Comment/Finding:
All potential impacts from this development were evaluated with the General Plan EIR. The site is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and has no unique features that were not evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
3. Are there project specific impacts which the General Plan EIR failed to analyze as significant effects.
Yes______No__X___
If yes, an initial study or other detailed analysis is necessary to determine if the impacts are considered to be significant and if mitigation is required.
If no, continue with CEQA Section 15183 Exemption.
Comment/Finding:
The proposed project would not result in any additional impacts that were not evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
4. Is there substantial new information which would result in more severe impacts than anticipated by the General Plan EIR? Yes______No__X___
If yes, an initial study or other detailed analysis is necessary to determine if the impacts are considered to be significant and if mitigation is required.
If no, continue with CEQA Section 15183 Exemption.
Comment/Finding:
There is no new information as a result of the proposed project that would result in more severe impacts. This project is consistent with the General Plan density and circulation element and the land use designation for Office (O) and Residential High Density (RHD). All potential impacts were evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
On the basis of this evaluation, in accordance with the requirements of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines:
1. It is found that subsequent negative declaration will need to be prepared.
2. It is found that an addendum Negative Declaration will need to be prepared.
3. That a subsequent EIR will need to be prepared.
X 4. No further documentation is required.
Date: December 19, 2022
Prepared By:
Brandon Smith
Principal Planner
Prepare a notice of exemption using CEQA section 15183 based on this analysis. 632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
Correspondence
654
From: Nancy Andrews
To: Planning
Subject: Opposes to the development at K Ave. and Ben Maddox Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 11:45:28 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am writing to voice my opposition to the project for the following reasons. * There is no other 3 story multi-family structure on such a large scale anywhere else in Visalia that is surrounded by single
family homes. I don't feel you would attempt this project on the southwest side of town because you'd get too much flak from
existing taxpayers but we are taxpayers too.
* Way to densely populated for the area. Propose 292 apartments on 10.8 acres times 3 people per apt. equals 876 people.
Currently the same 10.8 acres space has 46 single family homes times 4 people per apt. equals184 people. You have put an
additional 682 people in the same space.
* Affordable housing that is government subsidized equals low-income housing. Let's call it what it is.
* That many more people (692) packed into the same 10.8 acres with low income means more cars, more animals, more CRIME
* High impact on Annie Mitchel School
P.S. It looks like you are trying to move Ambler down the street. The north side will follow.
Concerned taxpayers,
Richard and Nancy Andrews
655
From: Brandon Smith
To: kris wassermann
Cc: Paul Bernal; Leslie Caviglia; Michelle Nicholson
Bcc: Chris Hawke
Subject: RE: Email from Website
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:53:00 PM
Good afternoon Kris,
The City of Visalia can answer Questions #2, 6, 10, and 11 based on the application and project materials that have been provided to us from the applicant. These answers are in black bold font.
For the balance of the questions that pertain closer to the property management side of the project, we have asked the project applicant to respond to the questions as they are the more appropriate party to address these questions. These answers are in red bold font.
In addition, please note that all new multi-family residential developments are subject to a set of “model good neighbor policies” that address many of your maintenance questions below. Policies are included as a recommended condition of approval, and can be enforced upon the property owner through the City’s Code Enforcement Division.
Following are responses to your questions:
1. I would like to know how this property will be managed and by whom? Will the management company be local or out of the area? Will the Town of Visalia have any oversight powers of compliance should the management be less than satisfactory? Who do neighbors go to if there are problems?I was told during the meeting at Annie Mitchell School that there would be three sets of managers for the complex and is this still the case? ConAm management will be the onsite manager and will have at least three full time managers and likely as many maintenance managers. If there is an issue we would welcome them to reach out to the management company or owners to resolve, the Town is also welcome to reach out to find resolution because we want to be good neighbors.
2. Will the developers be erecting a large 6 foot wall to run around the perimeter of the complex to prevent people jumping over into backyards and throwing garbage over? The applicants will be utilizing the existing 6’ block wall separating properties on Mesa Court and the subject site. No new wall will be installed. The existing wall meets the City standards wherein a screening block wall or wood fence not less than six feet in height is maintained along property lines except along the street frontages.
3. Will the access to the complex be subject to gate coded entry to prevent unwanted thieves, vandals, or general riff-raff? This project will not be gated but our onsite managers will be available to address any problems and if necessary report to the police immediately. Also see response to Q.4 below.
