Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2021-02-09_MinutesPUBLIC COMMENT PROVIDED BY EMAIL COMMUNITY FORUM SUBMISSION FROM: Hayley Mattson From: Hayley Mattson | 13 Stars Media <hayley@13starsmedia.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 4:13 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Cc: Heather Moreno <hmoreno@atascadero.org> Subject: Public Comment - City Council Meeting Feb 9: Community Forum / City Manager Report Importance: High Good afternoon, I would like to submit the following public comment for tonight’s meeting, it is also attached. Thank you for your time and service. City Council Meeting Feb. 9 Community Forum / City Manager Report Subject: Sales Tax Measure D-20 Community Oversight Study Sessions From: Hayley Mattson Atascadero Home Owner, Local Business Owner Dear Atascadero City Council, On Saturday, Feb 6, I attended the Sales Tax Measure D-20 Community Oversight Study Session. The session started with a video that went over several options that the 1 percent sales tax could be allocated for. The one main point that stood out to me throughout the video was the urgent need for funding that each department is facing. A surprising aspect to the community for those who attended was to see that the money for the 1 percent sales tax which was heavily marketed for Police and Fire was now being considered for other needs that the City sees as a priority. With that said, the needs that were addressed were not out of line. However, as a tax-paying resident, I feel it is crucial that these funds go directly to Police, Fire and Emergency Services as the City Officials, Police and Fire Associations, and Council Members all stated they would go to and noted as the reason why it was added to the ballot in the first place. I did appreciate the session and felt it was extremely well organized and allowed the community a voice. I thank all who were a part of putting it together; I know it is a lot of work. Understanding budgets and finances, I voted against the 1 percent sales tax and not because I am against Police and Fire; on the contrary, I am 100 percent in support of Police, Fire and Emergency Services. What I am not in favor of is having an open tax measure with no oversight, terms, or sunset clause that allows residents to know exactly where the money is allocated to nor a time frame to use it. No mention of who is accountable for reporting the use of funds to the community, what tracking system will be used to measure it, and when it will end. I am not comfortable with the notion of “trusting the Council will do the right thing,” as one Council Member stated. As the City’s business partner (which all the residents of Atascadero are), we all have a part in the decisions that are made, hence the oversight sessions. These are the same questions I would ask if I was investing in any other company. Why would I invest in a business that is not financially sound or has the ability to be transparent with its records? I would not. What I ask for today is, when you are considering all the feedback from the study sessions that (1) you make good on what was sold to the residents during the election and allocate these funds directly to Police, Fire, and Emergency Services. (2) Create a game plan with an end or a sunset clause to re-address the 1 percent sales tax. If the tax is still needed, address that with the community, celebrate what was completed for Police and Fire, and then present the other needs the tax could support. (3) Have a clear transparent separate accounting for these funds and the reserves so that it is never questioned where the money is or spent. Report on it monthly or quarterly, and be sure it is on the agenda, so people know when it was addressed. Thank you all for doing your part and investing your time and skillsets in our community. Stronger together, Hayley Hayley E. Mattson Co-Founder, President & CFO | 13 Stars Media Direct (805)703.3164 | Office (805)466.2585 SUBMISSION FROM: Mitch Paskin From: Mitch Paskin <atownslo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:01 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@atascadero.org> Subject: Community Forum - City Council Meeting - February 9, 2021 Ms. Christensen, Please read this submission at the Community Forum tonight. Thank you in advance. -- Mitch Paskin Please read this message during the Community Forum portion of the City Council meeting on February 9, 2021 (Please help me out and fix any grammatical errors I have made.) Mitch Paskin ********************* I am submitting this statement in reference to the Oak Ridge Estates residential project in 3F Meadows. The construction at Oak Ridge Estates has continued. I still contend that the City issued building permits without Castlerock Development meeting the conditions of approval. The PD-11 reads, “The following roads shall be fully improved to a Rural Hillside Collection Section (City Std. 404, or as approved by the City engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. The structural section shall be based on a T.I. = 5.0. b. San Marcos Road from the project boundary to the intersection of Cenegal Road (prior to Phase I) a. Cenegal Road from the project boundary to the intersection of San Marcos Road (prior to Phase II)”. (There is a typo that reverses the first and second subsections.) Again, I don’t believe that the City staff that wrote this section didn’t intend for Cenegal Road to be open to traffic. This issue shows that the City is continuing to show Castlerock Development preference. Maybe it will take a judge to determine the city staff’s intent. Personally I would prefer that Cenegal Road be kept closed and the size of the project be limited by San Marcos Road’s capacity of 500 average daily trips. That would restrict the number of hous es b u i l t to fift y. I have been following Oak Ridge Estates for the last fifteen years. I didn’t realize until recently that 75% of the houses in the project are to be built in Phase 1 and Phase 2. The completion of Phase 2 triggers Castlerock Development’s obligation to restore and repair San Marcos Road. My new projection is that Castlerock Development never completes Phase 2 and thus avoids its obligation to rebuild San Marcos Road. This projection is made more viable by the fact that there are a number of un-buildable lots within the project. Castlerock Development will have to balance its profits on the number of houses it can build against how much it will take to bring San Marcos Road back up to standard. Castlerock Development will leave the City of Atascadero, in other words the people of Atascadero, to bring the road back up to standard. This is of course on top of the need for the City to rebuild Los Altos Road, which is in very bad condition due to Castlerock Construction traffic. The City approved the Oak Ridge Estate project without any consideration for the money it would take to rebuild offsite infrastructure and totally ignoring the safety of it’s citizens. One more quick thing: The k-rails that are holding back the landslide on San Marcos Road are restricting traffic. They are on a blind curve and making the road dangerous. The situation should be rectified for the safety of those driving and walking on that section of San Marcos Road. Th ese i ss u es aren’t go i n g away. For more information about Oak Ridge Estates please go to WWW.ROADTO41.COM. Again - WWW.ROADTO41.COM. Thank you.