Brentwood Planning Commission Reverses Course, Selects “Best of Worst” Decision for Homeless Shelter

During Tuesday night’s Brentwood Planning Commission meeting, the commission moved away from a joint-decision with the council to zone an emergency homeless shelter on Jane Way off Brentwood Blvd.

During a March 10 joint-meeting between the Brentwood City Council and Planning Commission, after hearing pros and cons from potential sites, it was determined that Davis Camp on Jane Way was the best location which would then be further vetted by the Planning Commission followed by City Council during their respective meetings.

State law requires all cities to provide for emergency shelter uses in their zoning ordinances. At least one location in the city must be zoned to allow a shelter as a permitted use. The City of Brentwood is currently not in compliance with this law.

Tuesday night, the Planning Commission heard from more than 20 residents who opposed the Davis Camp location and requested the zoning be moved to somewhere else in the city—many residents proposed a site near the police station which was later designated as PD-12. An online petition had gathered more than 1,000 signatures.

After more than 3-hours of discussion and public comments, Planning Commission Chairperson Lance Crannell called the decision to move the location “the best of the worst”.

Notes:

• Proposed location is Davis Camp on Jane Lane off Brentwood Blvd.
• PD-38 is near JC Penny on Lone Tree & Empire
• PD – 12 is near the police station.

Public Comments

Note – apologize in advance to those who spoke and we butchered your last name.

Cathleen Gallardo – I am in charge of the neighborhood watch and I come before you today amongst my neighbors, my friends, the kids, who all live in that community to urge you all to reconsider your view of the 1907-1909 site. I urge that because it’s near the park, near the children’s center and near two schools. It’s also near the creek trail. I urge this because after being a part of our neighborhood watch for nearly 2-years, we have as a neighborhood been through absolute hell. Dealt with people with drugs, people who squat, it’s been a nightmare. We finally got to the point in our own neighborhood where we can finally be at peace. Kids can finally play in the street and finally feel safe and for this I don’t mean to speak badly about this and I understand the need, but for us to finally be at peace, I urge you all to reconsider what you are about to do. For the kids, the athlete complex as well. please reconsider.

Shawn Radabaugh – I read the state law and there are a few things that I thought were misleading. A couple of the terms here is without discretionary approval. It states that someone can build this homeless structure… but without discretionary approval and prevents jurisdictions from denying applicants. If someone was to come to Brentwood in good faith they would have to honor someone wanting to build on that land. There are also environmental concerns. There is a river that runs adjacent to the property in a 100-year flood zone which would make the property not ideal for that location. Persons with low income with 1-or more disabilities including mental illness,

Jeff Nichols – I don’t think the pressure to make a decision justifies the right to make a poor decision. The only time I feel unsafe in Brentwood is on Brentwood Blvd after the “S turn” by Safeway. Things happen there that is unusual, people yell at me in the bike path. There is a lot of pressure in that neighborhood from people and businesses in that neighborhood. I would like you to reconsider your decision tonight. We are more important as existing residents than proposals for future residents that do not exist. It needs a boost up, not something to take it further down.

Jeff V. – A smart person told me that if there is a push, a hurry, or you have to do it, its probably not the right thing to do. So step back, think about it, and make a smart decision. Quite frankly, $750k works out without population works out just to be $15 per person. But I also have a heart and want to help the 15-20 people because it could be any of us. Quite frankly, we can better serve a much larger community if we look at a multi-jurisdiction deal and find a property there and take the funds. Under the actual California Statue, it’s stated there and that has been left off the table. We really need to think about this if we are going to be putting this in our city. A better way to do this, is next to the police station. If we need to run a shuttle, we will pay for a shuttle to get them to public transportation.

David Mirren, a former San Francisco Police officer – In my career I have responded to several hundred calls with homeless shelters, but my personal experience that I’ve responded to a wide of calls from drug use, alcoholism, battery, sexual battery, rape, stabbings, shootings, and even homicides. I can tell you that a lot of the people who go to these shelters, and I don’t mean to step on toes or hurt people’s feelings, but people who go to those shelters are there because they choose to be there. These are people with alcohol problems, drug problems, sexual deviants, pedophiles, people with serious mental disorders. Those are the people I don’t think anyone here wants walking the streets in the morning time when they are out of the shelter.