4. Will there be multiple security cameras around the complex and recorded monitoring that can be retrieved if needed? We will have cameras throughout the property, which are recorded and in some circumstances if local police would like we give them access to the monitoring 24/7.
5. Will there be multiple security lights or motion sensored lights on the property? The property will be well lit, and we do not typically put in motion sensored lights. If there is a 656
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
concern we can certainly add if needed, but have never needed them on a project.
6. How many garbage dumpsters will be provided to service these residents, and how often will garbage pick-up occur? I know from experience that dumpsters fill up quickly because people do not collapse cardboard boxes when they can, and over time wet garbage begins to smell and attract rodents, ants, and cockroaches. The site plan shows that 11 City standard double enclosures (for solid waste and recyclable bins) throughout the site. A few number of single enclosures for green/organic waste are also provided. All enclosures will be constructed to City standards which require a block wall enclosure and gates surrounding the enclosure. The City provides weekly pick-up service.
7. Will there be a pest control service employed at owner expense to service the facility or will pest control be left to the individual residents? The property will pay for all pest control on the property and in the units as needed.
8. How will unsightly grafitti and undrivable vehicles be handled. Each property management lease has provisions that addresses graffiti and inoperable vehicles. The property management company has protocols regarding cleaning graffiti as soon as possible and addressing inoperable vehicles in a timely manner.
9. How often will the management company visit and inspect the property so as to direct the resident managers in needed clean-up. There will be on-site management and maintenance full time at the property, as well as a regional manager to oversee the staff.
10. Who will be responsible for the landscaping maintenance? Will the proposed trees and plantings be replaced if they die? Landscaping maintenance is provided through the property owner and their management services team. This would include the maintenance and pruning of street trees along K and Ben Maddox. These trees are required to be maintained and replaced if they die, based on the recommended conditions of approval.
11. Will there be a sprinkler system for the landscaping? All landscaping is required to have an irrigation system. Furthermore, the landscaping and irrigation is required to meet the State guidelines included in the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
Thank you for your inquiry.
Brandon Smith, AICP | Principal Planner
City of Visalia Community Development Department
Phone: (559) 713-4636
Email: [email protected]
www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning
From: kris wassermann <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 12:39 PM
To: Council Members <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Subject: Email from Website
657
I am sending this email regarding the proposed building project at the southwest corner of Ben Maddox Way and K Avenue. I own a home at 1210 E. Mesa Court which places the proposed project directly behind my backyard. I have gathered a list of questions and concerns regarding not so much the project itself but the management of said project once it is built and begins to be occupied. I remember only too well the apartments on Walnut Avenue which came to be known as “sin city” and although I’m hopeful this development will not devolve into that type of situation, my concerns are valid. I own a property management company that specializes in self storage facilities so my questions are directed towards maintenance and upkeep.
1. I would like to know how this property will be managed and by whom? Will the management company be local or out of the area? Will the Town of Visalia have any oversight powers of compliance should the management be less than satisfactory? Who do neighbors go to if there are problems?I was told during the meeting at Annie Mitchell School that there would be three sets of managers for the complex and is this still the case?
2. Will the developers be erecting a large 6 foot wall to run around the perimeter of the complex to prevent people jumping over into backyards and throwing garbage over?
3. Will the access to the complex be subject to gate coded entry to prevent unwanted thieves, vandals, or general riff-raff?
4. Will there be multiple security cameras around the complex and recorded monitoring that can be retrieved if needed?
5. Will there be multiple security lights or motion sensored lights on the property?
6. How many garbage dumpsters will be provided to service these residents, and how often will garbage pick-up occur? I know from experience that dumpsters fill up quickly because people do not collapse cardboard boxes when they can, and over time wet garbage begins to smell and attract rodents, ants, and cockroaches.
7. Will there be a pest control service employed at owner expense to service the facility or will pest control be left to the individual residents?
8. How will unsightly grafitti and undrivable vehicles be handled.
9. How often will the management company visit and inspect the property so as to direct the resident managers in needed clean-up.
10. Who will be responsible for the landscaping maintenance? Will the proposed trees and plantings be replaced if they die?
