Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 062999 - Special Mtng Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF ATASCADERO JOINT CITY COUNCIL / REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TUESDAY,JUNE 29, 1999, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor/ Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members/Board Members Arrambide, Clay, Lerno, Luna and Mayor/Chairman Johnson Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk/Board Secretary Marcia Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager/Executive Director Wade McKinney, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Administrative Services Director/Board Treasurer Rachelle Rickard, Community and Economic Development Director/Deputy Executive Director Paul Saldana, City Attorney Roy Hanley, Steve Peck with Quad Knopf, Special Legal Counsel Stephen Deitsch of Best, Best and Kreiger, and Certified Court Stenographer Tracey Wiley. Mayor/Chairman Johnson asked for clarification of the conflict of interest issue. Mr. Deitsch explained conflict of interest as it pertains to Council Members and Board Members and their ability to vote on the Redevelopment Plan. Council Member/Board Member Clay declared his potential conflict of interest and stepped down(see Attachment A). Council Member/Board Member Lerno declared his potential conflict of interest and stepped down(see Attachment B). CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 1 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member/Board Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Arrambide to approve the agenda. Motion passed 3:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Redevelopment Plan- Atascadero Redevelopment Project Area (Staff recommendation: Agency Board and City Council conduct public hearing and receive testimony regarding the Redevelopment Plan. Following the close of the public hearing, staff recommends thefollowing: 1. Agency Board adopt Resolution No. RA 1999-003 making findings as to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Atascadero Redevelopment Plan 2. City Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-039 making findings and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Atascadero Redevelopment Plan 3, Agency Board adopt Resolution No. RA 1999-004 approving Rules for Owner Participation and Method of Relocation for displaced persons or businesses. 4. City Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-040 electing to receive a proportionate share of pass through taxes for the Atascadero Redevelopment Project Area 5. City Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-041 finding that the use of taxes allocated from the project area for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of low and moderate income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project 6. Agency Board adopt Resolution No. RA 1999-005 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Atascadero Redevelopment Project. 7. City Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-042 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Atascadero Redevelopment Project. 8. City Council introduce on first reading, and waiving reading in full, Ordinance No. 362 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Atascadero Redevelopment Project.) [Paul Saldana] Mayor Johnson declared open the Joint Public Hearing and gave introductory remarks. He asked the City Clerk to report on whether the notice of the joint public hearing was published and provided as required by law. City Clerk Marcia Torgerson stated the notice of the joint public hearing was published in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law. She then asked Deputy Executive Director Paul Saldana to enter into record mailing lists of those sent the Public CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 2 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 Hearing Notice. Mr. Saldana then entered into the record the mailing list used to send Public Hearing Notices. Stephen Deitsch, Special Legal Counsel, stated that the publication of notice and the mailing of notice as described complies with State Law, in particular the California Community Redevelopment Law. A. Summary of Proposed Redevelopment Plan Deputy Executive Director Paul Saldana gave a staff report and introduced Steve Peck of Quad Knopf. Mr. Peck, who has served as a redevelopment consultant, summarized his participation in the preparation of the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Saldana and Mr. Peck answered questions of the City Council /Redevelopment Agency Board. B. Summary of the Report to the City Council Mr. Peck gave the staff report and answered questions of the Council/Redevelopment Agency. Stephen Deitsch, Special Legal Counsel, stated that in his opinion, the report to Council was prepared in compliance with the Community Redevelopment Law and is supplemented by California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), or the Environmental Impact Report. Council Member/Board Member Luna expressed his concerns about the Redevelopment Plan and used overheads to assist him in asking questions of staff (see Attachment C). C. Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Report Mr. Peck'gave the staff report and answered questions of the City Council /Redevelopment Agency Board. Mayor Johnson explained the process of Public Testimony. He asked the City Clerk if she had received any written communications concerning the proposed Redevelopment Plan or Environmental Impact Report. City Clerk Marcia Torgerson stated that she had received written communications from the following: Donald Funk, June 25, 1999 (see Attachment D) Marjorie Mackey, June 25, 1999 (see Attachment E) Becky Pacas, June 26, 1999 (see Attachment F) Mike Byrne, June 28, 1999 (see Attachment G) Mr. and Mrs. Giessinger, June 28, 1999 (see Attachment H) Mike Kohle, June 29, 1999 (see Attachment 1) Ruth Rentschler, June 29, 1999 (see Attachment J) CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 3 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 She also stated that all have been copied to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board prior to the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hal Carden, 5355 San Jacinto, stated he does not own property within the Redevelopment boundary nor is he related to anyone within the boundary. He commended the Council /Board on all the hard work they have put into this project. He spoke in favor of approving the Redevelopment Plan. Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road, stated in a prepared statement that she is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan but supports the Main Street Program (see Attachment K). Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita Ave., expressed her opposition to the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read by Geraldine Brasher (see Attachment L). Carol DeHart, 4305 Lobos Avenue, read a prepared statement in which she stated she was • opposed to the Redevelopment Plan(see Attachment M). Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, stated her property is within the Redevelopment boundary. She expressed her doubt of the possibility of success with the Redevelopment Plan as the City has disappointed her in the past(see Attachment N). Martin Kellerman, 5463 Honda, expressed his opposition to the Redevelopment Plan. He also read a part of the prepared statement given by the previous speaker (see Attachment N). Mike Byrne, 4064 Tranquilla, representative of the Homeless Housing Project, stated he would like to the see the Homeless Housing Project become a greater priority in the Redevelopment Plan. Ted Jacobsen, 8055 Cristobal Ave., stated that he owns an insurance agency on Traffic Way. He said he supports the Redevelopment Plan. Katherine Baker, 6820 Santa Ynez Ave., stated that she is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan because is it very vague and far too open to interpretation. Dan Ulrich, 6680 Santa Ynez Ave., expressed his opposition to the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read by Katherine Baker(see Attachment O). Craig Dingman, 6620 Atascadero Ave., expressed their opposition to the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read by Katherine Baker(see Attachment P). Bob Powers, 7505 Carmelita, owner of property at 7475 El Camino Real, stated that he is concerned with the use of eminent domain. He expressed his opposition to the Redevelopment Plan. Barrie Hafler, 5455 Bolsa Road, stated that she owns a rental within the Redevelopment boundary. She expressed her opposition to the Redevelopment Plan(see Attachment Q). CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 4 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 Jennifer Hageman, 8005 Santa Lucia, stated she supports redevelopment but not this Redevelopment Plan. She expressed a list of concerns supporting her opposition to the Redevelopment Plan and disappointment in the Final EIR. Dennis Schmidt, 8675 Santa Rosa Road, stated that he supports the Redevelopment Plan. He urged citizens to get involved and participate in the project. Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road, urged the Council/Board to not vote for this Redevelopment Plan. She stated that she does not trust some of the members of the Council (see Attachment R). Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., stated that he rents property within the Redevelopment boundary. He expressed that he could support a carefully defined, limited redevelopment focusing on the downtown and other areas of blight, but he is currently in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan. George Highland, 30575 Higuera St., #155, San Luis Obispo, stated that he owns a home on Carmelita. He said that the community has expressed a desire to revitalize the Downtown for many years. Mr. Highland expressed his concern with the deterioration of the Downtown. He urged the Council/Board to adopt the Redevelopment Plan. Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, commended Council Member/Board Member Luna for his in-depth analysis of this proposed Redevelopment Plan. He stated that he supports revitalization of the Downtown but does not support the Redevelopment Plan. He expressed support of the Main Street Program. Tracy Silva, 13550 Morro Road, said that she owns condos on Traffic Way. She stated that she is strongly opposed to the Redevelopment Plan. She asked the Council/Board to put this issue on the next election ballot. Sheryle Machado, 605 Garcia Road, owner of condo rental at 3750 El Camino Real, stated she supports the Redevelopment Plan and the Main Street Program. Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, stated that he has been on the fence on this issue. He expressed support for redevelopment but has some questions. He asked if there is a commitment that the Agency will address the Carlton Hotel? Mr. McKinney stated that it was a potential project. Mr. Thomas also asked what the limitations were on borrowing from the general fund and the wastewater fund. Mr. McKinney replied that the limitations would be based on the Council's votes. Mr. Thomas stated that he feels that now is the time for this Redevelopment Plan and thanked Council Member/Board Member Luna for examining this Redevelopment Plan. Leon Korba, 10905 Santa Ana Road, asked what happens when a third Council Member/Board Member has a conflict of interest. Mayor/Chairman Johnson responded that there is a provision in the law that addressed that issue. Mr. Hanley stated that staff members and Board Members, if the Redevelopment Plan passes, will be forbidden from purchasing property in the Redevelopment area. Carla Kohle, 5345 Mercedes Ave., stated that she is against the Redevelopment Plan. CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 5 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 Mike Kohle, 5345 Mercedes Ave., stated that he was involved with the Main Street Program in Paso Robles. He requested that his property be removed from the redevelopment area. Mr. Kohle expressed his concerns with portions of the Redevelopment Plan and made suggestions for amendments. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, stated that she brought several letters tonight from others unable to attend for the City Clerk to read into the record. She explained that the City Clerk told her that they would be included in the record but that the procedure scheduled tonight does not allow the City Clerk to read the prepared statements. She read a prepared statement in which she expressed her opposition redevelopment (see Attachment S). Gilbert Wilkes, 9325 Carmelita, stated that he is in favor of the Main Street Program and redevelopment but this Plan is unacceptable. He urged that the Council put off adopting any type of plan until it is suitable. t Ron Schoffstoll, 4870 El Verano Ave., President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber does not own property within the Redevelopment boundary. He stated the Chamber of Commerce supports the Redevelopment Plan proposed tonight. Steve LaSalle, 7505 Marchant, urged the Council/Board to vote "no" on this proposal because there is a political flaw in this City in regards to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. He stated that he supports the Main Street Program. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson called the meeting back to order at 10:08 p.m. Doug Chisholm, 5205 Escarpa, expressed appreciation for the many opportunities Atascadero citizens are given to participate in the community. He asked Council Member/Board Member Luna to vote in favor of this Redevelopment Plan and at the same time having some of his views taken into account. Stan Cherry, 5355 El Verano, stated he is employed by Santa Lucia Bank which is in the Redevelopment boundary. He said that he is speaking as a private citizen tonight. He expressed his support for the Redevelopment Plan. John Moss, 5020 Ardilla Ave., stated that he is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan. He listed the progress the City of Atascadero has made in the last 20 years and asked that they be careful not to rush it. Raymond K. Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, stated that his house is within the Redevelopment boundary and he is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan. He also stated that he is giving upon the Council and the management of the City. Marilyn Hoerl, 5300 Fresno St., expressed her opposition of the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read into the record by John Heatherington(see Attachment T). John Heatherington, 7790 Yesal Ave., spoke in opposition of the Redevelopment Plan and the usage of eminent domain. He expressed favoritism for the Main Street Program. CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 6 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 Kim Jeanes, 6280 San Anselmo Rd., stated she owns a business on Traffic Way. She said that the numerous benefits of Redevelopment outweighs the few drawbacks.. Ms. Jeanes expressed her support for the Main Street Program and the Redevelopment Plan. Bob Wilkins, 7915 Marchant, stated he owns the property at 6405 El Camino Real. He asked the Council/Board to approve the Redevelopment Plan and help bring our citizens together. Mary Hickey, 7950 Santa Rosa Road, stated she is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan. She expressed concern that the Plan will be manipulated by this Council and its staff. John McGoff,9192 Maple St., stated that he is not opposed to redevelopment but he is opposed to this Redevelopment Plan. He listed several reasons and examples to support his opposition. Ruth Hildebrandt, expressed her opposition to the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read by Geraldine Brasher (see Attachment U). Stu Thompson, 7455 Bella Vista, stated that he is opposed to this Redevelopment Plan. Paul Weems, 7982 Santa Rosa Road, stated that he is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan. He expressed concern for the large "pie in the sky" and the gambling of our future. John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, stated that redevelopment sounds good but the redevelopment boundary extends too far beyond the Downtown area. He expressed his opposition of the Redevelopment Plan(see Attachment V). Michael Lane expressed his opposition of the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read by John McNeil (not turned in). Carolyn and Paul Mitchell, 4660 San Ardo, stated their opposition to the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read by Livia Kellerman(see Attachment W). Steve Sagen, expressed his opposition to the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read into the record by Daphne Fahsing (see Attachment X). Kathleen Daly, 10650 Colorado Road, stated that she is opposed to the Redevelopment Agency and any plan stemming from the Agency. MOTION: By Council Member/Board Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Arrambide to continue the meeting past 11:00 P.M. Motion passed 3:0 by a voice vote. • Sid Bowen, 5550 Cascabel Road, stated that he supports the Redevelopment Plan. He also stated that he would like to see his vision of Downtown fulfilled. He expressed a belief that Redevelopment could be used as a tool to accomplish the "vision." Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, expressed support for the Redevelopment Plan and the Council who has seen the need for our city to have a Redevelopment Agency. CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 7 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 Robert Huot, 3850 Ardilla, stated that he is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan. He said that he is in favor of the Main Street Program. Mike Murphy, 9320 Santa Clara Rd., stated that he is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan. He urged the Council to vote with their feelings and not to rely on politics. Koleen Perlich, expressed her opposition to the Redevelopment Plan in a prepared statement read into the record by Raymond Jansen (not turned in). Charlotte Smith, 8800 Pino Solo Ave., owner of 5811 Traffic Way, stated she encouraged the Council to vote for Redevelopment. She commented that a vital downtown is needed to increase the number of local consumers. Roberta Fonzi, 7880 Sinaloa Ave., made some suggestions to the Council/Board. She suggested that Redevelopment Agency meetings be held prior to City Council meetings to gain maximum input from the public. She expressed that she would like to see and established point of contact at City Hall available to the public. She also expressed that she would like to see more citizen involvement. Jerry Taft, 7101 El Camino Real, in a prepared statement, expressed that he feels the Von's redevelopment should not be included in the Redevelopment Plan(see Attachment Y). Kirk Pearson, 5405 Olmeda Ave., owns Elliott's Pharmacy on El Camino Real, stated that he moved here because he like this bedroom community. However, he now realizes that we need retail to help the community survive. He expressed his support for the Redevelopment Plan. Vickie Raybourn, 11705 Santa Lucia, expressed her opposition to the Redevelopment Plan and does not want to see her tax dollars misused. She stated that she supports the Main Street Program. She urged the Council to allow the taxpayers to vote by ballot on this issue. John Daly, 10650 Colorado Road, stated that he opposed the incorporation of the City in 1979 because he knew there was not enough money. He also expressed his opposition of this Redevelopment Plan. Mayor/Chairman Johnson closed the Public Hearing period. Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Arrambide thanked the audience for attending the meeting and the process of examining Redevelopment. He expressed concern for the fact that many of the statements made tonight were not accurate in regards to eminent domain and the spending of tax dollars. Council Member/Board Member Luna also thanked the audience for their participation and commented that the Main Street Program received a lot of support from them and he also supports the Main Street Program. He explained that he could not support the Redevelopment Plan due to lack of specifics. Mayor/Chairman Johnson stated that we have reached a historic moment and have crashed. He also stated that he was appalled by the distrust expressed tonight. He requested that staff give direction as to how to proceed. CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 8 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 Executive Director McKinney said staff can make adjustments to the Plan that Council Member/ Board Member Luna may be able to support. Deputy Executive Director Paul Saldana explained some proposed changes as: 1) Under Section 210 - Goals, Objectives, Priorities, and Requirements of the Redevelopment Plan: Mr. Saldana recommended replacing the introductory sentence with the following; "The goal of the Redevelopment Plan is the revitalization of the Downtown and pursuing attainment of this goal over all objectives for the Redevelopment Plan are established by this Plan as follows:" and would then list those items that are contained under the objectives. Mr. Saldana stated that this would limit all the projects that are non-residential in nature to the Downtown area. The change would preclude any other projects outside of the Downtown area with the exception of residential, which under State law, you are required to do within the project area boundaries. This would insure that all of those objectives and any project that occurs under Redevelopment would occur in the Downtown area. 2) With respect to the use of eminent domain, Mr. Saldana stated that we would want to clarify the intent of the language that is underlined under Section 320.1 of the Redevelopment Plan. He stated that it has allows been our intent, when they drafted the language, that it meant property that is both zoned and used for residential purposes. Mr. Saldana suggested that the language be rephrased to say, "zoned or used for residential purposes." He recommended the actual phrasing would be "However, eminent domain shall not be used for property residentially zoned as contained within the zoning ordinance or used for residential purposes." He explained that this would mean that any house in a commercial zone, if it was residentially used, eminent domain would not be applicable to that property. 3) Additionally, Mr. Saldana stated that, as a member of the public suggested, regarding Public Notice, which under current law is 15-day notification for eminent domain, can be made a 60-day notification and included in the Redevelopment Plan. 4) Under the provisions of the Implementation Plan, staff suggested the insertion of additional language in the description of the Implementation Plan overall which is Section 700. The insertion would be as follows: "In addition to meeting the provisions of Section 33490 of the Health and Safety Code and amending and/or adopting an Implementation Plan, the Agency shall include any projects from previous Implementation Plans that have not yet been completed." He stated that this would insure that every five years, under State law, the Redevelopment Agency is required to review the projects and its progress in implementing those projects. Mr. Saldana also stated that anything that has remained incomplete would roll over to the new Implementation Plan automatically, and there would be no option for changing those incomplete plans. Council Member/Board Member Luna suggested that this be continued in order to allow both the public and the Council /Board to review these proposed changes. CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 9 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 Mayor/Chairman Johnson asked for a comment on their timing list and alternatives. City Attorney Roy Hanley stated the ordinance itself must be adopted at a second reading. He Stated that the seconded reading can only take place at a regular Council session, which would be July 13, 1999. There was a Council Consensus to continue the Public Hearing to July 6, 1999. Stephen Deitsch, Special Legal Counsel, recommended that the Council/Board not extent the period for the submission of written comments, especially since Mayor/Chairman Johnson already closed the Public Hearing. He stated that the reason for this suggestion was due to the fact that the Redevelopment law does require a response to any written comments no sooner than 7 days after written comments have been provided at or prior to the Public Hearing. Mayor/Chairman Johnson expressed his support for the Downtown process. He asked if they would be able to open the Public Hearing again. Mr. Deitsch stated that the Public Hearing could not be open again if we wish to meet the adoption deadline. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor/ Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. to the Special Joint City Council /Redevelopment Agency meeting scheduled on Tuesday, July 6, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. MEETING RECORDED BY: 1 Marcia McClure Torgerson, City VlerV MINUTES PREPARED BY: Melanie Whaley, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: A- Redevelopment Disclose of Jerry Clay B- Redevelopment Disclose of Ken Lerno C- Overhead transparencies of George Luna D- Prepared statement by Donald Funk, dated June 25, 1999 E- Prepared statement by Marjorie Mackey, dated June 25, 1999 F- Prepared statement by Becky Pacas, dated June 26, 1999 G Prepared statement by Mike Byrne, dated June 28, 1999 H- Prepared statement by Mr. & Mrs. Giessinger, dated June 28, 1999 I- Prepared statement by Mike Kohle, dated June 29, 1999 CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 10 of 11 Approved as submitted DATE: 08/10/99 J- Prepared statement by Ruth Rentschler, dated June 29, 1999 K- Prepared statement by Geraldine Brasher, June 29, 1999 L- Prepared statement by Virginia Powers, June 29, 1999 M- Prepared statement by Carol DeHart, June 29, 1999 N- Prepared statement by Martin and Livia Kellerman, June 29, 1999 O- Prepared statement by Dan Ulrich, June 29, 1999 P- Prepared statement by Craig Dingman, June 29, 1999 Q- Prepared statement by Barrie Hafler, June 29, 1999 R- Prepared statement by Daphne Fahsing, June 29, 1999 S- Prepared statement by Dorothy McNeil, June 29, 1999 T- Prepared statement by Marilyn Hoerl, June 23, 1999 U- Prepared statement by Ruth Hildebrant, June 24, 1999 V- Prepared statement by John McNeil, June 25, 1999 W- Prepared statement by Carolyn Mitchell, June 24, 1999 X- Prepared statement by Steve Sagen, no date Y- Prepared statement by Jerry Taft, June 29, 1999 CC/RDA 06/29/99 Page 11 of 11 Attachment: A Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting.Date:.6/29/99. 06/08/99 Redevelopment disclosure as it relates to Health and Safety Code"Section 33130 Attention, Roy A. Hanley and others it may concern. I, (Jerry L. Clay) do not own or have direct or indirect interest in any real property in the proposed redevelopment project area. I'm an independent contractor(Realtor) my license is with York Real Estate Inc. York Real Estate Inc. leases office space at 7770 Morro Road and 3550 El Camino Real in Atascadero. Both of these locations are with in the redevelopment project area. I have no financial interest in this Company.. . Respectfully submitted on 06/08/1999 tascadero Ci C 'lman J rry L lay Attachment: B Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment.Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 Ken Lerno Property Ownership 9720 Atascadero Ave. 9000 Morro.Road 9064 La Lina 5432, 5434(a)(b)Robles Ave Rochelle Property 4980 Rosario _ _g g 7300 Morro Road Q/�(/ Attachment: C Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 "I would. a ree with a narrowly� defined redevelopment entproject. p Such aJ ro ' ect must be p carefully evaluated and explained in order to gain the support of the, Community." George Luna 1992, 1996 Article 2 Goals, Objectives, Priorities, Requirements And Procedures Of the Redevelopment Plan: In pursuing attainment of this goal, overall objectives for the Redevelopment Plan are established by this Plan, and are: 2 10.1 The assembly of land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated development with improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Project Area. 210.2 The provision of opportunities for participation by owners and tenants in the revitalization of their properties. 210.3 The provision of adequate land for parking and open space. 210.4 The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high site design standards and environmental quality and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire Project. 210.5 Expansion and diversification of the community's economic and employment base, through the facilitation of more year- round employment opportunities, including industrial development and expansion. 210:6 Improvement and revitalization of the downtown. 210.7 Increasing the capture of potential commercial trade, particularly in the Downtown area, 210.8 Improvement of traffic circulation throughout the Project Area, consistent with the General Plan. 210.9 Expansion and/or improvement in the quality of the community's existing housing stock for low and moderate- income persons, through rehabilitation, reconstruction, homeownership programs. 210.10 Improvement of historical infrastructure deficiencies supporting the Project Area, including street pavement, Curb, gutter, sidewalk, sewer, water and storm drainage. 210.11 Creation/enhancement of recreational and cultural opportunities available to the residents of the Project Area and of the community at- large. V 210.12 Enhancement of the community facilities available to residents of the Project Area and supportive of the local population at-large. 210.13 Encouragement of industrial development and employment. 210.14 Elimination of incompatible land uses. 210.15 Transition of obsolete land uses or uses causing the under-utilization of the underlying land, and assembly of properties to best meet current market needs. 210.16 Elimination or mitigation of other existing blighting.conditions and influences, including incompatible: and uneconomic land uses, obsolete or substandard structures, inadequate and deteriorated public facilities, and/or small, multiple ownership, irregular or landlocked . parcels. 2,50. 