,904.27
8608 9 $ 22,085.80 $ 255,568.00 $ 277,653.80 $ 30,850.42
Average Cost/Lot Small Projects $ 23,350.28


Medium Projects listed projects include frontage & off-site improvements
# of Construction Cost
Project # Lots Grading Improvements Total Cost/Lot
8408 55 $ 114,718.00 $ 3,047,868.59 $ 3,162,586.59 $ 57,501.57
8421 54 $ 243,482.80 $ 1,995,075.21 $ 2,238,558.01 $ 41,454.78
8352 60 $ 293,370.00 $ 2,010,899.00 $ 2,304,269.00 $ 38,404.48
8661 45 $ 138,083.00 $ 2,046,687.01 $ 2,184,770.01 $ 48,550.44
Average Cost/Lot Medium Projects $ 46,477.82


Large Projects listed projects include frontage & off-site improvements
# of Construction Cost
Project # Lots Grading Improvements Total Cost/Lot
8469 137 $ 406,010.00 $ 5,269,467.89 $ 5,675,477.89 $ 41,426.85
8424 252 $ 820,000.00 $ 7,715,000.00 $ 8,535,000.00 $ 33,869.05
8416 133 $ 271,000.00 $ 3,035,000.00 $ 3,306,000.00 $ 24,857.14
8413 113 $ 220,000.00 $ 3,734,000.00 $ 3,954,000.00 $ 34,991.15
Average Cost/Lot Large Projects $ 33,786.05

Exhibit “B”

First Annual
RGMP Allocation Recommendation

Presented by: RGMP Allocation Recommendation Committee:
Pamela Ehler / Howard Sword / Bailey Grewal

Date: October 12, 2004

This first annual RGMP Allocation report and recommendation is intended to meet the minimum number of units necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare, maintain the small-town character and quality of life Brentwood is known for, and in particular, this first annual recommendation is intended to slow the current rapid growth rate and firmly establish a competition for the available allocations.

As of the writing of this report, there are approximately 342 RGMP allocations being processed. Allocations are recommended to be granted in February and August with 50% proposed for each allocation period. In order to assure a healthy and spirited competition, the first allocation period in February should not provide all of the allocations requested, and should clearly set up further competition for the August period. Staff has just become aware of an additional application being prepared for submittal, which will increase the lot applications being processed to approximately 478.

The RGMP Allocation Recommendation Committee recommends an initial allocation for 2005 of 433 lots, which is Alternate “B”. This allocation volume will not only set up a spirited competition for allocations in February, but also assure the same in August. Previous entitlements will assure far more than the 450 building permits in 2005 necessary for bond repayment schedules. The Committee is concerned, however, that allocating fewer units than Alternate “B” may depress the commercial development momentum in the City and be counter-productive to the program rather than helpful.

We do not have any recommended revisions or updates at this time to the program, but may return to Council at the first meeting in January with possible updates, or fine-tuning in order to continually improve and perfect the program.

Recommended by the RGMP Allocation Committee:

____________________________________ ______________
Pamela Ehler Date


____________________________________ ______________
Howard Sword Date


____________________________________ ______________
Bailey Grewal Date
 

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