Mr. Mirren then asked two questions:

• In 2-years, what recourse does the public have if someone comes in and wants to build a homeless shelter? Will we have another meeting like this to voice our opinions?
• 15-20 people currently in Brentwood, what prohibits someone from another city from coming to Brentwood and using a shelter. Are we going to have criteria when we have a shelter for letting these people in such as a felon, child molester, etc.?

Planning commission did not answer the questions, directed them to the City Council as the Planning Commission is the recommending body. The City Council makes the decisions.

John Ford, a paramedic for 15-years, – this homeless shelter proposal ends up being a beacon for the homeless. We will start at 15 and go to 40. When we hit our max, the homeless end up on people’s doorsteps, in a park where kids play at, usually at the jogging path; this is not a good idea at all. This is a really bad idea. It seems to me that in all the proposals, the one thing that really seemed to put this area in a good spot seems to be transportation. Other than that, its next to two schools, next to a jogging path, its next to a kids community area. These other sites, like the police station, that would be the best spot. Yes, get a shuttle; get a bus to move over there. I can’t fathom that $750k of transportation money and street paving cannot pay for a bus to get them from there. I guarantee none of your houses are in that neighborhood.

Hazel Smith – I am sure all of you heard about the Antioch encampment being shut down. Since then, we walked outside we saw a homeless drunk passed out in front of my house. I called the police they came and got him. Later that night, another homeless pushing a stroller with his belongings. Then met up with his prostitute at Rosewood Garden. Turns out they were looking through our mailboxes. I am really disappointed in all of you for even considering this.

Jeff Taller – It’s seriously unfortunate that we have had all these years to deal with this subjects. It’s unfortunate that you guys let it go on for so long to lose money. It’s pretty bad planning. I feel like I am getting blown off tonight. (referring questions to City Council)

Darcy Marshall – Listed a number of concerns from crime, property values, drugs, etc…

“I don’t understand how it’s acceptable to propose a location that can greatly impact a taxpaying citizen and put hard working people at risk and why my worth is less than others. We could have purchased a home in Oakley for twice the size but we purchased in Brentwood. We could have saved $100,000 the same exact size in Oakley. But we didn’t we purchased in Brentwood because this is a town that I believed had the same values as me, a town with responsible planning and growth to protect our people to remain safe fruitful and a tight knit community”.

The abundance of dictatorship for justification insulting, unethical, and a deliberate lie to attempt to divert the attention of the people it impacts

“Zoning is the same difference as building because once it’s zoned, it can be built. Your allowing this in my neighborhood, you are choosing to put me and my family at risk. I lived next to a shelter in Antioch for a few months on C Street for a few months before moving. We were robbed, our checks were stolen out of our mailbox twice, there is multiple items taken from my church. When we point out the people, police did noting because my property was not on them.”

Angela Spinelli – She opposed the rezoning the property for the emergency homeless shelter. She spoke about the safety issues, rising crime in Brentwood. Highlighted the decision being made is being done in haste just to meet the May 31 deadline.

“This is unacceptable and scandalous to place our city in this situation,” said Spinelli. “A haste decision can cause great damage and harm and we will never be able to recovery from it. The Senate Bill 2 went into effect Jan 2008, not yesterday. Almost 7-years went by without any mention to the community and now you are deciding where this re-zone should take place. It seems like our Planning Commission is out to make a quick choice now and ask for forgiveness later. This is too important to make a hasty decision. We realize you have retracted, clarified and corrected statements to show we are only re-zoning and not building.”

She highlighted that you do not zone and re-zone not to do anything with it. She urged this location be placed by the Police Station. She highlighted this should have taken from 2008 until today to make this decision, not this month.

Vanessa Rodriguez – It confuses me that when it is the law to do something humane such as build a homeless shelter for individuals and families who need community support we look the other way. We explain that we do not want it in our own backyard or stereotype homeless individuals.

Rodriquez further questioned a quote from the March 10 meeting which said this is only a zoned property and that the City does not plan on building a shelter. She questioned why they would not build one for up to 20 people. She highlighted that Brentwood should want to help people get back on their feet and prevent children and veterans from becoming homeless. She proposed a committee be created.