11. Will there be a sprinkler system for the landscaping? I believe that these are questions that we as adjacent homeowners need to have answered because we are the ones who will be living with this project literally in our backyard. As a person very familiar with property management I know the importance of strong management and the need to keep the project well maintained. I also hope that the rental application process will include background checks as well as credit checks. The maintenance of high standards is the best way to insure that the facility attracts a responsible caliber of tenant who will care about where they live.
Submitted respectfully by Kris Wassermann, 1210 E. Mesa Ct., Visalia (530)592-5111 Sent from Mail for Windows
658
659
From: jed.frazin
To: Planning
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-23 for property at Ben Maddox and K Street Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:02:49 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
My name is Judith E Drake. I am writing on behalf on myself and my husband, Lewis R Frazin, at 1608 E Beech Drive, Visalia, CA 93292
We are vehemently opposed to the building of the proposed 292 unit apartment complex at the corner of Ben Maddox and K Street (APN 126-750-050, 051).
It appears this will be low income housing which will negatively affect the value of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Increased traffic will also negatively impact our neighborhood. We may also see an increase in crime.
We also vehemently oppose the effort by Federal, State and local governments to turn us into a third world country, state, city and neighborhood, by forcing those of us who worked hard all our lives and now enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, in a nice neighborhood, to live in close proximity to those who haven't.
We respectfully ask the Council to vote against this proposal.
Thank you.
Judith E Drake and Lewis R Frazin
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
660
From: Ben Simpson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 2022-23 affordable apartments K/Ben Maddox To Whom it may concern
My wife and I currently reside in the neighborhood just south of K road on Ben Maddox.
We currently feel that will place a large influx of students to Annie R Mitchelle school. This will only increase the already disproportionate ratio of student-to-teacher. I feel this will add significant stress and tension to the school. Also 292 apt complex will add a significant amount of traffic to the area vs single family housing. Please take this into consideration before building
Thank you Benjamin Simpson
661
From: Steven Santellan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 1:28 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Apartment complex Ben Maddox and K
I am writing to voice my concern for the development of low income housing on Ben Maddox and K. The neighborhood is barely starting to come together, the surrounding neighborhoods are great for families. The school is already over crowded , this will be a huge mistake. K road has always been run down. This is not fair to the people who have bought housing in the area. This is a big NO for me
662
From: Nina Pitman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 5:29 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Never received notice of this hearing
Found on social media!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 9, 2023, at 5:26 PM, Nina Pitman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Just found out about this today. What are the rules of notification? No one in my neighborhood was notified about n order to make plans to attend this meeting. > Nathena Pitman
> 1737 E Monte verde
> Visalia Ca 93292
663
From: Chris Wessel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 6:03 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing…
Hello,
My name is Chris Wessel and I recently became aware of the low cost housing on the corner of Ben Maddox and K Road. I never received a notice for a public hearing. I strongly disagreed with the decision to place low cost housing within this single family home community.
Chris Wessel
664
From: Felipe Miranda <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 6:07 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: No notifications Urgent
I received no notification of this meeting. I would like time to think about this topic, i found on social media today please pospone voting.
1837 E Monte verde visalia Ca 93292
665
From: Barbara Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 6:07 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Development at Ben Maddox and K Road
To Whom It May Concern,
I live less than 3/10 of a mile from this proposed complex and was not given any notice about the building, I also was not notified of the planning commission meeting being help tonight. I am opposed to this lack of notice given. I would like to know what the requirements are for giving notice. I am opposed to anything that large being built and for what purposes being built with out notice to find out more details about it.
Barbara Martin
559-827-3215
666
From: Maya <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 11:04 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-23 - 292-unit deed restricted affordability apartment complex
Good morning,
I'm emailing to express my very strong opposition regarding the plans to build a 292-unit deed restricted affordability apartment complex on the southwest corner of Ben Maddox and K Avenue.
These types of projects, very often bring crime & drugs with them. They turn nice areas into bad ones.
There are quite a few new homes in this area. This will also bring property value down.
I absolutely do NOT want this built near my home. We purposely purchased a home in SW Visalia to stay away from this type of thing.
I currently live in the Chelsea West subdivision and this would be very close to my home. I use K Road daily to get to work.
