GILROY
– So far, so good.
After catching flak from a City Council worried that they
wouldn’t proceed with the project, a developer has submitted
revised plans for a large Alzheimer’s care and assisted living
facility.
GILROY – So far, so good.
After catching flak from a City Council worried that they wouldn’t proceed with the project, a developer has submitted revised plans for a large Alzheimer’s care and assisted living facility.
And so far, city staffers say the changes appear to address the city’s design concerns – and that they’re confident the developer intends to move forward with the center.
“(City) staff feels comfortable that the applicant intends to proceed with the project,” City Planner Melissa Durkin told Councilmembers during an update on the Village Green senior housing project Monday.
While some Councilmembers seemed a little more at ease by the news Monday, they were still looking to cover their bases, wary from repeated wrangling over the facility that is both the centerpiece and attraction of a larger senior housing complex already under construction.
They asked city staff to begin preparing a performance agreement with the developer. The document is meant to give the city some leverage in ensuring the project goes as envisioned – although it’s still unclear how sharp those teeth could be.
The city and developer DMA Gilroy Associates have spent many hours over the past year working out details of the center and trying to balance city leaders’ desire for the facility – the first of its kind in Gilroy – with their desire to protect the city’s planning process.
Construction has progressed on other parts of the senior development at Santa Teresa Boulevard near First Street, which includes both affordable and market-rate senior housing.
But the Alzheimer’s project – which many Councilmembers say was a major impetus behind approvals for the overall development – has been submerged in uncertainty after city officials balked at a series of several changes the developer proposed to secure state bond financing.
Several hours of wrangling resulted as city leaders tried to retain provisions that would ensure the project – which was exempted from the city’s growth-control competition – remains as originally envisioned and is not abandoned or altered into regular apartments.
The tug-of-war brewed over in late February, when the developer did not submit the revised design plans for the facility by a predetermined deadline.
Although city planners said DMA Gilroy representatives indicated they planned to move forward with the Alzheimer’s center, several Councilmembers expressed concerns – some relatively passionate – that the center wouldn’t progress. Some threatened to delay other parts of the complex if it didn’t.
However, DMA Gilroy Associates submitted revised design plans for the Alzheimer’s center earlier this month. Although an overall review is not yet complete, so far the revised plans seem to go along with the Council’s design requests, Durkin said.
For example, the developer has increased parking for the center, added additional activity rooms for residents and adjusted the number of beds.
“It appears the applicant has addressed all of your (design) concerns,” Durkin said. DMA Gilroy representative Franco Mola did not immediately return a reporter’s call before press time.
However, Council authorized its staff Monday to begin negotiations for a performance agreement on the project.
Such agreements usually ensure certain infrastructure improvements will occur, or that construction proceeds on a certain schedule, officials said. Agreements have already been negotiated for two other phases of the project. However, it’s unclear how much power a performance agreement will provide the city for the Alzheimer’s center, since some planning approvals and building permits have already been issued.
“That’s the question,” said City Administrator Jay Baksa. “That will be the legal question our city attorney and planning staff will have to figure out while going through the negotiations.”
Councilman Al Pinheiro asked if the city could add a condition that would divert funds to existing senior facilities if the project does not go forward.
“All I want is for (the developer) to do what he said he was going to do,” Pinheiro said in an interview. “But if he falls short, someone has to be responsible and benefit the city somehow.”
But City Attorney Linda Callon said the city doesn’t have that kind of leverage.
“To get to the bottom line, we can’t make someone build something …,” she said. “We aren’t giving them city money.”
Council Roland Velasco abstained from voting on the matter because he lives near the project site.