1 Conformance with the :Redevelopment Plan." All real property in the Project Area is hereby made subject to the controls and requirements of this Plan. leo real property shall be developed, rehabilitated, or otherwise changed after the date of the adoption of this Plan except in conformance with the ' provisions of this Plan. 620.4 Imposition wherever necessary of appropriate design controls within the limits of this Plan upon parcels in the Project Area to ensure their proper development :and use. 1 320.1 Acquisition of Real Property. The Agency may acquire, but is not required to acquire, any real property located in the Project Area by gift, devise, exchange, purchase, or any other lawful method including eminent domain. However, eminent domain shall not be used for.resdentially zoned properties being used for residential -purposes. The Agency is authorized to acquire structures vithout acquiring the land upon which those structures are located..The Agency is also authorized to acquire any other interest in real property less than fee title. Condemnation proceedings must be commenced within 12 years from the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Plan. Eminent domain shall only be used as a last resort, and shall require at least a three affirmative votes of Board members eligible and qualified to vote. The power of eminent domain will not be exercised when the property in question is improved with a structure, conforms to the Plan and is a conforming use as defined by the Atascadero General Plan and the Atascadero Zoning Ordinance, and in the determination of the Agency is not needed for: a) Specific activities outlined in this Plan; b) To provide for or replace very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing pursuant to specific provisions of this Plan; c) for any other public improvement facility; d) To promote historical or architectural preservation; e) To remove the blighting influences on surrounding properties which might prevent achievement of the objectives of this Plan but, rather, said property will develop in conformity with the objectives of this Plan through private initiative; f) For the elimination of any environmental deficiency including, among other things, inadequate street layout, incompatible and mixed land uses, overcrowding and small parcel size or g) For the removal of impediments to land development and disposition through assemble of land into appropriately sized 320,E 3 Acquisition of Personal Property. : . Generally, personal property shall not be acquired. However, where necessary for the execution of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to acquire personal property in the Project Area by any lawful means, including eminent domain. 360.2 Moving of Structures. As is necessary in carrying out this Plan and where it is economically feasible to do so, the Agency is authorized to move, or cause to be moved, any standard structure or building which can.be rehabilitated to a location within or outside the Project Area, provided that all requisite requirements of Redevelopment Law have been met. 360.3 Buildings of Historical Significance. Special consideration shall be given to the protection, rehabilitation or restoration of any structure.determined to be historically significant by the City, State Office of Historic Preservation or Department of the Interior, taking into consideration State 'guidelines and local registries and listings. Article 4 Low and Moderate Income Housing 33352. Every redevelopment plan submitted by.-the, agency to the legislative body shall be accompanied by a report containing all of the following: If the project area contains low- or moderate-income housing, a neighborhood impact report which describes in detail the impact of the project upon the residents of the project area and the surrounding areas, in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. The neighborhood'impact 'report shall also-include all of the. .. following: (1) The number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income expected to be destroyed or removed from the low- and moderate-income housing market as part of a redevelopment project. (2) The number of persons and families of low or moderate income expected to be displaced by the project. (3) The general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or . constructed pursuant to Section 33413. (4) The number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation, other than . replacement housing. (5) The projected means of financing the proposed dwelling units for housing persons and families of low and moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation. (6) A projected timetable for meeting the plan's relocation, rehabilitation, and replacement housing objectives. Article 5 Project Financing Section 510 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FINANCING METHODS The Agency is authorized to finance the project with assistance from the City, State of California, United States Government, any other public agency, from property tax increments, interest revenue, income revenue, Agency- issued notes and bonds, loans from private financial institutions, the sale or lease of Agency-owned property, or from any other available sources of financing which are legally available and do not conflict with the objectives of the adopted Redevelopment Plan. The City may supply advances and expend money as necessary to assist the Agency in carrying out the project. Such assistance shall be on terms established by an agreement between the City and the Agency. 540 The bonds and other obligations of the Agency are not a debt of the City or the State, nor are any of its political subdivisions liable for them, nor in any event shall the bonds or obligations be payable out of any funds or properties other than those of the Agency, and such bonds and other obligations shall so state on their face. The bonds do not constitute an indebtedness within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction. 570.3 From time to time as may be appropriate, the Agency may issue bonds and/or notes for any of its corporate purposes. The Agency may issue such types of bonds on which the principal and interest are payable in whole or in part from tax increments.. The total outstanding principal of any bonds so issued and payable from said tax increments shall not exceed $25 million at any one time except by amendment of this 'lai` 570.4 The Agency shall not borrow nor the City shall loan General Fund revenues to the Agency without an affirmative vote of at least three City Council Members eligible and qualified to vote. ............. TABLE 2-2 Atascadero Redevelopment Plan Proposed Projects and Estimated Costs (19995) Ho s_ng S 7,500,000 Non-Housing Curbs&Gutters 500,000 Sewer Laterals 500,000 Civic Center Improvements 4 Vehicular Improvement 2,000,000 Pedestrian Improvement 200,000 Parking . 2,000,000 Beautification 450,000 Incompatible Uses 1,500,00.0 Irregular Lots 1,000,000 Facade Improvements 500,000 Ataseadero Creek Bridge 1,000 000 Lake Park Improvements 500,000 it Atascadero Library 500,000 Residential Storm Drainage improvements 500,000 I Residential Street Repair 1,000,000 Development Assistance 2.500.000 Non-Housing Subtotal 14,650,000 Estimating Contingency - 1.465.000 16,115,000 ..TOTAL with Housing 23,615,000 Planning,Design and Administration 2,500,000 General Administration 1,000,000 Debt Issuance and Financing 54,230,000 Report to CouncilMay 1999 Atascadero Redevelopment Plan 2_14 Article 7 Implementation Plan 33352. Every redevelopment plan submitted by the agency to the legislative body shall be accompanied by a report containing all of the following: r (c) An implementation plan that describes specific goals and objectives of the agency, specific projects then proposed by the agency, including a program of actions and expenditures proposed to be made within the first five years of the plan, and a description of how these projects will improve or alleviate the conditions described in Section 33031 . (e) The proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the project area in sufficient detail so that the legislative body may - determine the economic feasibility of the plan. a 0 0 s gsg n Un n m ao v o � nvmnA .o a n •t .- U) so n0in03vowo poO� o� .- nao O 46 r 0 17 t? N r � aD r f7 � th rf l'7 N • N. in m w 00 000 Q p. 0 0 0 0 0 0` 009 . ae Sge; � 9 SgNOroig; nU) veP. 00 � ao �s .- V � M.Oamoamo �. U . C marsaanma� 4 . a m A aA W {G s. 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 088 0 S tunas ^ N O a `a a m m m 0 � apc • p N � Q J 000000 SS80S $ a N .� r al sW — .- b ui r- Of OS A OS ao _ v 0 A r c .- '� O o A 9 J N O 3 � a CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 00 0 0 00_ C C) 000 $ 00 U. OD N OS O N 0 LL to IA0O0N.,. �' O CD Os ao ao as .r O of A O as as :.. ai _a M Os f- .- 3 O E s 9 M N N N w C a+ C! m co N N U) q O b Ckl 9L O N E 000000p0 rn 000000 ui 1 } O o a0 a0 p e a0 OND !aa HO !10 p Np cn l!J E- SO00 -iOOSSO X �, OC 000 4 000000 EW b p �. o b FZ o m �ommm0 Z c a $ 00000 p o os c a mmmm0 c a o :• -i 2 toCL J N eh _ o :: `m O z. a 0 $ 000 $ . o O0 $ c� 0o 4 `� tiJ N OAn �oot; O Coon �oon � " • cr c .J • O 1Q0 m m sAo 1np 3 b y O •- 'D 0 3e C C A O t o o O U !7 0 n p �o �c m �o �e N ► ; Q E y t M -i N w o o a LU a 0 $ 0003 W 000 $ 3 $ :2 000 Ems > u� n an m eo H > n e; 40 as E n. a c J Lu. o A o Os a p o O v � 40 to 033 d �LLJ vgamba�vo � 03 1>0 00 C CC LL Z N z z N n < a ? a l7 ti 0 0 7 — cc o ! o ui N Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 t O o 0 Q 0p 0 0 4 N cc « N e N l7 N a0 O W •- e- W Cl aV m 0 00 V- si 1 > C C C Q 40 N 2 mm mNai W S mm .- oimA QbOr o ; b e 0 Q N at m _ r r r r < . ... •CO�i q v oQ V > s p 06 N cc 00 o 00 o CL a o 0 pp o o �n m E v E co LLJ;:w .. O tV LL O 104 00 N V e0D N iL- 03 a 3a ' 3d - .- �Ida o '. ., - > � E n a m 000000 a`S o0 ox° Z c C M - � .o x z CL m � $ � � Q o 'er . 3 _ rc c U- a o > _ w O o O O ~ t[ o e c X. o c z 3 a O a .= m c o `o E .. c U. W p u. 3 n c o o U E $ c .E .. 