Schulz Museum squares off against proposed Santa Rosa housing project, with parking at issue

Three of Santa Rosa’s most high-profile civic institutions, including the Charles M. Schulz Museum, are fighting a proposed apartment complex going up across the street over concerns that lack of parking and increased traffic could harm their business and the neighborhood.

The developer of 1650 W. Steele Lane hopes to transform the long-vacant 1-acre parcel into 36 apartments, and a state incentive has allowed the project to offer less parking on site than normally required.

That approval has been challenged by the Schulz museum and neighboring Snoopy’s Home Ice arena — both linked to late “Peanuts” creator Charles M. Schulz — and the Children’s Museum of Sonoma County.

Their appeal has landed the closely watched matter before Santa Rosa City Council, with a hearing set for Tuesday following several delays.

The three civic institutions occupy most of two city blocks on the north side of Steele Lane, across the street from the proposed apartments. They collectively appealed the project in February.

Their representatives say the proposal will snarl traffic on an already congested two-lane street.

Reduced on-site parking will force resident parking to spill onto the surrounding neighborhood streets, where there is already limited street parking, or into their parking lots, they argue.

“Simply put, the residents will need to put their cars somewhere, and the project as proposed ignores this reality and the impact it will pose on the neighborhood,” Erin Carlstrom, a Santa Rosa attorney representing the appellants, wrote in the appeal.

Carlstrom is a former City Council member. The appellants are organized under an entity called Charles M. Schulz Creative Associates, backed by one of the most famed and respected Santa Rosa families.

The housing project they have challenged and the debate now playing out in this growing northwest Santa Rosa neighborhood is likely to test city and state efforts to streamline housing construction and could signal disputes to come as the city seeks to prioritize infill development.

It has even caught the attention of state housing officials who have signaled to Santa Rosa that they’re keeping a close eye on the city’s decision.

Ingrid Anderson, principal architect on the project, said the proposal meets city planning and design standards and will bring new housing to the area. Parking on site will meet resident needs and the project is close to public transportation and other amenities.

She described the appeal as being without merit. It’s an attempt by the prominent institutions and other vocal neighbors who are resistant to change to kill the project, she said.

“There’s a cohort in Santa Rosa that is gun shy of changes,” Anderson said.

Anderson said the appeal has delayed construction of the project and cost developer Patrick O’Neill of San Rafael more than $35,000. Despite the setback, he is committed to seeing the project through, she said.

“Housing is important to the health and economic welfare of the city,” she said, “and we hope the City Council recognizes that and the project is able to prevail.”

Stiff challenge from Schulz group

The project has drawn support from local housing advocates, including Santa Rosa-based group Generation Housing.

It was approved through a streamlined process at City Hall because it met development standards under the specific plan for the area, just west of Coddingtown Mall.

But Carlstrom, the appellants’ attorney, said while her clients are ready to welcome new residents to the neighborhood, the approved project would add to the area’s existing challenges.

The two museums and ice arena are some of the top attractions in the region, drawing upward of 300,000 annual visitors and generating millions of dollars in local tourism dollars, she said. Their parking lots are typically full on the busiest days.

Traffic on Steele Lane is often backed up during peak hours and many of the residents in the existing town homes and small apartment complexes rely on the limited street parking.

The project as designed will deepen the problem, Carlstrom said.

“I’m hopeful the council can take this confluence of issues and realize either they need to send this back to the developer and ask them to listen to us and work effectively with us to come to a consensus or deny the project,” she said.

City planning staffers have recommended council deny the appeal and uphold the prior approval, finding that the project meets land-use requirements and that state law bars cities from denying a project over lack of parking when it’s in proximity to public transportation.

Attempts by both parties to work together to address the concerns before Tuesday’s hearing have been unsuccessful, Anderson and Carlstrom said.

What’s proposed

The project is planned on the last remaining infill lot in the neighborhood west of Range Avenue.

It calls for 36 one- to three-bedroom units spread across three, three-story residential buildings.

Four of the units will be set aside for very low-income residents.

The apartments will feature a raised exterior courtyard on the corner of West Steele Lane and Meadowbrook Court and units will wrap around an interior outdoor gathering space.

A two-story automated parking garage will feature 25 stalls and there will be 11 additional covered and uncovered spaces on site.

The city's zoning administrator on Jan. 25 approved a minor conditional-use permit and minor design review for the project.

The approvals came over objections from officials from the three institutions and some residents who have been sounding the alarm over the reduced parking and traffic impacts since the project first came to their attention in 2019.

Beyond those issues, nearby residents pushed back on the increased density proposed on the property and said the design was incompatible with the surrounding area.

