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. 22

Meeting Date: September 13, 2005

Subject/Title: Public hearing to consider an update to the City’s Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP)

Prepared by: Erik Nolthenius, Senior Planner

Submitted by: Howard Sword, Community Development Director

RECOMMENDATION
Review and approve the update to the City’s Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), as reflected in the attached document.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The Council approved the RGMP on July 6, 2001. The Council made minor changes to that RGMP four times, between September 11, 2001 and September 23, 2003, essentially to extend the timeframe for the Northwest Quadrant exemption area. The last, and most significant, change to the program was made by the Council on October 12, 2004. At that time, the Council approved a comprehensive update to the program, including a new scoring system and application process.

BACKGROUND
The current RGMP, adopted by the Council last October, sets two dates for review of allocation applications – the second Council meeting in February and the second Council meeting in August. A total of four applications have been approved at the two meetings this year, including three at the Council’s most recent meeting on August 23rd. Staff has been working intimately with the current program for almost a year now, and has been making notes during that time about what changes to make in order to increase its effectiveness, as well as make it easier to use. Staff anticipates bringing updates to the program back to the Council on a periodic (i.e. annual) basis to ensure that the program is achieving its desired intents – managed sustainable growth, controlled permit activity, precise scoring, and elevated development quality.

The proposed update to the RGMP has been formulated over the past several months through a collaboration of staff, including the City Manager, Engineering, Parks & Recreation, and Community Development. The focus of the update has been three-fold: first, to make the program more user friendly for the public, applicants, staff, and the Council; second, to address problems that have been identified over the past 11 months of working with the current program; and third, to accurately reflect the current goals of the Council. Following is a brief summary of the changes, as recommended by staff.

1. Two types of projects have been added to the list of those that are exempt from the RGMP process. These include very high density projects (greater than 20 units per acre) and vertical mixed-use projects (residential uses proposed above non-residential uses). Staff feels that exempting these projects is important to stimulate their development.

2. A requirement has been added for all RGMP applications to be consistent with the respective General Plan land use and Zoning classifications prior to processing. Staff believes this makes sense because it ensures a level playing field among applicants and also does not put the Council in an awkward position of having to decide whether or not a project should receive an allocation when the land use implications have not been fully analyzed.

3. The “Affordable Housing” criterion, which was established along with the original RGMP in 2001 at a time when the City did not have an affordable housing ordinance in place, has been deleted for a couple of reasons. First, the criterion has never been utilized by applicants as a way to score points. Second, the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance is in full effect, and is working to the point that the criterion is no longer necessary.

4. The “Infrastructure” criterion has been modified to provide more points for applicants proposing to do non-reimbursable work. The current split for the 50 point criterion is 40/10 (reimbursable vs. non-reimbursable). The proposed change to the split is 30/20. Staff believes this would be more effective in providing needed infrastructure to support new development, while still affording applicants ample opportunity to score points under this criterion.

5. A split has been identified for the “Amenities” criterion, where out of 25 maximum points, 15 can be scored by providing “community facility” amenities and 10 points can be scored by providing “other” amenities. Staff feels this will help stimulate contributions to the various community facilities that are so important to the City as a whole.

6. The list of examples provided in the “Amenities” criterion has been consolidated and clarified in order to put the focus on those deemed most important to the City as a whole.

7. The “Energy Efficiency” criterion has been modified to reflect the recent Green Building Guidelines adopted by Contra Costa County. While the current scoring system has been utilized by applicants to score points, staff feels that incorporating the proposed guidelines will provide more consistency for developers as these new guidelines are being implemented by most jurisdictions within the Bay Area, whereas the current, building industry-proposed system is used by few cities and does not adequately address energy conservation, effective use of natural resources, and healthy buildings.

8. The “Jobs” criterion has been pared down such that points will be scored simply by paying into the City’s Planned Employment Center (PEC) fund. This is something that has been utilized by applicants periodically through the RGMP process, and staff feels it is the most effective way for the City to benefit from an economic development perspective on a project by project basis.

9. The “Agricultural Enterprise” criterion has been modified by deleting the opportunity to score points through the provision of harvestable crops, similar to what was done with the Vineyards at Marsh Creek project. Staff feels that the Vineyards project is unique in that manner, and that there are still a sufficient number of things that an applicant can do to score points under this criterion.

