Tag: Berrellesa Palms

In a town by the river, there was a bitter man with a great deal of money, who was allowed to make decisions that affected the lives of a many residents. Whatever he wanted done, was done — whether it meant installing an entire wall of sheetpile through the homes of beloved vegetarians, or building a massive 4 story structure on a site filled with toxic waste to block the view of an historic neighborhood.

The wealthy man was very powerful, and very accustomed to getting what he wanted. Whenever a council member or ordinary citizen dared to oppose them, he would use his persuasive financial powers to quickly move them back into accord with their goals. In these private meetings great things were promised, and Faustian deals were made. Political campaigns got funded and stubborn roadblocks got nudged surprisingly out of the way.

[youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=hGYTqwzJt6w]

Maybe you’re familiar with this story. I mention it because this wednesday night the city council will consider the appeal to the planning commission’s decision to allow the Berrellesa Palm’s project. In case you aren’t familiar with this senior housing complex, it will allow 50 section 8 units to be built in a four-story building downtown.  The project will produce no property tax revenue, no sales revenue and will significantly change the feel of the neighborhood.  It will also put roughly a million dollars in “Mr. Potter’s” pocket.

Can you be there wednesday night to support a better vision for our city? Maybe the wheels of justice in Martinez are too rusty to be exercised, but we need at least to see the faces of our representatives when they continue to lie to us. They’re spending our money to pay their attorneys to misrepresent the downtown specific plan they already used our money to pay for. They had to pay their staff to write a 28 page response. So its the least we can do.

Here is a fantastic summary of the issues put forth by Harlan Stricklan.

· It violates the Downtown Specific Plan as regards height, setbacks, lot coverage, massing, usable open space and parking. This not only produces negative impacts by itself, but also sets a bad precedent for future projects. The fact that in the memo to the Planning Commission (Corey Simon, 8-11-09), the 231 Main St (Aiello) project that likewise violated a number of aspects of the Downtown Specific Plan, is cited as a precedent for this project, exactly makes this point. Do we still have a Downtown Specific Plan?

· The violations are severe enough that a Project EIR would seem to be in order.

· It is closer to the railroad tracks than the railroad itself recommends for residential use. Leaving the area adjacent to the tracks as light industrial makes more sense in terms of a safety buffer, where a smaller and more mobile population would be present, and only during part of the day. This would provide other benefits as well (more on this later).

· The authoritative Martinez Historic Resources Survey by Knapp, Kelley and Verplank was not referenced, calling into question conclusions regarding historic and cultural resources and impacts in the documentation for this project.

· Property tax #1: This project will pay no property tax. Assuming that such a prime piece of real estate, relatively close to the downtown and waterfront would ultimately be developed with some other project of similar value (residential or otherwise), this project represents a loss of General Fund revenue, in perpetuity, of approximately $30,000 a year. Assuming some sort of commercial development, if split-roll assessment ever were to come in, that figure would continue to climb.

· Property tax #2: The inappropriate height of this project – what some have called a Taj Mahal with Late Victorian/Neoclassical surface vocabulary (how many Victorians covered an entire city block?) – will block the views of neighboring dwellings, ultimately reducing their market value, and hence property tax revenue to the General Fund. Not only will the project take up an entire city block and not pay property taxes itself, but also will reduce income from surrounding properties that do pay.

· Property values – additional comment: By making adjacent properties less desirable, the typical resident or landlord will be less likely from an investment point of view, or from the standpoint of personal resources, to invest in property upkeep and improvement.

· Sales Tax #1: Much has been made of the aggregate personal income of 49 (50 with manager) residential units being added to the downtown. It should be made clear: this is not a retirement community – it is a Section 8 housing project for indigent seniors. The average weekly allocation per unit for groceries is $42. Parking may actually not be a problem – because many of the residents will be too poor to own vehicles. The small amount of shopping they will do will overwhelmingly be for necessities – something the downtown does not now, nor in the foreseeable future, offer. Downtown business sales depend on disposable income for either professional services or specialty shopping. Similar to the comments regarding property taxes above, an entire city block, close to the downtown, will be taken up with a use that won’t contribute to downtown businesses or the General Fund.

· Sales Tax #2: To the extent that the value and attractiveness of adjacent housing (owner occupied or rental) is diminished by this project, the typical resident will have lower socioeconomic status, lower disposable income, and will contribute less to the downtown in terms of sales and sales tax revenue to the General Fund.

Oh, and if you know three George Bailey types, maybe you could start convincing them to run for city council?