000000 0 i 000000 E `e' O a0Uj o � C O b to W m ip v A Z �Oe W aal aD w �t W « o C 0 0 a o J n •- l'9 Sff 1� tef O C n Yf n to O O a• : a O b to �, 400o► Av� v o mAOfOSWIt 5M3 ! bd Win. E W a X. -v a. E o o .2 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 q0 0 Q0 $$ w 3 c c c Z — • �f10000U) O — • 100000 O of o V 3 sa o 0 3 p M oc"'inv U de opNinv z a N c cow N a� cc C* 0 N 3 a mnasaso� 0 O � < e o v 3 c o 04 O • N e o :. o aC > • a a. V 0. a � � � S ct > � o` O o C Q O 'p Q O �+ d= O O W o� c� o, mo> °� z 0OSCSOSOSOf � -i cc U. z zm V7 } S OWS A 4m 4m N U. OA! (D OS W Ona OAS < r- N tC 1.: CD Of W Z Q � � Lu H 00MCDcf) _ Z Q W � MOO �t' C') O Ln 6) U) CV Ld QCL CN0U) r*-. o e- V- CN Nco LU V ' 1j . = W i W } < Ol.-- C-! Ch ct' Lo W m 0j0 r- N M qt 0=0 O 0 0 0 ' 00 O 0,0 0 r- N N N I N CN W _ t 0p63 ;Cyte = J 63:0=0 0 0 =0 Q 0=0 0'0=0 0: N�NN =N = Lt. i Attachment: D Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency RECEIVED Tunk R vernt oon u�'tan, s 2 910 planning • enuironmental studies • mediation t i 'ATASCADERO.CITY MANAGER June 25, 1999 Mayor and City Council p City of Atascadero Redevelopment Agency 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero,CA 93422 RE Proposed Redevelopment Plan To the honorable Mayor and City Council, As a property owner in the redevelopment area,it is very heartening that the City is considering a redevelopment plan for the downtown area. I'm very familiar with community redevelopment law. I helped prepare the redevelopment plan for Palm Springs and am aware of the benefits that can be achieved through a well conceived plan. The community can benefit from the improvements. It can lead to long-term beautification of commercial and residential areas,support new pedestrian and bicycle ways and,hopefully result in a trail system and other enhancement along Atascadero Creek. I support the proposal. Sincerely, Donald J.Funk - P.O. Box 6291, Los Osos, CA 93412 (805) 528-0632 • FAX (805) 528-2423 - email: RIVERFUNK@aol.com Attachment: E Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 _ RECEIVED June 25, 1999 JUN 2 8 1999 City Council- Redevelopment Agency ATASCADERO CITY MANAGER Dear'Sirs: I will be unable to attend your meeting on June 29 as I will be in Montana. I have many concerns about Redevelopment and I am in the project area. That is one of my main concerns because I have a vacant lot which I would like to keep that way. Some of my other concerns are the length of time ...I have heard 40-45 years. Many people do not want their children or grandchildren burdened with debt of our making and this will reach to my great-great-great grandchildren. I have two great grandchildren now. I have mixed feelings about the whole idea. When we created the agency in 1986 I wanted to investigate the possibilities to see what could be done) looking at the.pros.and cons but another Council mem- ber was so opposed to the idea that we did not evenlook into it. I am very much in favor of the Main Street Program and I understand that Redevelopment could help in financing it. I guess my main hesitation is the people in charge. I believe the present Council has too much vested interest in growth and not the long range plan for the City that I envision and the General Plan as it was at the time I was there. I hope each of you are thinking of the best future for the town and are not seeing it as a copy of Paso Robles with a sea of roofs. I love corning home to Atascadero with so many trees that you hardly see all the houses hidden in the trees. Thank you for your consideration. Marjorie . Mackey 5504-A unitas Av. Atascadero, CA 93422 466-1811 Attachment: F - Special Joint City Council/ RECEIVED Redevelopment Agency- Meeting Date: 6/29/99L JU!N 2 19 99 June 26, 1999 ' Atascadero City Council: 1ATASCADER0 CITY MANAGEF i was born in Atascadero. Unlike many who moved here from the BIG CITY, and want to shut the gates behind them to keep.others from doing`.the same, I.welcome anyone whowould like to be a decent part of Atascadero. However I am appalled at the city official's recent mismanagement and flagrant disregard for the concerns of its residents. As a resident, owner of industrial property, owner of a business, and an employee all within the designated "Redevelopment " area, I would like to express my opposition to the proposed plan as I have seen it published in the Atascadero News. My concern over the proposed plan, is the apparent intent of a small group of people to pillage a large community to benefit themselves. Originally I believed that the idea of redevelopment would be good for the area; however I see from the plans that an area that has been sorely neglected by the city of Atascadero is not going to benefit, but rather once again,will be taken advantage of by the proposed plan and the city officials implementing. it. Eight years ago Atascadero allowed San Benito Road Elementary School to be built to accommodate over 700 students with absolutely no provisions to accommodate the increase in traffic, despite numerous requests from parents. Instead the city has repeatedly tossed gravel alongside the street above the school on San Benito Road, forcing bike riders into the middle of the street with traffic. I have seen at least one child hit on his bike due to the thoughtfulness of the city. Of course the bike rider was found at fault for not riding downhill in the slippery gravel that the city provided. Nothing has been done to improve the flow of traffic on Traffic Way either. Two times in the last five years I have been rerouted on my way to work because of an accident entirely blocking a road that evidently is too antiquated for its current flow of traffic. Children are not allowed to walk or.ride their bikes to school on Traffic Way,.due to the traffic conditions during the school year. Thirty six homes are currently being completed that will all feed into this over stressed area of the city, off of one small street, Ferro Carril Road. Also, I understand the Lakes project of 122 homes, all of which will also feed into this area, off of the same small street, has been approved by the city. And most recently 29 HOMES on ONLY FOUR acres of property, where most homes are required to have TWO ACRES'per home, has been approved, despite outcries of public opposition. The very sad fact, is that the area that is being inundated with new traffic, with no improvements to its traffic flow will not benefit from the Redevelopment Plan. Oh yes it will contribute a great deal of money into the plan. It is included in the area from which the money will come! But it is not included in the area to which the money will go. It is an area that the current.m isrepresentation will continue..to pillage in order to fill the pockets of their friends. There are a select few who will benefit from the redevelopment who evidently have connections to city officials that they use to their advantage. With the current misrepresentation, combined with a commitment to the proposed redevelopment plan, our community will be at the mercy of the few beneficiaries of the =plan. We will be looking forward to more"Lakes projects", more projects that allow fifteen homes next to us where only one would have gone before, just so that more taxes can be sucked out of our neighborhood, with absolutely none of the much needed Improvements to our immediate area. Recent history has demonstrated it. I find that our current council and planning commission are not representative of the public, but rather have their ears closed to them and their own agenda, it is therefore a dangerous time to implement the redevelopment plan! Sincerely, Becky Pacas June 28,1999 3:45 PM From: M&C Byrne Family Fax#:805.466.0678 .Attachment: G Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 Homeless Housing Projeer 3228 Amber Drive Paso Robles, CA. 93446 (805)434-2466 June 28,1999 6500 Palma Ave. Arascadero,CA. 93422 Dear Councilman Luna, The Homeless Housing Project wishes to lend support to the Community Redevelopment Project to be voted on at this next City. Council Meeting. The prospects of bringing Arassadero up to commercial speed are exciting and this is opportunity may not occur again. Community Redevelopment should articulate the principal needs of the citizenry including affordable housing.The current plan seems deficient in this area_ EOC has a current waiting list of 30 families in the city of Atascadero who have Section 8 vouchers and can find no place to live. We estimate that close to one thousand individuals in Atascadero are currently homeless. The majority of these are women and children. The Community Redevelopment must include a comprehensive housing program that provides an.emergency shelter, transitional housing in the form of.multiple dwelling rentals and affordable housing with rental and homebuyer assistance..The first step*in this process and requires the establishment of emergency shelter service. Our organization requests that The Community Redevelopment Agency purchase and renovate the Yokum property at 4700 EI Camino Real to provide a combination shelter and day center. Agencies represented in the North County Housing Coalition sponsored by Supervisor Ryan could administer the shelter service and provide case management helping clients move to the next level of independence. Sincerely, Mike Byrne Homeless Housing Project,Shelter Committee Representative FROM DON G I ESS I NGER PHONE NO. 805 4665090 Attachment: H Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 Ray,lohnson 6500 Palma Ave Atascadero, Ca To. Whom It May Concern; We beleive that redevelopment is a vital and important part of this community. It is something that we have worked toward and will continue to hope for as long as we live in San Luis Obispo County. Have IIVed here for 25 years and plan to retire here in ten years or more. Mrs. & Mrs Giessinger 9070 La Paz Lane Atascadero, Ca 06/29/1999 07:54 8054614017 " Attachment: I Sp@ig;al Tn;nt City Council/ ..___ POLY VECTOR CONWAIYY Redevelopment Agency 5970 Entrada Ave.,Suite B Meeti# jje6d /a0: Atascadere,CA►,93422 Mike Kahle >P OM-905.461-4415 FaL 803461-4017, Jane 29,1999 o-mail: v a ofAgnmemcom Pages: 3 To:: Atascadero Redevelopment Agency Attn: Marcia M 1'orgerson' City Clerk Cov of Atascadero Dear Marcia, Please find attached comments regarding the proposed Atascadero Redevelopttsm Plan.Please enter these comments irate the official record for the lune 29;1..999 public meeting for'the purpose of reviewing the prdpnsed Atascadero Redevelopment Plm Thankyotr for yow-.assistance. , %'r(;TI', ^5 Regard$, Mike Kohle 06/29/1999 07:54 8054614017 POLY VECTOR COMPANY PAGE 02 Michael R.Kohlc $345 Merceds Avenue Atascadcro,CA 93422 Tel:462-1844 June 29, 1999 Atascadero Redevelopment agency Ataseadero City Council 6500 Palmi Aver. Atascadero.Ca 93423 Honorable City CounciI Members. Regarding the proposed Atascadero Redevelopment Plnn .