Politics & Government

No Decision In Berrellesa Palms Proposed Project Change

City Council debates proposed changes in senior population, but defers to staff to determine if anything can be done.

As expected, the City Council Wednesday asked staff to look into the options open to them regarding a proposed senior housing complex on Berrellesa Street known as Berrellesa Palms, after the developer changed the tenant population requirement to from 30 percent to 100 percent very low income seniors.

The developer, Berkeley-based Resource Community Development, explained that the funding sources for the original proposal fell through. That proposal, approved in 2009 after much controversy and a court case, consisted of 49 units, 30 percent of which would be set aside for very low income seniors (those with an income of 30 percent of the average median income or less), and the rest for moderate income seniors.

The latest proposal from RCD would require that 100 percent of the seniors in the complex be very low income, with a maximum income of $22,000 per year. The units would be 100 percent Section 8 housing.

Find out what's happening in Martinezwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

One point of contention Wednesday occurred between Councilman Mike Menesini, who insisted that the facility was, in reality, a skilled nursing facility, and RCD representative Lisa Motoyama, who insisted that it was not a skilled nursing home or convalescent hospital, but an independent living complex for frail seniors.

Motoyama said the new population would generate about $660,000 in annual income for the downtown area, and noted that it would also bring $11 million in construction jobs downtown.

Find out what's happening in Martinezwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

At one point in the discussion, Councilwoman Janet Kennedy asked what would happen if the council turned down the project. Motoyama said it would revert to the county, who gave RCD a $2 million loan for the project, $1.4 million of which went toward the purchase of the property from the Earl and Joanne Dunivan Trust.

Kennedy noted that if the county got the land back, it could construct a different project without city approval, since the county does not have to adhere to the city’s land use regulations. Or, she said, it could sell the land to a private developer.

Though most speakers opposed the project, two speakers supported it.

Sally Sweetzer said she thought the project would “jump-start development downtown” by bringing an attractive development to a parcel she called “an eyesore.”

Peggy Jin agreed, and noted that the project would provide high-quality housing for a vulnerable senior population.

But others in the audience opposed the change. Two planning commissioners – Harriett Burt and Rachel Ford – both criticized RCD for changing the rules of the approved project. Burt said she asked several times during the Planning Commission hearings and was assured that the project population would not change.

But the real debate Wednesday was between Menesini, who opposed the change, and Kennedy, who supported it.

“This use is inconsistent with the findings we made,” Menesini said. “You can’t just change the use of a building.”

“The fact that you want to discriminate one level of seniors against another level, I think we need to be careful of that,” Kennedy replied. “I don’t see any change of use. It’s the same project, the same development, the same use. I’m embarrassed we’re up here discussing people’s incomes. It breaks my heart that we’re having this discussion.”

The council agreed to have city staff investigate the city’s options as to whether it could do anything about the changed requirements.

“It remains to be seen whether we have the power to do anything,” said Mayor Rob Schroder.

 


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here