Sincerely,
Maria Rios
559-303-8392
667
From: MICHÆL <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 8:48 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Possible Apartment Complex on Ben Maddox & K
Good morning,
My name is Michael Smith and I've been a resident of Visalia since 2009. I moved here to find a town that was good to raise my family in. I had a very specific set of things I was looking for. Three bedrooms, large backyard, quiet neighborhood, cul de sac, friendly neighbors and preferably edge of town. I looked for a few years and finally found my home.
It fit quite perfectly and over the past 10 years, has been the best decision of my life.
This is why I'm extremely against having an apartment complex built in, literally, my backyard. Here's a list of my reasons:
1.) Traffic. With 292 units, that's a MINIMUM of 300 vehicles. Ben Maddox already has a traffic issue and has even installed a stop sign to help but still we have accidents, speeding and clogged streets. Monte Verde even has more traffic and speeding as well.
2.) Crime. Let's be real, with more people comes more crime. It's not just the 292 units of people but also the people they bring around. The neighborhood was promised Monte Verde wouldn't be opened up to K when development started, but look what happened. it opened. Now, Burke park is the spot to be if you want some drugs. Our neighborhood needs homes that people respect and take pride in and not some apartment they don't have to worry about being in forever.
3.) Noise. I lived in an apartment complex. I first handedly know that this is true. I moved into Ashley Square off of Riggen and County Center when it was still new. The few years I lived here, I watched it transform. From a quiet, friendly neighborhood to a party central full of noise til early hours of morning and people wandering the streets. Eventually, it started to happen all throughout the week.
4.) Location. This is a large, quiet, secluded neighborhood. This property needs to be used for that same. Apartments have no place here and should be located closer to town, shopping and larger streets.
Please PLEASE consider all of your citizens that live in this area. And how itll affect them and the homes they own and live in with their families. There is plenty of property that'd be more suitable for this type of venture. Thank you for your time and understanding. 668
Environmental Document # 2022-51
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Ave.
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-4359
To: County Clerk
County of Tulare
County Civic Center
Visalia, CA 93291-4593
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-23
PROJECT TITLE
The project site is located at the Southwest corner of East K Avenue and South Ben Maddox Way (APN APNs: 126-750-050 & 126-750-051)
PROJECT LOCATION
Visalia Tulare
PROJECT LOCATION - CITY COUNTY
A request by to establish a 292-unit multi-family residential development on 10.8 acres in the R-M-2 (MultiFamily Residential, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum site area) zone.
DESCRIPTION - Nature, Purpose, & Beneficiaries of Project City of Visalia, Attn: Brandon Smith, 315 E. Acequia Avenue, Visalia CA 93291, (559) 713-4636, [email protected]
NAME OF LEAD AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT
Maracor Development Inc., Attn: Chris Hawke, 61 Moraga Way, Suite 4, Orinda, CA 94563, (925) 389- 6836, [email protected]
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT CARRYING OUT PROJECT
N/A
NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENT CARRYING OUT PROJECT
EXEMPT STATUS: (Check one)
Ministerial - Section 15183
Emergency Project - Section 15071
Categorical Exemption - State type and Section number:
Statutory Exemptions- State code number:
The project is consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning and its related development density, for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified (i.e., City of Visalia General Plan General Plan Program EIR certified by Resolution No. 2014-37, adopted on October 14, 2014); therefore, the project is ministerially exempt under the findings of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
REASON FOR PROJECT EXEMPTION
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner (559) 713-4636
CONTACT PERSON AREA CODE/PHONE
December 19, 2022
DATE
Brandon Smith, AICP
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
669
The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Section 15183 Findings:
Application: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-23 Environmental Review 2022-51 Location: Southwest corner of East K Avenue and South Ben Maddox Way Assessor’s Parcel Number: 126-750-050 & 126-750-051
General Plan Designation: Residential Medium Density Zoning: R-M-2 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Public Resources Code §21083.3), provides that projects which are consistent with the development density established by a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified “shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.”
The City of Visalia finds that as a result of the proposed project no new effects could occur, or new mitigation measures would be required that have not been addressed within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Visalia General Plan was certified by Resolution No. 2014-37 adopted on October 14, 2014. THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL BE UTILIZED.
The following findings are made in compliance with CEQA Section 15183 – Project consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning.
In approving a project meeting the requirements of CEQA Section 15183, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
1. Is the project consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the site (including density for residential developments)? Yes X
If yes, please explain below. If no, the project does not qualify for this exemption.