-.ould.''-e to !dress r::a c --nments to two areas;as it affects my residential property included in the plan :rea E. d se ..idly the kascadero Redevelopment Plan in general Re acding my,; residential.pfaperty located at 5345 Mercedes Jivenue,I would like to.a Cally request #i.aq, ,�perty apo all rf rhe.residential pxoperty on the eastM-edge,of,,Ivfercedes Avenue,sooty to b�_ Higfi�vajr 41,be removed from the project area. Ido not consider this a blighted area and see no potential for the use oC Red+n clopment Funds in this area. I also object strongly to the expanded powers given to the Redevelopment Aaency over property conformance,property use,and emeninent domain as could be applied to my or mN neighbor's property. Generally I support the.judicious use of Redevelopment fWds to improve the downtown area, however there are specific areas cf the r►mposed plan that in my opinion should be addressed. l. . In general,the use of Redevelopmetit Agency funds is an inefficient use of tax monies,so they should be used judiciously. Much of the funds will used to service debt incurred by the Agency. These funds used to pay debt service would have otherwised been used to benefit the taxpayer. rather than the lending institutions. ";nce the funds art,being redirected to other than their currentl% designated usage t c taxpayer 'iould a; -ry.v f ..w ox these fii-ads and the use of debt to Finance the Redevelopment Plan. There is a tendenc%- for the expenditures to be front end loaded,with the bulk of the funds being committed in the early years of the program.This results in missed opportunities later in the program rh,-rc is noway to anticipate or to micronmanage the planning of the downtown dcvc lopment to insure the funds will be used in the appropriate areas.Fund expenditures shouId be time-phased to insure they are used most effectively and will be available%ben needed the most. - In addition. it is ci,m mon practice for expenses that would normally be incurred out of the . City's General Fund'to be shifted to the RDA, (City Staff salaries and expenses acre a prime example). As a result oi'thc:«; issues I believe three revisions should be made to the plan_ a - Any drbt inv11-,rd in the forms of loans or bonded indebtedness entered into by the RDA should be appro,.ed by referendum with a;majori*y of the voters consenting.to entering into this debt 1. 06/29/1999 07:54 8054614017 POLY VECTOR COMPANY PAGE 03 2 b. The fund expenditures should be budgeted over the life of the project and not front-end loaded. Or there should be a minimum reserve level.established for future ftutd use. c. There shou Id be safeguards for the use of RDA funds for non-RDA uses. I would suggest that any RDA budget item that shales resources with the City be approved by 4 votes of the City Council. - - 2. Although it is specifically stated that eminent domain will not be used on residential properties being used for residential uses,there is the potential for worldng around this issue through modifications of the General Plan and subsequent determination of non-conformance with the Agency plan. Some protections need to be afforded to residential property to assure that zoning changes are not made and then properties that were originally in conformance with the original designated usage etre then found to be tion-conforming. Two other changes should be made to the eminent dozy; In p -ivision t-.-the plan. qe.-of emminent domain by the Agency should require a unanimous vote, r r b. Affected nroperty owners should be given a.minimum of 60 days prior notice of any public he:inng regarding the use of emminent domain. 10 days is not sufficient notice. 3. Section 410 aFlmve use offunds.out of the project area. The requireime t that all funds should be used inside the project area will prevent the indiscrete use of the funds and wiH insure that the maximum benefits are dervied by the project area. 4. Regarding Section 430 of the proposed plan,the requirement that the percczrtages be applied to the aggregate t n the project area.,and not to each individual cases of rehabilitation, development. etc .may not result in the usage as required. Some provision needs to be included 14)insure that the correct income level proportions of housing be achieved. In the case of rental properties,there needs to be requirements that the property be used for the appropriate income Ievel for an agreed on period of time,ie 20 to 30 years. 5. Any funds transferred or loaned to the Redevelopment Agency by the City should be approved by a vole of at least 4 City Council Members. These suggestions are submitted for your consideration. Respectfully yours, . Michael R. Kohle Attachment: J Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 P.O. Box 411 Atascadero Ca 93423 June 29, 1999 City Council City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, Ca. 93423 Gentlemen: I am filing my objection to the adoption of the redevelopment plan, as presented, for the following reasons. As an affected property owner I have the right to be informed of detailed plans for the downtown area and how it' will impact my property. All -I. have heard so far are allusions .to unspecified projects. . .in the future. To create such a monstrous project, with lots of borrowed money, one hundred million dollars and projected costs of fifty-four million to service the debt seems ludicrous. And, what concerns me most is that property owners cannot vote for or against this plan. The decision is left to three council members. The Main Street Program sounds like a better alternative to revitalize the downtown area and at a much lower cost. I. like the following concerns of mine to be addressed before the adoption. of the redevelopment plan is considered. 1. A detailed plan, of what exactly is being considered within five years for the downtown area. 2. What exactly is planned for the area of my property,parcel number 029,341,009. 3. And, if improvements are dictated for my property, will it then be re-assessed ? Who pays for any costs and inconvenience ? Who pays the higher taxes ? If passed along to tenants it will either eliminate their business or force them to move. My rents, at this time are kept relatively low to help them stay in business. 4. If you decided to rezone areas, will you then have the right to force people to move because of non-conforming uses ? 5: Can eminent domain be used to.benefit special interests, or is it _restricted -to public improvements only', such as parks and roads ? 6. Please explain why the Main Street program in conjunction with private enterprise could not accomplish the revitalization of downtown, as it has in many cities, without a very expensive redevelopment plan. The California Health and Safety Code, section 33363, states among other things the following: The legislative body shall, at the hour set in the notice, hear all written and oral objections, and shall, before adopting the redevelopment plan, evaluate all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the plan and shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. I am entitled to a written answer to my objection by the City Council Rullii�&enl l Attachment: K Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 Good evening,Mayor Johnson and Council members: Since there are so many waiting to address you,I will be very brief. I would much prefer to attack the problem of the downtown area by instituting a Main Street Program rather than pursuing the formation of a Redevelopment Agency. The advantages are many. First, it would deal with the major problem we have in this community without involving us in a 20 year plan that would involve floating very expensive bonds we would need 45 years to pay off. Second, it would be much less costly and could be funded by not hiring an Assistant City Manager, by reducing the City Manager's contingency fund and by utilizing the extra fees that members of the BIA are charged. BIA boundaries are contiguous with the Downtown Area. Third, our neighboring city, San Luis Obispo, did a marvelous job of improving its downtown using just the Main Street Program. In fact, San Luis Obispo's Council rejected the formation of a Redevelopment Agency. Gentlemen, I urge you to consider a Main Street Program rather than forming a Redevelopment Agency. Geraldine Brasher 3202 Monterey Rd. June 29, 1999 Attachment: L Special Joint City Council/ Juneev ment Agency elrtate: 6/29/99 Cid CCenA - Pteue- rcead tato xewyd. Tharrh gou. 1 an againat the Redeve.Copmeert Agencg plana becauae theg ace not 6peciAc. /t uriuCd be Cze fiuung a contnactox #o nemodeC dvuit houae uzithout lvtoruirzg.uahat he intendz. to do on how much Lt would coat. Imagine Aurthetc 4 the contnaeton .acid he anted hi,6 moneg up Aont and would tet you hiz plana Ccrten. / am no# againht nedevetopnent. /n Ap U f viA ted mg hometown o4 Cteve&nd, Ohio and =6 amaged to see what a good job tAeg had done in domntaan CLevetand along the .Cabe Amt. The AL zce Z6 that the people voted on eacAp�ro¢ect. A,& Anew aJ at thea wme getting and a»1ce W U_ing to paw �on .ct. / �eet we should know what rgou plan to do with oun taxpat4eA mon vz be4orie we acre wLU-ng to .inveat. .in a pcojeet. / 6tLU %emembex the CaV-ton RoteC A"co and how the contrractox absconded ax A ours moneu be�one the pub.Gi,.c knew what axw going on. Come bacA aAen you have a speciAc p wject and can t U ua how and what you pLarz to do Wj.4A c t. Fore now, f urge rgou ;to vote no, no, no on-aV )wdevetopnent, vvu-&z POweA4 7505 Cwme!