10. The “Location” criterion has been deleted. This criterion currently identifies the areas within the boundaries of both the Downtown and Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plans as qualifying for points. Staff feels that the pending adoption of both specific plans essentially eliminates the need for this criterion.

11. The “Redevelopment” criterion has been deleted. This criterion currently identifies Davis Camp and other similar housing projects within the Redevelopment Area as qualifying for points. Staff feels that the Redevelopment Agency is working effectively to the point where this criterion is no longer needed. This has also been an under-utilized criterion by applicants in terms of scoring points.

12. The “Reduced Density” criterion has been deleted. This criterion currently awards points for applicants developing a site below the mid-range density as identified by the General Plan. Staff feels that, while this criterion has been utilized periodically by applicants to score points, it is not something that should be rewarded based on potential negative impacts on the City’s housing stock.

13. Deadlines of October 1st (February allocation meeting) and April 1st (August allocation meeting) have been established for applicants to submit complete applications to staff. This will eliminate applications being submitted at the last minute and being rushed through the process, and will also provide adequate time for applicants to work with staff as far as improving their applications.

14. Wording has been added to encourage applicants to schedule pre-application meetings with staff in order to address any potentially significant issues and facilitate the formal application process.

15. The RGMP Score Sheet has been modified to reflect changes to the criteria. The result is a reduction in available points from 336 to 270. Staff feels that the elimination of certain criteria and consequently the number of available points will only serve to enhance the competition among applicants, thus providing better and better projects to the City as a whole.

16. A few items have been added to the submittal list for RGMP applications, which should help both applicants and staff in terms of reviewing and evaluating those applications.

FISCAL IMPACT
The program calls for 100% cost recovery for processing applications; 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.

Attachments:
Resolution
RGMP Update

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (RGMP).

WHEREAS, the City Council passed and accepted 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, which was effective July 1, 2001; and

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, November 26, 2002, May 27, 2003, and September 23, 2003, the City Council passed and accepted resolutions amending the original RGMP, and lastly on October 12, 2004, the City Council passed and accepted Resolution No. 2004-242 amending the original RGMP; 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 2001 General Plan, 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 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, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are considered a part of this review and approval process; and

WHEREAS, no potentially significant impacts were identified through the CEQA process; and

WHEREAS, the availability of said environmental document for the minimum 20-day public review and comment period was begun on August 24, 2005, and ended on September 12, 2005, and no comments were received during the review period; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all residential developers currently doing business in the City of Brentwood and published in the Contra Costa Times on August 23, 2005, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 13, 2005; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, Negative Declaration, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed project and finds that:

1. Since the most recent amendment to the RGMP was approved on October 12, 2004, issues with the program have been identified that need to be addressed; and

2. The proposed changes to the program will increase its effectiveness and will also make it easier for the public, applicants, staff, and the City Council to use; and

3. The proposed changes to the program enhance its desired intents – managed sustainable growth, controlled permit activity, precise scoring, and elevated development quality; and

4. The RGMP Update has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act; and

5. Approval of the RGMP Update is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby take the following actions:

1. Adopts and certifies the Negative Declaration prepared for this project; and

2. Directs City staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and

3. Approves the RGMP Update, as recommended by staff, and directs all pending and future applications to comply with its requirements.

PASSED AND ACCEPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at their regular meeting of September 13, 2005, by the following vote:

Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP)

PURPOSE/INTENT:

The purpose and intent of the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) is to maintain a planned and sustainable rate of growth in conjunction with the General Plan. An additional intent is to better synchronize growth with the construction of public infrastructure and facilities. Specifically, this program controls and meters the allocation of residential units, and then places controls on the phasing and timing of their construction. The City Council updated the City’s General Plan Land Use, Growth Management and Circulation Elements in 2001, providing for a population of approximately 75,000 at buildout (the year 2020). The RGMP is one Growth Management technique approved by the City Council to control the City’s growth rate. The RGMP was originally adopted by the City Council in 2001, with this document representing the second revision. Revisions to the program are needed on a periodic (e.g. annual) basis to ensure that it is clear to the public, applicants, staff, and the City Council, as well as to ensure that it is as effective as possible in managing growth.

APPLICABILITY:

The RGMP applies to all non-exempt residential development in the City. 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. The RGMP is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, require the City Council to grant 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 the program, provide for the public health and safety, provide for the more orderly development of the City, or otherwise promote the public interest. Each multi-family unit counts as .7177 single family unit, and each active adult unit counts as .6039 single family unit.