Comment/Finding:
No______
As indicated above, the General Plan designation for this site is Office (O) and Residential High Density (RHD) which allows 15 to 35 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would provide
31.88 units per acre which is consistent with the General Plan.
The site is zoned O-PA and R-M-3 has a land use designation which allows for residential land uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning.
2. Are there any impacts that weren’t evaluated in the General Plan EIR that are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located? Yes______No__X___ If yes, an initial study or detailed analysis is necessary to determine if specific impacts will need to be mitigated.
If no, continue with CEQA Section 15183 Exemption.
670
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 15183 Findings
Comment/Finding:
All potential impacts from this development were evaluated with the General Plan EIR. The site is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and has no unique features that were not evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
3. Are there project specific impacts which the General Plan EIR failed to analyze as significant effects.
Yes______No__X___
If yes, an initial study or other detailed analysis is necessary to determine if the impacts are considered to be significant and if mitigation is required.
If no, continue with CEQA Section 15183 Exemption.
Comment/Finding:
The proposed project would not result in any additional impacts that were not evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
4. Is there substantial new information which would result in more severe impacts than anticipated by the General Plan EIR? Yes______No__X___
If yes, an initial study or other detailed analysis is necessary to determine if the impacts are considered to be significant and if mitigation is required.
If no, continue with CEQA Section 15183 Exemption.
Comment/Finding:
There is no new information as a result of the proposed project that would result in more severe impacts. This project is consistent with the General Plan density and circulation element and the land use designation for Office (O) and Residential High Density (RHD). All potential impacts were evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
On the basis of this evaluation, in accordance with the requirements of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines:
1. It is found that subsequent negative declaration will need to be prepared.
2. It is found that an addendum Negative Declaration will need to be prepared.
3. That a subsequent EIR will need to be prepared.
X 4. No further documentation is required.
Date: December 19, 2022
Prepared By:
Brandon Smith
Principal Planner
Prepare a notice of exemption using CEQA section 15183 based on this analysis. 671
672
673
674
675
676
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
February 16, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Paul Bernal
Community Development Director
City of Visalia
Email: [email protected]
RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-23
(Project at East K Avenue and South Ben Maddox Way)
Dear Mr. Bernal:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the project at East K Avenue and South Ben Maddox Way, the application for which is scheduled to be heard at the City Council meeting on February 21, 2023. The City’s approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments on the project.
The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as “objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). In making this determination, the City must approve the project if the evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard.
Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). Projects subject to modified standards pursuant to a density bonus are judged against the City’s standards as modified. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).
The City is subject to strict timing requirements under the Act. If the City desires to find that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to that effect within 30 to 60 days after the application to develop the project is determined to be complete. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). If the City fails to do so, the project is deemed consistent with those standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).
If the City determines that a project is consistent with its objective standards, or a project is deemed consistent with such standards, but the City nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must 677
February 16, 2023
make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II).
Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).
Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue.
For projects that provide housing for lower-income families, the Act is even more restrictive. In many cases, the City must approve such a project even if it fails to meet the City’s objective land use standards. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).
These provisions apply to the full range of housing types, including single-family homes, market-rate multifamily projects, and mixed-use developments. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011). And the Legislature has directed that the Act be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).
When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov.
Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).
In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:
In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the development of market-rate housing. The court held that the county did not identify 678
February 16, 2023
any objective standards that the proposed subdivision would not meet, and therefore violated the Housing Accountability Act in denying the application. In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform. San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees. In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that the Los Altos violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixeduse residential and commercial project. The City was ultimately forced to pay approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees in the case. In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC, a case brought by our organization, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the Housing Accountability Act when it rejected a 48-unit condominium project based on vague concerns about health and safety. Following the decision, the City agreed to pay $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to our organization and two other plaintiffs.
Based on the above legal framework, state law requires the City to approve this project.
We have also considered the City’s environmental review for the project and determined that it complied with state law. We urge you to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: City Council (by email to [email protected]) Leslie Caviglia, City Manager (by email to [email protected]) Office of the City Clerk (by email to [email protected]) 679
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 23-0030 Agenda Date: 2/21/2023 Agenda #: 2.