_i to Ave. Attachment: M Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 June 29, 1999. City Council Members 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero,CA. 93422 Dear Council Members, This letter is to address the issue of the so-called Redevelopment Plan currently Pro- posed by this council. I have lived in this city for 23 years and have seen many changes, I believe for the worse. These changes have become greater during the last six years. Twenty years ago this month I voted to incorporate Atascadero,into a city,and I also had a son. I am grateful for my son,but I'm having second thoughts about incorporation. If it weren't for we who voted to incorporate,you all wouldn't be sitting where you are now. I very disappointed in the deviation from the General Plan so well thought out with'great foresight by E. G.Lewis. Much to my.dismay I have witnessed this council consistently amend the General Plan to accommodate the pro-growth powers that be in Atascadero. We all know who they are. I believe the Redevelopment Plan will only continue to further undermine what E..G. Lewis intended for our beautiful city. We have lost some very hard working,faithful employees who I had personal contact with on many occasions. This mass exodus of city personnel and the obvious mass building is directly related to the extremism of the current council and city administrators. I want our residential neighborhoods protected,the rural qualities of Atascadero preserved,and our government officials to do their jobs by respecting our General Plan- and its' principles: Sincerely, c� Carol DeHart 4305 Lobos Ave. Atascadero,CA. 93422 Attachment:N Special Joint City Counc Redevelopment Agency Connections and Places to Linger June 29, 199eeting Date: 6/29/99 To the Counci 1, Part of.my concerns about the redevelopment_plan are as follows: Iteml-Pedestrian circulation in'the project. How many of you walked the length of E1 Camino, and to the lake? What I notice was how much of a drive-in-and-out design has been created in the town. When walking, there are few places to sit or linger and talk and be shaded by a tree. Adobe Plaza has a beautiful arbor to sit under, which unfortunately, is the exception. You discourage pedstrian traffic when there are no islands of beauty to linger in, no benches to rest on, and few trees to be shaded by. We go to the Lake, we go to Heilman Park, to the sunken gardens and hopefully to Stadium Park, but we do not connect these areas for pedestrians. Will we with redevelopment? I would like to point out missed opportunities that cast doubt. We had in the middle of town a 9 hole golf course. We could have had a show case of stores, plus places of beauty to linger, open space. For example Paso Robles, with its park, movie theater, and its old fashioned drugstore with soda fountain. its fun going there because after a movie you linger. with the kids at the park, then go to the soda fountain. We had an opportunity to develop along the creek like San Luis, but the bowling alley was placed right against the full length of the creek. HWY 41, from Morro Bay to El Camino, was to not to be developed like El Camino. it was to be more low key, with office buildings. We would not have two "strips". What happened to that goal? We have an opportunity to have two "centers", the library and the lake, connecting them, making the walk to each much more pleasant, but will we do it? We have beauty all around us, lots of trees and greenery, all sorts of nooks and crannies, but we do not seem to incorporate them in the town. 1-t is hit and miss.Burger King made the effort to have greenery, but at the Food For Less Center, the area in front of the stores is very austere. How is it that they made such an effort in S.L.O. to build a much more attractive building, but not here? Speaking of effort the Santa Barbara Bank won recognition from the Homeowners Assocation for the beautiful job of landscaping its business. When the business was sold all of the landscaping was torn out. The present owners have done nothing to restore some of the beauty.that contributed to the town itself. Will there be some encouragement under redevelopment to consider what adds beauty to the town? Beautiful towns, towns that attract tourists,towns that make life enjoyable for the residents, create beauty within the town. They are places which you just dont go in-and-out of, they are places where you can a-KOL tv�-kt +r linger outdoors. Recently ( rode by train from San Diego to S.L.O. I noticed that several communities were trying not to have housing along the track but instead linear parks, with picnic benches, walking and bike trails. I thought, what a great way to use the land next to the railroad tracks. I find it troubling that we would place low income housing right smack next to the tracks. By the way, Self Help Housing considers $140,000 houses moderate, not low, income._The people that can least afford child care, and at varous times may have to leave their children alone, will have their kids next to the tracks. if this passes we are going back in time to when we gave the poor the crumbs, or in this case we sell them the worst land, then tell them we are doing them a favor . Attachment: 0 Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 Atascadero-City Council June 29, 1999 6500 Palma Ave Atascadero, CA 93422 Councilmembers:- I am opposed to the creation of a Community Redevelopment Agency, as proposed, for a number of reasons which I will outline below. 1) If a CRA were to exist in our community I believe its membership should be a mix of both city officials and community members rather than just the city council. I believe this would provide a more widely accepted process of checks and balances. It is the entire community that has a stake in this, not just the business community. 2) The establishment of a CRA potentially reduces the amount of increase in tax dollars available to other agencies. I believe that if property values increase (for any reason) the available dollars should go back to those agencies which now exist rather than being funnelled through yet another government agency which will further dilute the value of those dollars. 3) The meeting time as proposed allows for little meaniful discussion. As we all know city council meetings.regularly end after 10:00 PM. Asking the community to then. address the issues of'a redevelopment agency will only create a very distrustful public wondering what really went on during those late night sessions. It will be perceived as rubber stamping the decisions made by only a few. 4) The scope of the CRA boundaries are too great. Some areas that are included, are not, by practical defintion, blighted. This may cause undue hardship for some property owners trying to sell their property when their property is identified as "blighted". 5) The power of eminant domain is too great. Private business should be allowed to flourish or fail without government intervention. Many businesses, which have been successful by most standards will be forced to refinance improvements or move their operations simply because a small group, the CRA, decides that they have a better idea for a property. truly hope that you will postpone your decision to form a CRA until more communitu input is solicited (maybe the results of the community survey will help) and it truly becomes an agency supported by the community as a whole. Sincerely, L � Dan Ulrich 6680 Santa Ynez Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Attachment: P Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 June 29, 1999 Atascadero City Council Atascadero,CA 93422 RE: Community Redevelopment Agency Project Area Gentlemen: I urge you to defeat the proposed Project Area plan for the CRA. It is a plan that has some conceptual merit,but serious design flaws. I am concerned with the focus on capturing tax dollars which essentially require development. Everyone knows now that locally owned businesses benefit the local economy by keeping more of their revenue in town than large chain stores do. But if the CRA is seeking only the tax dollar generated first by redevelopment and second by sales out of the redeveloped areas,then local revenue, in total,takes a back seat. Everyone favors a pedestrian friendly downtown. But not by any means. What is the value of improving the character of a small part of the City while losing local character in a greater portion of the city? Perhaps this is not the intention of the proponents of redevelopment,but there is too little structure and accountability in the proposal to assure that an overall loss of local character, control and economic benefit will be avoided. CRA represents too large an abdication of the planning process by the citizens of Atascadero. Keep working and come up with something better. Sin ely, aai 6620 Atascadero Ave. Atascadero,CA 93422 466-4547 Attachment: R Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Rd. City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Tuesday, June .29,1999 I hope you will not rush into this vote for Redevelopment. Either, take it to the people for a vote,, or institute the Main Street Program which would cost far less, and would do more in a shorter period of time. Three votes is not a fair way to lock residents into a $100m debt for 45 years . Another reason to withhold your vote at this time, would be for the appointment (or election) of a separate, independent Redevelopment Agency. It is not possible for you to wear these two hats and pretend that you are thinking and voting independently. One person said ' it very clearly at a meeting a couple of weeks ago, and I heard it again on the radio yesterday, "We simply do not trust you. " I 'm sorry to say that, but this is the way a lot of us feel . Unfortunately, you have proven this, first by the treatment of councilman Luna in passing over his term as mayor; the treatment of Planning Commissioner Jennifer Hageman and insistence that these members be "yes men" to to your wishes; and by catering to favored developers. You could begin to regain our trust by stepping down. as the Redevelopment Agency. Work on the Main Street Program for the next five years; rehabilitate downtown, and fix our roads - throughout Atascadero, not just; in the redevelopment area. r' Attachment: S Special Joint City Council/ June 29, 1999 Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 Atascadero City Council/Redevelopment Agency 6500 P'-:oma Ave Atascadero, CA: 93422 Gentlemenr I believe that people.! who,._ffavor redevelopment do so ffbr ones off two reasons. One: they have' --.no idea of the power it gives three:-, sometimes two, peoplee, who,,-wear two hats--Councilmembers and Redevelopment Agency board members. It is an incestuous relation- ship. The other reason: they understand what it is about and expect to get in on the gravy train. Here is an example of one -body, the Council, pretending to be a separate body, the Redevelopment Agency. This is a quote from the final draft being considered tonight. "The city may supply advances and expend money as necessary to assist the Agency in carrying out this project. Such assistance shall be on terms established by an agreement between the city and the Agency. " Council: Shall we agree to give- money to the Agency as necessary? Three vote are all we need. AYE, AYE, AYE. Agency : Shall we agree to let them advance and expend money when we say it ' s necessary? What a question! YES:, YES, YES! Hey, councilmen, we need money now for the. project. Council Sure. OK! We'll raid the General . Fund or Wastewater fund.. We already gave you $106,000 from Wastewater. Agency : Great ! We need more. What a wonderful agreement we two bodies made ! What a farce !