HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/25/2003Planning Commission Minutes - November 25, 2003
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail plan ninga?ci.petaluma.cams
Web Page http: / /www.ci. etaluma.ca.us
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 NOVerr ber 25, 2003 - 7:00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett, Dargie, Healy, McAllister, Rose, von
6 Raesfeld
7
8 * Chair
9
to Staff: George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
11 Lynn Goldberg, Project Planner
12 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
13
14
15 ROLL CALL:
16 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of November 12,'2003 were approved as
18 amended. M/S Dargie /Asselmeier.
19 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
20 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
21 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Chair Barrett asked if we could schedule a joint
22 meeting with the Planning Commission and SPARC. George White commented that
23 there will be a joint meeting once the changes in scheduling have been adopted by the
24 council.
25 CORRESPONDENCE: None.
26 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
27 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
28
29
30 Public hearing began: @ 7:00
31
32 PUBLIC HEARING:
33 NEW BUSINESS:
34
35 I. BOULEVARD APARTMENTS, 945 Petaluma Blvd. North
36 AP No.: 006 - 450 -018
Planning Commission Minutes - November 25, 2003
1 File: 03 -ZOA -0405
2 Planner: Lynn Goldberg
3
4 Applicant is requesting a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Mitigated
5 Negative Declaration for the project to build 15 one- bedroom apartments to house 14
6 low - income individuals with a mental illness and one onsite manager. Rezone the project
7 site to the Boulevard Apartment Planned Unit District, adopt the proposed Unit
8 Development Plan for Boulevard Apartments and adopt the proposed Development
9 Standards for the Boulevard Apartments PUD.
to Lynn Goldberg presented the staff report. After the packet went out we received the
11 following correspondence:
12 Y John and Liz Maxwell, 11820 Mill Street, Petaluma, in support of the project.
13 • Rosemary McCreary, 6055 Lichau Road, Pen rigrove, in support of the project.
14 ® Brian Rademacher, 216 White Oak Circle, Petaluma, in opposition to the project.
15 m Mary and Jim Duensing, 121 White Oak Circle, Petaluma, in opposition to the
16 project.
17 Katie Crecelius, Housing Consultant: Presented the project and introduced the project
18 team.
19 Christine Vargas, Kodama Diseno, Architect: Presented the project site plan.
20 Public comment opened:
21 Gary Pierce, Housing Specialist, Sonoma County Mental Health: Expressed support for
22 the project. Spoke highly of Buckelew Programs. Asked for the Planning Commission's
23 support.
24 Kenneth Schmidt, 312 -12 Street: Happy that Petaluma is considering offering housing
25 to people with mental illness. Spoke highly of Buckelew Proj grams.
26 Michele McCabe, 108 Saratoga Court: I work for the Marin County Public Guardian
27 program and want to offer a reference for Buckelew Programs. There are misconceptions
28 about mental illness. People living in the Boulevard Apartments are not people with
29 acute mental illness. They will be good neighbors and supported by an excellent staff.
30 John Records: Spoke regarding people with mental disabilities needing this type of
31 housing. Performance and follow through is essential for this type of project.
32 Jeff Ray, Neighbors Establishing Social Priorities (NESP): The majority of residents in
33 the immediate area are against the project. The applicant promised neighborhood
34 meetings which never took place. Feel this location is inappropriate for following
35 reasons: people with major mental illness who need medication sometimes if they are
36 feeling well, they do not take medications; cost of City services will be increased to
37 $900/hr. Asked the Commission to deny the proposed application.
38 Toby Jones, 46 Acorn Circle: I believe this is a constructive way to provide housing and
39 help for the mental ill.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - November 25, 2003
1 Lynn Berard, 436 Gossage: Commended the City for their support of affordable housing.
2 I sit on the board of a Buckelew project in Marin County. The Buckelew residents have
3 been good residents and Buckelew has an excellent reputation. The properties integrate
4 well into the community. This is an excellent location for this type of project. Requested
5 the Planning Commission's support.