EXEMPTIONS: (units not counted in annual allocation)

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

1. Affordable housing units subject to City Council Ordinance No. 790 (Affordable Housing Program) and an executed Affordable Housing Agreement.

2. Projects that have an approved Tentative Map, Building Permit, Development Agreement, or other City entitlement prior to October 12, 2004.

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: (units counted in annual allocation)

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

1. Parcel Maps.

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

3. A Secondary Housing Unit (as defined by State law) on an existing residential lot and in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

4. Very High Density projects exceeding 20 units per acre and in compliance with the General Plan.

5. Vertical mixed-use projects providing residential uses above non-residential uses.

ALLOCATION TRANSFERS TO ANOTHER PARCEL OR PARCELS ARE PROHIBITED:

Allocations are made on a specific development at a given site; allocations cannot be transferred to another site. However, approved allocations can be transferred to another owner at the approved site. Approved allocations run with the specific project and project site.

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 (if applicable) and Conditions of Approval that stipulates precisely how many building permits may be issued 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 for new residential dwelling units may be pulled in any one calendar year for any one project. Building permits not pulled in one year may, however, be rolled over to subsequent years. Borrowing of building permits from future years is prohibited.

VOIDED OR UNUSED ALLOCATIONS:

If the City does not ultimately approve the proposed project, its allocations shall be deemed voided. The City Council may choose whether or not to reallocate them in future years, except as otherwise may be provided by a Development Agreement.

MINIMUM THRESHOLD SCORE:

The minimum threshold score required for a project to be considered by the City Council and award an allocation in February of 2005 is 120 points. As the program evolves, 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 Director of Finance & Information Systems, the Director of Community Development and the 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, or after the second meeting in August that will be effective for all RGMP applications considered in the next calendar 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 the 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 application for an allocation will be accepted for processing unless and until the request is consistent with the respective General Plan and Zoning classifications of the project site. No entitlement applications shall be submitted or accepted by the City unless and until the Council awards the project an allocation under the program. An award of an allocation does not in and of itself grant an entitlement to develop the project site, but rather, it grants the ability to proceed with a formal application to develop the project site.

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 respective complete application deadlines are October 1st and April 1st for the February and August City Council meetings, respectively. 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, only from the subsequent allocation period, 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 required for award of an allocation.
Example of Borrowing:

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

Project # of Units Point Score
J 74 147
D 107 141
Q 145 129
B 82 118
Z 229 112
L 62 93

Assuming the Council wishes to proceed with allocations for this 6-month period, Projects “J” and “D” would receive allocations. That would mean a total of 181 units had been allocated. The Council could end the allocations at this point and roll the remaining 44 allocations over to the next 6-month period (August), or proceed to award Project “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 project (i.e. its score). Only if the score is within 5 points of the project above it (in this example it isn’t) which was awarded allocations, and it is at least 10 points above the minimum threshold (in this example it isn’t) for awarding allocations, may the borrowing be authorized.

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

1. Planning Division staff will determine whether each application that has been filed by the required deadline is complete. Only complete applications will continue to be evaluated for the current allocation period (February or August).

2. The staff planner and engineer will review each application with the Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee.

3. The Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee, along with the staff planner and engineer, will score the project.

4. The staff planner and engineer will review the score with the applicant and make suggestions to modify the application in an attempt to increase the score. All changes to the application are the responsibility of the applicant, however, not City staff. Any staff comments are intended as help only to enhance the score of the project, and elevate the project’s value to the community.

5. The applicant may add elements to or alter the intended development and have the project rescored until the deadline dates of December 1st and June 1st, prior to being presented to the City Council for award of allocations at the February and August meetings, respectively. Additional processing fees may be necessary in order to continue processing for an extended period, or for more than two revisions.

6. Staff will post current projects and scoring in the lobby of the Community Development Department as revisions are made. All scores are final on December 15th and June 15th, for the February and August meetings, respectively, to allow time for applicants to prepare appeals, if appropriate. Projects may NOT be changed during the appeal process. An appeal will not be evaluated by either 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 allocation meeting. It is the applicant’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 will then forward the application and score to the City Council at the second regularly scheduled meeting in February or August. Projects will be listed in order of their scores, with the highest scoring projects on the top of the list, and the 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, but will be depicted as a project that is in process 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 approximately 50% at the February Council meeting and approximately 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. Smaller, lower scoring projects will not be taken ahead of larger higher scoring projects in order to come close to 50%.