- How utterly ridiculous. A. grave omission in the final draft appears to be a definition of the word "blight" . The term is used throughout the final draft and there is a section of "Definitions" , but the word blight is- not included. It was defined in the Preliminary Draft, but as - far, as I can determine it was left out of this one. Was it accidental or. intentional? With no definition, "blight" can mean anything three people want it to mean. Instead of adopting a plan that will. put us in debt for. one hundred million dollars for forty-five years and will require- fifty-four million to service that debt , instead of adopting a plan that will give three people almost unlimited power--far more than the council now has--let "s .go for a sane and reasonable plan without redevelopment , the MainStreet, USA program. Sarah Rah, a consultant for Mainstreet, USA, informed us at the last council meeting that it would cost from 30 to 80 thousand dollars to start up such a renewal program. And it would ensure that the money and effort will go to our Downtown which redevelopment does not. pg. 2 McNeil Where will -we get, the money to start up the Mainstreet program? That' s easy: 1.Restore the $106,000 that redevelopment proponents have already, pulled from the .Wastewater fund. OhT That' s. not possible? It's already :been. spent .. on consultants.-Quad/Knopf, hiring a new attorney for redevelopment and marketing redevelopment to .the citizenry?' 2. Well, no problem. Wade McKinney has a $100,000 contingency fund. He• wasted• $50,000 of his previous contingency fund on surreptitiously bringing Greg Greeson on board. Now he wants to hire (another?) Assistant City Manager. Let's clip his wings and start up Mainstreet. 3. There is yet another source of money. The council and staff want to spend $ 50.,000 to rewrite the entire General Plan; Heaven help us! Let's demand rejection of that idea. That- money woiild fund Mainstreet for two years. It is a three year program, not 45, thank God. Pay no attention to Jerry Clay when he whines that we couldn't fund a Mainstreet program without redevelopment as does San Luis Obispoi because our Farmers' Market doesn't bring in the money theirs 'doe4lwhich they use for Mainstreet . Not to worry, Jerry, look at the sources of money just mentioned, if you can .bear .to do so.' Remember, SLO was -smart enough: .to reject .redevelopment So they don't have to raid their General- Fund the way Paso Robles does every year. There is one thing the voters of this state have said loudly and clearly. They want a voice, they want a vote on the expenditure of large sums of money which create a debt. If we are to incur a debt of $100,000,000 for the city of Atascadero, the voters of this town should decide. I strongly urge the council to follow the advice of former First .Lady Nancy Reagan, "Just say no." Say "no" to the heavy debt of redevelopment . However, .I .must express my concern even about the `Mainstreet program. There is always..the possibility of in-house deals among the good ole boys. But with Mainstreet there will not be the huge possibilities for abuse that exist with redevelopment . Say "N0" to redevelopment . Say"YES" to Mainstreet, USA. Dorothy F. McNeil e. 8765 Sierra Vista Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 Attachment: T Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 6-23-99 Dear Atascadero City. Council, -`I am writing to voice my opposition to the Redevelopment plan that is under consideration. Mainly, I don't like to give the responsibility of spending $100 Million, without voter approval, to this city council and every other city council in the next 45 years! I have lived in town for the last 24 years and have seen nothing but complete inc q�etence in the finance department since the city was .formed. How can I possibly think that this will change now? This council shouldn ' t be pressured into adopting a plan before the fiscal year- a plan that has no specifics and could be used totally to benefit the developers and realtors and take money from all the other areas we need like fire protection and paving roads outside the redevelopment area. This city council has 2 members who have such direct financial intere: that they can' t even vote on the plan due to conflict of interest . How many other realtors and developers will be on other councils in the next 45 years that will directly gain from their votes? I like the idea of the MainStreet rogram,. seperate from reaevelopmen but it should be only used downtown. Sincerely, A—t/Marilyn Hveri 5300 Fresno ST. Atascadero Attachment: U i pecial Joint City Counc ! -/ iMevelopment Agency LO jting Date: 6/29/99 J �-� U c to t L G o c 7`C) a (-l� t�- �tQ% S -r T VE 7-0 D ,gam >--c 4'4) -f n p Ap �- �� F-° fi"`' s� o w� pc.A 1) /J Attachment: V Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 f John W. McNeil 8765 Sierra Vista Atascadero, CA 93422 June 25, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City -Council Members City Hall Atascadero, CA 93422 Gentlemen: What Redevelopment in Atascadero will do for you and to you. Redevelopment sounds good. The downtown business district could use redevelopment money to make it more inviting to business cus- tomers, vehicle and pedestrian traffic . But, the so-called "blighted" area-:qualifyiAg for funds extends far beyond the downtown district in the proposed redevelopment plan. One wonders if any of .the money will be allocated for the downtown revitali$ation by this G�ity Council acting as the Redevelopment Ad isary Agency. Where will the money come from? Real property tax increment. increases for 45 years will be diverted from schools, libraries, fire and police to redevelopment . And the proposed bond for additional funds will not be voted -upon -by the citizens. Nothing this City Council has done justifies giving it this power to spend our money; or the power to take property by eminent domain for the private gain of a few in the name of redevelopment . This City Council has never turned down a lot split, or a development , in contravention of the General Plan, and now even proposes rewriting the General Plan. Citizens of Atascadero awake ?' Stop the immoral abuse of power sure to follow adoption of this Redevelopment Plan. Sincerely, J-6hn W. McNeil Honorable Citizen Attachment: W Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 6/24/99 To: The members of the Atascadero City Council Dear Sirs, It has come to my attention that the city council is about to take a vote on whether to support a redevelopment plan. The plan that is being considered is too vague and will create many problems in Atascadero's growth in the years to come. It does not emphasize improving the central area of downtown where much improvement needs to be done. The conditions of the buildings downtown are shameful and have been that way for years. . This redevelopment plan also will encourage speculators to build all up and down EI Camino and Highway 41 both on the east and west side of the Salinas River once the new bridge is built. My wife and I have been residents of Atascadero since 1968. During all this time, I cannot say that 1 have seen much good planning by our city. If this "redevelopment plan" becomes a reality only more problems will come to Atascadero. Development may mean some small gains in a tax base for our town, but all of the money gained by the city will be lost because more services will be needed. Thank you for.considering my opinion. Sincerely L r Carolyn Mitchell Paul Mitchell 4660 San Ardo Atascadero, CA - Attachment: X Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 - d gLve e.t o _ A 4's ccr�te� r_ _rede�l�e apt. t- ' f�✓�t�._✓�c7t- -�', lA-P-r'_......� ✓\ o _` ,e_ _ -S�d�ne�e.f __ C3.ane�t,S 4-k r:S ec - __77N-c-I S a-_res%de ,t _ , ssc.,� _b©�ds_ W��•ovt- �lo�'_..GP��.ra.t_c��s�-v��es�_ .---- -- __ _ _ -- 't1r.s O cjI\k'4-> __N's c.. _.r']or S ha•lcw Ftit- W � �O' -- ----- ------ - -k ,� Y\ t .5c4de�o 0 OL-.t �+-t ��S c� ��o�-e.S. �n o��c� '�Q i.r ('e,�e�etoP✓Y�1f-. �t� � c.►r.d�� �-t-._1�c� t.�.�►�'� �r' `���rr�, end�t� �' r. Gse_a.S t*scaderb r S- . - Cs�ns;c3�e�-��s ----- �� W -- =- ----=-- - --------- � c&e\s io1er,t n_g "ana ti.,03k , but e+- _Owe O+her 06/29/1999 17:39 4664542 VIDEO PALgCE:AQA Attachment: Y Special Joint City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting Date: 6/29/99 VIDEO PALACI: Jerry Taft 7101 El Camino Real ,Atascadero,California 931422 805-466-9590 June 29, 1999 Mr. Mayor,Civ Council and Redev. Agency Atascadero,Calif )A-12-2 I,Jerry Taft, ow-ner of the Video Palace located in the Vons Shopping Center,feel that the Von's Center under no circumstances, should be included in the redevelopment plan as this center k no. ..i part of the downtown area I feel that any funds from the redevelopment agency should only be used for the old part of downtown when: !: is obviously needed. If Von's wishes to rornodel their part of the center,let them but not expect the City to donate any funds cul 4 the redevelopment monies to help them. Sincerely, VIDEO PALACP J aft, co/ wrtGt JRT/gt