6 Roy Bateman, Marin County Community Development Agency: Talked of his
7 experience working with Buckelew Programs. Have funded Buckelew programs in
8 Novato and San Rafael. Do not know of any.problems caused by the residents. Would
9 have no reservation of having a Buckelew project as a neighbor.
i0 Paula Cook, Community Housing Development Corp. of Santa Rosa: This is an
11 underserved population and this is an excellent project and we urge you to approve the
12 proj ect.
13 Len Smith, 1400 Caulfield: Spoke in favor of the project. I am a board member of
14 Petaluma Ecumenical Projects. PEP will manage the apartments and we want to
15 encourage the Commission to vote in favor of this project.
16 Val Gavozdea, 217 White Oak Circle: Opposed to the project. Mental illness is a broad
17 definition and unfortunately the project talks very little about the people who will be
18 residents. The environment will be crowed and noisy — they need an environment of.
19 open space. Putting people in small, cramped spaces is counter productive. The location
20 is a iacceptable for this type of project.
21 Julie Morgan, 308 -10 Street: I am a close family member of someone with a mental
22 illness. We need to extend our welcome and help these people. I have been afraid and
23 hope that the neighbors will open their arms to these people.
24 James Mobley, 143 Acorn Drive: Believe this is an excellent project and am happy that
25 Petaluma is providing these services. All citizens deserve a chance to live a productive
26 life.
27 Majida Gibson: PEP; Sonoma County Housing Coalition: Am in support of this project
28 — it is superior project and this is an excellent location for this project. Buckelew is an
29 excellent group.
30 John Morgan, 308 -10 Street: Work for Burbank Housing and echo what has been said
31 about Buckelew Programs. We have had no problems with Buckelew programs. Mental
32 illness has come into my immediate family — there is a terrible stigma attached.
33 Neighbors are afraid that the residents propose a danger. I live near a Board and Care
34 residence and it is transparent. There is a misperception about people with mental illness.
35 Public comment closed:
36 Jay Zlonick, Executive Director of Buckelew: The term major mental illness does not
37 equal dangerous. We deal with residents who can be treated. We do not consider this a
38 crowed site. There is a very successful project in San Francisco which is much more
39 dense that this project. We are not insensitive to the concerns of the neighbors. They are
40 the same concerns expressed by residents of Fairfax and San Rafael. We have letters in
41 support of the project from people who previously opposed projects.
42 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked about the screening process.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - November 25, 2003
1 Jay Zlonick: County mental health does the screening and recommends people and then
2 Buckelew does a screening. We review history and interview clients and look at the past
3 behavior. Funding is on a county basis, will do what we can to give preference to
4 Petaluma residents.
5 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked about the resident managers.
6 Jay Zlonick: The resident manager helps with property management, rent collection; the
7 on -site manager is not there to manage the mental health of clients. If someone needed
8 ongoing care they would not be here.
9 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked if residents hold jobs.
10 Jay Zlonick: Yes, some are employed part time and some full time. Other residents do
11 some volunteer work.
12 Break @ 8:10
13 Resumed @ 8:15
14 Commission Discussion:
15 Council Member Healy: I am sensitive to neighborhood issues. The use proposed meets
16 a tremendous need. We are lucky that this is a Buckelew Program — referred to the letter
17 from Fairfax residents in support of the project. This project will be here for 40 years.
18 Everything needs to be put in writing to ensure what is promised will be carried out,
19 particularly the two -step screening process, the on -site manager, and on -going services to
20 residents. These are not conditions for the project. Needs to be something to specify that
21 this will be a well - managed facility. Ask Buckelew or staff to provide guidance with
22 how this will happen. Question about on -site parking. Site is constrained because there
23 is no street parking. Possibly other commissioners can discuss.
24 Commissioner Dargie: Agree with Council Member Healy regarding putting in writing
25 about screening and an on -site manager.
26 . Commissioner McAllister: Agree that agreements in writing would be a good idea.
27 Support the project and think it is a need for the community. Believe the location is
28 good.
29 Commissioner von Raesfeld: The issue is a social perception issue. I am in support of
30 the project. Specific comments: condition from the Planning Division regarding a use
31 permit.