10. There will be a 2-week minimum turnaround for re-evaluating RGMP scoring when an applicant alters a project.

11. Revisions submitted after the applicable deadline will be considered at the next available meeting (i.e. February or August).

12. 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.

13. 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 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 decisions by the Council.

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

Projects receiving scores of less than the minimum threshold score may continue to work with the staff Planner, staff engineer, and Staff 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 applicant from construction of a previous project, 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:

Each allocation application shall be evaluated against the following Allocation Evaluation Criteria in order to determine whether to grant an allocation. In the event that more units and/or projects are proposed than allocations available, 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. Scoring is in accordance with the following criteria:

1. 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? (50 points maximum). 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 multiplied by the number of allocations requested that are attributable to off-site public infrastructure constructed that is eligible for reimbursement through the City’s Development Fee Program (maximum of 30 points). Points are also available at the rate of 1 point for each $350 construction cost multiplied by the number of allocations requested that are attributable to on-site or public infrastructure constructed normally eligible for reimbursement for which the applicant agrees not to be reimbursed (maximum of 20 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 of a reimbursable item that would be eligible for points is: additional park acreage over and above the 5-acre per 1,000 population benchmark that the applicant agrees not to be reimbursed for. Land cost is included in the cost calculation for parks and trails if dedicated to the City.

2. 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? (Maximum of 25 points; 15 points for community facility items and 10 points for other items) Points are allocated at a rate of $350 construction cost multiplied by the number of allocations that are requested = 1 Point, or a $400 financial contribution towards a specific approved but unfunded item (using the same formula). Acceptability of amenities for this category is at the discretion of the Staff 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, the following:

a. Upgrades to existing community facilities or financial contributions toward construction of priority community buildings as specified by the City Council (i.e. libraries, community centers, senior centers, etc.)

b. Major sculptures or other artwork for the City Art in Public Places Program, bicycle bridges, adding trees, park benches, and lighting for creeks or trails, adding lighted crosswalks or pedestrian signals at major roadway/trail crossings, major improvements in terms of Safe Routes to School, construction for the Village Community Resource Center, etc.

c. Traffic safety improvements (off-site), including construction of non-fee creditable off-site traffic signals

3. Energy Efficiency: Would the proposed new homes meet the minimum point threshold of a green home as defined in the most recent version of the New Home Construction Green Building Guidelines for single-family homes or Multi-family Green Building Guidelines, for multi-family housing? (Maximum of 25 points)

4. Jobs: Does the project propose to facilitate the development of job-generating land uses through the payment of fees to the City’s Planned Employment Center (PEC) Fund? (Maximum of 40 points). Points are allocated at a rate of 1 point for each $350 contributed multiplied by the number of allocations that are requested.

5. Agricultural Enterprise: Does the project preserve productive soils for agricultural use on sites within the City, or otherwise provide benefits for agricultural enterprise? (Maximum of 30 points).
a. Payment of additional agricultural mitigation fees at a rate of $350 multiplied by the number of allocations requested that are contributed to Brentwood’s Agricultural Mitigation Fund = 1 Point.

b. 1 point for each TAC credit purchased and utilized on the project (a minimum of 10 acres, resulting in 20 TAC credits, is required).

c. 3 points for each acre of land preserved in the Agricultural Core through a permanent easement.

d. 4 points for each acre of planted land preserved through a permanent easement in the Agricultural Core.

6. 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 (minimum size of 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 receives 2 points for each 5% above the 25% minimum, up 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 receive an automatic 10 points.

7. 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 the applicant’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.

8. Incorporating Existing Properties: Does the project incorporate existing residential or developed properties fronting on collectors or arterials that would need to be purchased or condemned by the City as part of a current or future Capital Improvement Program to widen that 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).

9. 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.

10. Subdivide Land Only: For subdivisions of 15 lots or fewer, does the applicant propose to subdivide land only, selling lots to a homebuilder but the homebuilder is unknown at the time of processing? The initial threshold score is 90 points, as some of the points from criteria 3 and 6 are unavailable. 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 3 and 6.