Michael DeMossey – I camped out for my house for 8 days to be able to buy my house. I have a son and I wanted to raise my family in Brentwood and I came from Danville and San Ramon and I have talked to people over there if they would ever put a homeless shelter not near, but in a residential area where they are proposing. It’s within across the street within a residential area. It’s not close; it’s in a residential area. I am appalled by the commission for even considering this.

He highlighted that the location is within a mile of two elementary schools and up to six parks. He highlighted 1,000 resident have signed to help prevent this zoning. He further highlighted that no one received the announcement of the March 10 meeting, but that they got a letter about the zoning.

“You guys are pushing this. If you build it, they will come. I feed the homeless once a week on Tuesday nights. I will go ahead and start feeding them on your street because none of you guys will ever, and I mean ever, put this in your own backyards. And that is what disgusts me. You will not put this in your backyard but you are willing to put it in mine. Thanks for nothing,” said DeMossey.

Larry Batelo – Stated that the homeless shelter should be placed next to the police station.

Debbie Elkins – Urged the commission to reconsider and look at other options. Suggested weighing all the other option because this impacts two schools, the creek, and trails. Stated that usually when something is zoned, they are not going to re-zone elsewhere.

Sara Burnardi – Spoke about the concerns of the neighborhood saying they do not want any more noise, crime, and traffic in the neighborhood. They were homeowners not wanting this area to be the high crime, low income area of Brentwood. When they bought, this area was not zoned for “J”. Urged the commission to move the location next to the police station.

She suggest through research, Brentwood will be required to build a homeless shelter within 10 years because of funding and this only reserves the location until it’s time to build.

Riesa Brooks – Moved out from Newark to Brentwood and noted on the City website one of the missions of the city was to make everyone feel welcome and safety was a priority. She urged the commission to reconsider.

“I don’t want something threatening near my four children,” said Brooks. “I don’t like the fact you do not know what is going to be out there. The homeless shelter is less than 500 yards from my house. That makes me feel uncomfortable and please reconsider this for the safety. If you did this, no one is going to want to buy my house. I would be stuck there.”

David West – While I appreciate the fact the city is thinking of adding an emergency shelter, but what we are doing here is not right. If you build it, they will come and someone will build it. The city will be offered a lot of money and they will build this. He noted this is a flood zone and rated high in chemicals and no building and 2-buses that run through. He urged this to be placed by the police station or do what the city council and commission were advised to do which is place it at P-38 which was recommended.

“At the previous meeting, planner Debbie Hill said this was not an ideal location. I don’t know why you have her paid on staff if you’re not going to listen to her,” said West. “Please at least listen to the residents.”

Beatrice Elkins – Why did we go through all this work when we already had the P-38 site. We had the comparisons and reviewing them I saw a couple that were prefect as opposed to Davis Camp.

Explained that if you really want to help the homeless and get them back on their feet, it requires more than just rezoning but a community discussion. She wanted the commission to imagine what Davis Camp would look like in the future. A beautiful place or a place where people would avoid.

John Dagnon – would live 100 yards from this proposal and heard about it from a neighbor. His initial reaction was he could not believe it. Noted he worked in a homeless shelter and has a passion for these people and could even be one of them, but he does not see any precedent where its located in a residential place with all the concerns of family. Highlighted how it’s not good judgment and does not make sense. Encouraged another location in a commercial zone and better thought out place.

April V. – a major concern with Marsh Creek Elementary is a Title 1 school where more than 50% is considered low income and receive free or reduce school lunches. There is a lot of moms with strollers walking to and from schools. There is a lot of 3^rd through 5^th grade children walking to school unattended. She noted that women frequently jog the trail. Says anywhere you place that shelter your going to bring down growth and property values. A better idea is near the police station.

Cathy Griffin – You have got this wrong, it’s obvious by the speakers tonight, go back to the drawing board and find a better place. It seems like the criteria for the placement of this is flawed.

Jeff Orkin – my problem for years is this area is being segregated. There is a dollar store pushing that clientele down there. We have apartments. We have a sewer treatment plant that smells in the summer. The stores in that area, that is a high robbery area—that is not being talked about. Segregation here is happening. That is a crime. A good lawyer could find a good case for that. Suggested a better placement is by the police station.

Greg Montez – says a lot of the homeless will not use a shelter because of the rules not being allowed to drink or use drugs meaning they will be in the areas around the shelter. It’s been stated many times tonight that once you open the flood gates, the people will come. Wanted to know what definition is being used for the word “emergency”. We made it very clear tonight what our opinion is of the job you are doing.