The land is zoned for medium density residential with up to 18 units under the city's general plan and the North Station Area Specific Plan.

State housing officials approved a 35% density bonus allowing the developer to build six additional units on-site because the developer set aside four units for very low income housing.

The project qualified for a supplemental density bonus because of its proximity to major transit and a school, allowing the developer to build double the units allowed under city zoning.

The density bonus provided other benefits to O’Neill, the developer. He received a parking reduction from 52 to 36 spaces, reduced setbacks and a height variance allowing him to increase the maximum building height from 35 to 45 feet.

Housing proponents said it adds needed market-rate and affordable housing and prioritizes development near public transit.

But Charles M. Schulz Creative Associates’ Feb. 6 appeal cited the city’s “approval of much-reduced parking.”

Schulz’s widow, Jean Schulz, is an original investor in Sonoma Media Investments, owner of The Press Democrat. She has not taken a prominent public role in the fight, but attorneys representing her family have spoken against the project at city meetings.

Carlstrom said her clients were reluctant to challenge staff’s decision but felt it was the only avenue to have their concerns addressed after their complaints fell on deaf ears.

“They’re excited to grow their neighborhood but unfortunately this was the only mechanism that we had to get anyone’s attention on what we believe is a decision on the project that does not adequately take into account the extraordinary unique characteristic of the neighborhood and the impacts to the existing businesses and residents when a project like this doesn’t provide adequate parking,” she said.

Neighborhood parking woes

Carlstrom said few efforts have been made by the development team to address their concerns since her clients first met with them four years ago to discuss the proposal.

The appellants contend parking at their facilities is typically full and available spaces on Meadowbrook Court and other nearby streets are usually taken during the busiest times of the day.

Incoming families with more than one vehicle will need to find alternative parking if all the spaces on-site are full and it will burden the nearby infrastructure.

“Failing to provide adequate parking for the new residents will exacerbate the existing safety issues in the area and poses a great likelihood of worsening traffic,” Carlstrom wrote in the appeal.

Carlstrom said the appellants would like the city to require the construction of the minimum number of stalls typically required for a project of this size under city code, 52 spaces.

Anderson, the project architect, said the project provides adequate parking to meet average resident demand and building additional on-site parking would be too costly, making the project difficult to financially pencil out.

She argued that developers are providing more parking than required as concessions allowed under the State Density Bonus Law would require construction of just 18 spaces. They’re providing double that.

City staff said the project would generate demand for 39 parking spaces during peak hours.

Anderson said parking spaces will be leased to residents rather than included as part of their unit, which developers hope will allow those who may not have a car to forego a space, and save money on rent, and allow other tenants to use more than one space if needed.

Tenants will be restricted to a maximum of two spaces, according to project plans.

The project also calls for modifications to the frontage to add eight street parking spots on West Steele Lane, she said.

The development team is also looking at implementing a possible bike-share program, she said.

City says hands are tied

City planning officials in a memo to the council said the parking concession was approved under the State Density Bonus Law. While the peak parking demand at the apartments is projected to be higher than the number of spaces provided, the bar the city must meet to deny the reduced parking concession is very high, officials wrote.

Meanwhile, state housing officials have provided guidance — and a warning — of their own.

Officials with the California Department of Housing and Community Development said if the city rejects the project it could violate provisions in state housing laws, which could lead to a complaint being forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office, according to a May letter sent to the council.

A recent state law appears to place further limitations on the city’s ability to reject the project.

Assembly Bill 2097 prohibits cities from imposing minimum parking requirements on development projects within a quarter-mile of a rail stop or other major public transportation, unless staff makes written findings within 30 days that the parking is needed.

The law also limits cities' ability to deny a project based on lack of off-street parking.

Anderson and the project team have also argued that the law, which went into effect Jan. 1, would prohibit the city from denying prior administrative approvals for the project.

Carlstrom disagrees.

Though the law went into effect at the beginning of the year, the city did not adopt updated building codes that included the new parking rules until late May.

Carlstrom said the law should not apply in this case as the project was approved months before under different building standards.

And, even if the law can be applied, she argued, the city has flexibility to require a certain number of spaces or deny a project if it would cause undue harm on existing neighbors, such as her clients.

A narrow reading of the law would set precedent for future projects, she said.

Anderson said the appeal is baseless and she hopes the city agrees with developers.

“I’d like to see them say this is exactly the kind of housing that Santa Rosa needs and they’re glad to see projects like this proposed,” she said.

Anderson said the appeal has slowed the project and has frustrated the team but they’re hopeful they can soon finalize construction documents and apply for a building permit.

You can reach Staff Writer Paulina Pineda at 707-521-5268 or paulina.pineda@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @paulinapineda22.