32 George White: Proposal is for PUD zoning designation which controls all uses and
33 structures on the property.
34 Commissioner VonRaesfeld: There needs to be a reference to funding sources. n
35 Commissioner Asselmeier: Share the comments about use restrictions and funding.
36 Would like Petaluma residents to receive priority. What aspect of rent control is
37 provided? Need to continue to uphold Petaluma's reputation to provide this type of
38 housing. The reputation of Buckielew is commendable. Petaluma should be proud of
39 this type of project. Additional statement of what amenities would be for the residents.
40 In development standards, Attachment D, pg. 9 — do not understand the reference to
41 minor telecommunication facilities.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - November 25, 2003
1 George White: It is standard language — it can stay in the agreement or come out. By
2 omission it would be prohibited.
3 Lynn Goldberg: Buckelew is trying to model existing residential district development
4 standards. Would be a permitted use.
5 Commissioner Rose: Do not have a great deal to add. Believe it a fundamentally sound
6 proposal. The applicant has documented their intentions. Need to have language
7 regarding the use. Comments by the Police Department were not mentioned in the staff
8 report — how is this addressed.
9 Katie Crecelius: Buckelew did not feel the conditions were appropriate. We feel a 6 -foot
10 fence is sufficient. We met with the Police Chief and addressed his issues. Would be
11 very difficult to have all the units' patios facing inward.
12 Lynn Goldberg: Police were more concerned for the security of the apartment residents.
13 The Police Chief was willing to let the conditions go.
14 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Asked whether access to the project from Hawthorne Court
15 was possible.
16 George White: Hawthorne is a private street and will not be extended into the project
17 site.
18 Alice Thomas: In a similar residence, only 5 residents have cars. Believe this would
19 hold true for this project. Less than 50% of the residents have cars.
20 Chair Barrett: Concur with the other commissioners. I am happy with the changes to the
21 project after the SPARC preliminary review. Want to reassure the neighbors, working
22 with PEP projects and Buckelew they will be in good hands.
23 Additional conditions of approval /issues identified:
24 Provide the following to City Council:
25 a Provide a draft of a written understanding between Buckelew and the City
26 as to the operational characteristics of the facility including:
27 - Specification of Buckelew role for screening and follow -up
28 before going to City Council.
29 - Use and rent restrictions and HUD funding.
30 - Preference given to Petaluma residents
31 Direction to SPARC:
32 a Focus on amenities for the resident, including outdoor seating and
33 socialization opportunities.
34 a Develop the landscape plan further through the SPARC process.
35 Commissioner von Raesfled: What is the multi -use room on the first floor.
36 Katie Crecelius: Is for the residents.
37 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Maybe you can expand the use of the multi - purpose room
38 for community purposes.
5
Planning. Commission Minutes - November 25, 2003
1 Chair Barrett: Is limited by parking.
2 George White: Will discuss with the applicant and write into the PUD guidelines.
3 Commissioner Asselmeier: It may be restricted by the funding.
4 M/S Healy /Dargie to forward a recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative
5 Declaration, rezone the project site to the Boulevard Apartment Planned Unit District,
6 adopt the proposed Unit Development Plan for Boulevard Apartments and adopt the
7 proposed Development Standards for the Boulevard Apartments PUD. 7 -0
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
II. LIAISON REPORTS:
a. City Council: Written responses to Paula Lane; stakes on Parcel B at the
Outlet Center; preliminary report on the leakage study — provide
commissioners with copies; Dec 15 there will be a General Plan
scenarios presented.
b. SPARC: Preliminary review for a new building at Northbay
Construction; Gatti Subdivision was continued; BJM condition
compliance was continued.
c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: Adobe Creek Center at
Lakeville and South McDowell; RMN project.
d. Tree Advisory Committee: Planted a tree at Bassett and Howard;
reviewed Sonoma County tree protection during construction.
Adjournment: 9:00
SAK- Planning Commission \Minutes\PCMinutes03 \112503.doe
6