Andrea Manga – I came to Brentwood 4-years ago, if this comes to be true, I am going to lose my house not because I am not able to pay but because no one is going to want to buy my house and everything that was said, I think you all get it. I don’t want my daughter or anyone to be attacked.

Al Durazzo – It’s going to be a real shame if this does come to fruition. Said he would not restate what everyone has already said.

Robert Whitfield – He noted the changing face in the neighborhood on Brentwood Blvd and sunset with hundreds of new homes and now putting this burden on them. Being a realtor, they will be impacted because they have to disclose the homeless shelter around the corner and it’s going to affect the value of their property.

Bob Pankhurst – After sitting here, there is a solution to meet the deadline and really do the right job and if we choose a location that seems to be near the police station makes the most sense. If that was chosen that way you can keep the funding and stay within the rules put in place by the state. Then you can sit back and do a proper study and solution to this solution and later re-zone and is well thought out and much more appropriate rather than rushing into a decision.

Karen Estes – please stop this craziness. Please do not do this I beg of you and I do not want my home to go to hell.

Planning Commission Q &A

Commissioner Joseph Weber wanted to know if the city could share a location and how feasible that would be. Staff replied the speaker was correct; however, all adjoining cities have already selected their emergency homeless shelter locations. There is not a possibility at this moment in time.

Weber asked about the LMC site because it’s currently occupied by the college. Staff explained there could be space in terms of an a certain amount of square footage be made available.

Weber referred to staff presentation to the south of the police station, wanted to clarify that the city has already designated the area to place solar panels. Staff said he is correct which went into place in December—prior to the staff report going out, staff received the plans which leaves 1-acre available on the front half of the property.

Weber wanted to compare with two addresses on Jane Way. Staff explains the biggest road block is the location of the continuation high school. Although they are older students, they are still children.

Weber then asked about mental health aspect, wanted to know the management plan (page 8 no. 18) and its requirements and is staff comfortable with how the plan is written. Staff has reviewed plan and made it as restrictive as possible while meeting state requirements but noted a legal line they cannot pass.

Weber then asked about 290-sexual registrant. Is it not possible that we do not have to put a timeline? Staff will look to verify prior to any city council action. Weber said he wanted to exclude any 290 registrant.

Planning Commission Discussion

Chair Lance Crannell stated tonight they heard from the public that they had to say.

“I understand the issue at play here, there are several and you all have highlighted them. They have crossed our minds. For me, I have been on the land-use committee for over a year, this issue has been brought up a few times. We have been discussing different locations. I understand there is no good spot for the homeless spot in the City of Bentwood, however there are some mandates in play,” said Crannell. “What you have said tonight is heard loud and clear.”

Crannell noted that no decision has been made and their decision tonight is only a recommendation and encouraged folks to speak their minds at the City Council.

“My feeling on this is that we did have a zoning designation for P-38 that the land use committee had vetted twice and recommended as a committee,” explained Crannel. “That is private land while Davis Camp is public land. Publicly owned land is land for sale that can be purchased at a fair price and the city would have to accommodate. If it is designated, there is a good chance it could be built. Not for, but it could be. This did come to a joint-work shop where we discussed the various locations and the pro’s and cons. It was settled upon that these two addresses at Davis Camp would be the one recommended for the emergency shelter designation. At that time, the PD-38, there was not many people there but they were just as adamant about their land as the people here tonight. There are not good designations for this in town. However, some are better than others and some meet the criteria better than others.”

Crannell applauded the folks for coming tonight and speaking their mind and showing passion. He noted he is listening and hearing the public.

Commissioner John Fink said he wrote down “Not in my backyard”. He noted that passion is a very important thing and would have the same passion if this was in my backyard.

“There were a lot of comments made tonight that I agree with. There is no right place to put this. I share the same sentiment you all do,” explained Fink. “I can understand everyone’s point and we have a very important decision to make which I have to pull back from because the one thing that Brentwood does right is proper planning. There are leaders in this community before us… they made very wise decisions. In conversations with people when this decision was brought up was pressure.”

Fink stated he feels this whole decision is rushed.