Agenda Item Wording:
First Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 2023-01 which authorizes the sale of approximately 367 square feet to the State of California as part of Caltrans project to rehabilitate State Route 216, Lovers Lane and East Millcreek Parkway.
Deadline for Action: None
Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:
Jim Koontz, Assistant City Attorney, [email protected], (559) 372-2400 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4331 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:
Approve first reading and adoption of ordinance authorizing sale of the subject property.
Background Discussion:
The State of California (“Caltrans”) is proposing to rehabilitate portions of State Route 216, which include roadways in the area of Lovers Lane and East Millcreek Parkway. The project requires updating the area around the curb ramp at this location. Caltrans needs to acquire property around this intersection to complete the work and the necessary property is owned by the City of Visalia. This area is considered a state highway and Caltrans would be authorized to utilize the power of eminent domain to acquire the property.
The take area consists of 367 square feet total, of which 138 square feet is unencumbered and 229 square feet is subject to an existing easement for roadway usage. The property is part of the adjacent Mill Creek Parkway, which the City owns and maintains. No significant impacts to the park area are expected to result from the taking as it is all within the area near the intersection in and around the existing sidewalk. The ownership of this area will change but its availability for pedestrian and vehicle travel will not. Legal descriptions and aerial photographs showing the subject area are included with this report for reference. The property was appraised for $500.00, and City staff does not dispute this valuation. Caltrans has offered an incentive payment of $1,000 to quickly resolve the acquisition, which the City should be eligible to receive.
City engineering staff reviewed the proposed take area and does not dispute that it would be needed for the Caltrans project. The Project, once completed, will provide a benefit for traffic and pedestrians that use the state highway in the area which also provides benefits to the City.
The attached ordinance authorizes the City Manager to complete the transaction and transfer Visalia City Council Page 1 of 2 Printed on 2/17/2023
powered by Legistar™680
File #: 23-0030 Agenda Date: 2/21/2023 Agenda #: 2.
ownership of the property.
It is noted that surplus land requirements are not applicable in instances where another government agency is acquiring land for a governmental purpose, including the subject usage by Caltrans, which it has the right to take by eminent domain for state highway purposes.
Fiscal Impact:
No significant impacts, sale of City property will require compensation to the City for the fair market value of the area being acquired for the interchange project.
Prior Council Action:
January 17, 2023 - Approval of Appraised Value and Authorization to enter into purchase agreement with Caltrans (Closed Session)
Alternatives:
N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
I move to approve Ordinance No. 2023-01, authorizing the sale of the designated property to the State of California.
Environmental Assessment Status:
Completed by State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) CEQA Review:
The acquisition of the property is part of the environmental review being prepared by the State of California for its highway project.
Attachments:
1. Legal Description
2. Location Map
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 2 Printed on 2/17/2023
powered by Legistar™681
682
N
L
o
v
e
r
s
L
a
n
e
E Mill Creek Pkwy
LOCATION MAP
¥
0 20 40 60 80 10
Feet
¯
CALTRANS STATE ROUTE 216 REHABILITATION PROJECTRIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION PIQ88671-1
683
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-___
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF 367 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOVERS LANE AND E. MILLCREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, the City of Visalia owns all the legal and beneficial interest in certain real property, located at the intersection of Lovers Lane and East Millcreek Parkway, APN 103-260-004 ; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) is working on a project to rehabilitate the roadways in this area, (“Project”) a state highway project that Caltrans has full statutory authority to construct, including the right to acquire necessary property by eminent domain, and
WHEREAS, the Project, once completed, will provide a benefit to traffic flow and pedestrian access in this area; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans has informed the City that it needs to acquire a portion of APN 103-260-004 for the Project, approximately 367 square feet, 138 square feet of which is unencumbered, and 229 square feet which is subject to existing roadway easements; and
WHEREAS, City engineering staff reviewed the proposed take area and does not dispute that it would be needed for the Project based on the design prepared by Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, City staff do not anticipate any impacts to the remainder parkway property owned by the City; and
WHEREAS, state laws concerning notice requirements for surplus land sales are not applicable to purchases made under threat of condemnation by another public agency; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA:
Section 1: The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to sell and transfer ownership of the area required by Caltrans for fair market value by a purchase and sale agreement containing reasonable terms in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Section 2: This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after its passage. 684
PASSED AND ADOPTED:
______________________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
______________________________________________
City Attorney
685