11. Existing Homes (maximum of 15 points): If a project incorporates an existing home, and the property that covers that original home is included in the project’s LLD and CFD, the project will receive 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 units requested for allocation

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

12. Project Design: Does the project demonstrate high quality innovative design, and reflect progressive planning principles? (15 points maximum)
a. Are at least 75% of the proposed units 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.

f. Does the project demonstrate a unique design approach to incorporate permanent, non-structural best management practices designed to minimize the amount of pollutants that enter the storm drain system that are above and beyond minimum requirements? (5 points)

Note: No item or facility may receive points from multiple categories (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, the 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 units per year (after 2007) must be at least 450. 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 per year.

Schedule

• Applications, including all materials necessary for proper evaluation, shall be filed by October 1st and April 1st, for consideration at the February and August designated meetings, respectively. Applicants are encouraged to meet with staff on a pre-application basis for feedback and suggestions.

• Deadlines for submitting changes to projects are December 1st and June 1st in order to make the February and August designated meetings, respectively.

• Scores are FINAL on December 15th and June 15th.

• Deadlines for filing appeals to the RGMP Evaluation Committee are December 26th and June 26th.

• The Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee appeal meetings are the first Wednesday of January and July.

• Deadlines for filing an appeal to the City Council are 10 calendar days after the first Wednesdays of January (for the February meeting) and July (for the August meeting).

• The City Council appeal hearings are the first meetings in February and August.

• The City Council considerations of allocations are the second meetings in February and August.

FILING FOR DISCRETIONARY PERMITS:

If an allocation is granted by the City Council for a project, the applicant must file all required applications for 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 Staff RGMP Evaluation Committee will review the progress made, and forward a recommendation to the Council for consideration.

APPEAL PROCESS:

Applicants with projects that have not received the minimum threshold score, or for any other reason wish to appeal the scoring of their project by the Staff 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 Staff 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 Avenue 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 Staff 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 an applicant is not satisfied with the Committee’s decision on the appeal, the applicant may appeal within 10 calendar days of the Committee’s appeal meeting in similar fashion and format to the full City 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 Committee. No Council appeal will be heard without first going to the Committee.

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

Appendix 1

Alternate “B” – RGMP Allocation
2004 RGMP 2004 RGMP Total RGMP
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

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 “B” – RGMP Allocation

Calendar Year Paper Unit Approvals Building Permit Activity Previous Allocations Total Allocations
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

Appendix 2

RGMP SCORE SHEET

1. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AGREED TO (30 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 (20 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 _____

2. 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 _____

3. ENERGY EFFICIENCY (25 points maximum):

• TOTAL POINTS _____

4. JOBS (40 points maximum):

• Contribution to City’s PEC fund = _____ _____(1 pt. per $350 X # of units)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

5. AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE (30 points maximum):

• 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 _____

6. 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 _____

7. 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 3 of 4 contiguous sides)? _____(10 pts. if yes)

• TOTAL POINTS _____

8. INCORPORATING EXISTING PROPERTIES (25 points maximum):

• Is project incorporating existing residential or developed properties on collectors/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 _____

9. 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 _____

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. PROJECT DESIGN (15 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.)
• Project providing unique best management practices for water quality? _____(5 pts.)


CRITERION # OF POINTS POSSIBLE # OF POINTS EARNED
Infrastructure 50
Amenities 25
Energy Efficiency 25
Jobs 40
Agricultural Enterprise 30
Housing Design 25
Continuing Project 10
Incorporating Existing Properties 25
Estate Homes 10
Subdivide Land Only (reduced threshold)
Existing Homes 15
Subdivision Design 15
TOTAL 270

Appendix 3

APPLICANT’S GUIDE
RGMP ALLOCATION PROCESS

Introduction

The City Council has adopted the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) to manage the residential growth of the City.

Application Process

Applications shall be filed with the Community Development Department by the following dates for consideration by the City Council:

1. The second Council meeting in February; submit complete application by October 1st.
2. The second Council meeting in August; submit complete application by April 1st.

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 Universal Application form.

6. Written explanation of how the 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 the 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.

8. Completed RGMP Score Sheet, with all accompanying support information, including engineer’s estimates.

9. 4’ by 8’ sign installed on the project site, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

10. 300-foot radius list, stamped envelopes, etc.

Appendix 4

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

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