The May 2002 meeting at which plans to build a senior housing
project at Valley View Road and Airline Highway were axed shows
strong support by the City of Hollister and local residents and an
opposition from Local Agency Formation Commissioners based on
lacking services.
The May 2002 meeting at which plans to build a senior housing project at Valley View Road and Airline Highway were axed shows strong support by the City of Hollister and local residents and an opposition from Local Agency Formation Commissioners based on lacking services.
Richard Ferreira, a local developer, testified March 7 in a civil suit against former Supervisor and LAFCO Commissioner Richard Scagliotti that former Supervisor Bob Cruz asked for a $170,000 bribe for his support of the housing project, which was never built.
A document detailing the meeting provided by LAFCO shows former Executive Officer Rob Mendiola finding flaws with the project’s water and wastewater management and the lack pf planned parks.
The project called for 16 acres of land to be annexed into the City of Hollister – 8 acres were approved in April 2002 but without the remaining 8 acres, project leaders said the community would never be built. The May meeting was an attempt by developers to approve annexation of the remaining 8 acres and thus get a green light on building the senior housing community.
Several supporters of the project, including the City of Hollister, argued that because more than 60 percent of the proposed land was already surrounded by the city, by law, the property must be annexed.
Commissioner Peggy Corrales supported the project along with 11 residents who spoke at the meeting, citing “benefits to the community, especially senior citizens.” Corrales put forth a motion to approve the annexation, saying, “the need for senior affordable housing in the area is critical,” and citing state law that gives preference to proposed projects for affordable or senior housing. The motion died without further support by a commissioner.
Scagliotti offered a motion denying annexation, citing inconsistencies with LAFCO policies. The motion was approved and the matter was closed.