“For an item as important as this, it needs the voice of the entire community, not just the three weeks we gave you on the notice to get this done. The double edge sword is when you bring in the consensus of the rest of the community you have to balance it somewhere,“ explained Fink. “Where you are going to be happy, another group will not be happy, if we don’t make them happy but make you happy, if we go down that road, it has to be in mind of everyone’s opinion matters but that is where I am thinking but this is too important to rush it.”

Fink shared that the community tonight voiced their opinions tonight correctly and he knows how they feel.

“We need to take a step back, voters of Brentwood have the best say always,” said Fink. “Voters put the city council in there seat, the city council appointed us. We do not make policy we follow directive by the city council. The voters have the say. The public made their say and we need to take a step back. As important as the money we may lose, we need to take a step back.”

Commissioner Claudette Slaton stated she hears the public but at the same time it’s a state requirement that we place an emergency shelter somewhere in the City of Brentwood.

“It has to go somewhere,” said Slaton. “Wherever it’s going to be placed, it’s going to be managed. I know for a fact by reading this document the city has standards if there is a shelter that is put in place. I know how important this is and I hear all your concerns. I hear you.”

Weber noted that during the joint-meeting, a councilmember referred to this as kicking the can down the road and by the comments tonight this is more like moving a boulder up a hill.

“I understand the constraints that staff have indicated. I know 2012 would have been the opportune time,” explained Weber. “My personal opinion is we are just going to be relocating the same arguments but at a different location within the community.”

Weber stated he was prepared to act on this tonight rather than a 2^nd or 3^rd eye.

Commissioner Dirk Zeigler thanked the community for the passion showed tonight.

“We hear you loud and clear but understand that tonight whatever we come to decide, is not the final decision. That will be up to the city council to say yes or no,” said Zeigler.

Zeigler stated that he agreed with some of the things Commissioner Fink stated about needing more information.

“I feel like I have not been able to get enough information on all the various sites to make an informed decision. There is not a person in this room that can say there is a perfect location for this. There is absolutely no location. Now we say what is the lesser of two evils. What can we find to allow people to be comfortable and the least impact to schools and on people’s property values,” said Zeigler. “I feel like there is a gun to my head to make a decision which I do not like.”

Crannell noted four-different ways they could go with this.

1. Approve the Resolution as written for Davis Camp
2. Recommend another location—PD 38
3. We can provide no conclusion as a recommendation to City Council
4. We can propose both Davis Camp and PD 38
5. The recommendation for a completely new site (near police station PD-12)

Staff noted that what the commission is doing tonight they are making a recommendation to the city council.

Weber stated that Option 4 was intriguing.

Zeigler asked about PD-12 saying the solar panel project and if there was even room for this facility. Staff said the size for a 15-20 person location is about a half-acre.

Weber asked if they put the site as the selection if the State could reject it. Staff said it’s a qualified site and the City could always create a CIP project to extend sidewalks.

Crannell noted that he sat in the land use committee and that PD-12 meets his gut check. It felt good to him and put the city at ease and is only a zoning designation. PD 38 has been vetted and there is not much development—it would be a different game because no one is there yet. They would fully be disclosed that this is zoned.

“Those two locations meet my gut check,” said Crannell. “My recommendation to the city council a zoning condition on PD-38 and PD-12.”

Fink stated that he wanted PD-12 alone and not a second option for the council.

“I don’t think it’s fair because we vetted PD-38 and we are kicking the can back to the same landowners that we were not going to that I don’t think it’s fair,” said Fink. “I don’t feel like we have been given enough time, I understand it’s been through land use for a year. But we are looking at something this important. I am not in favor of including PD-38. PD-12 I am fine, PD-38 I am not.”

Zeigler stated he like the idea of including PD-12 and questioned whether it was feasible to include PD-38.

Fink noted that if PD-38 was included, the city would be inviting people from other cities to come in and use the services. He said that at PD-12 it’s easier to monitor.

Weber stated he did not want to provide double-talk for something he stated 45-minutes earlier, but that PD-38 could hurt future economic development along Lone Tree and Empire and that PD-12 was the better option.

Crannell stated that including PD-38 and PD-12 gives the council more options to vet both properties.

“PD-12 in my minds eye is the optimal, its the best of the worst decisions,” said Crannell.

The planning Commission made a motion 4-0 on changing the recommended location.