HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmended Agenda 06 29 99 AMENDED AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF ATASCADERO
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY,JUNE 29, 1999, 7:00 p.m.
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue, 4th floor
Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor/Chairman Johnson
ROLL CALL: Mayor/ Chairman Johnson
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Arrambide
Council Member/ Board Member Clay
Council Member/ Board Member Lerno
Council Member/Board Member Luna
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
COMMUNITY FORUM:
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 the following.
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]
ADJOURNMENT:
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL ADJOURN TO
THE NEXT SCHEDULED REGULAR SESSION ON JULY 13, 1999.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the office of the City Clerk(Room 208),and in the Information Office(Room 103), available for public
inspection during City Hall business hours. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero
Library,6850 Morro Road.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City
meeting or other services offered by this City,please contact the City Manager's Office,(805)461-5010,or the
City Clerk's Office, (805)461-5074. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are
needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the
meeting or service.
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 12
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 the following:
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. 1999-0.10 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 fidl, Ordinance No. 362
approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Atascadero Redevelopment Project.)
[Paul Saldana]
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 2 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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
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
fir+ 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.
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 3 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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 I)
Ruth Rentschler, June 29, 1999 (see Attachment J)
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.
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 4 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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).
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., 4155, 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.
Voe _ 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
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 5 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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. Hanlev 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.
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.
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
wwr° taken into account.
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 6 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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 up on 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.
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).
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 7 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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.
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).
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Pale 8 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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.
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.
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 9 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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.
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.
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 10 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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:
Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Cle
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
C-4—
Melanie Whaley, Deputy City Cler o
ATTACHMENTS: A- Redevelopment Disclose of Jerry Clay
B- Redevelopment Disclose of Ken Lemo
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
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
CC/RDA 06/29/99
Page 11 of 12
Approved as submitted
DATE: 08/10/99
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 12 of 12
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.
9060 La Lina
5432, 5434(a)(b)Robles Ave
Rochelle Property
4980 Rosario
7300 Morro Road �/�(�
Attachment: C
Special Joint City Council/
Redevelopment Agency
Meeting Date: 6/29/99
"I would agree with a
. .
narrowly defined
redevelopmentproject.
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:
210.1 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.
4
2 10.10 Improvement of historical infrastructure
deficiencies supporting the Project Area,
including street pavement, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, sewer, water and storm drainage.
2 10.11 Creation/enhancement of recreational and
cultural opportunities available to the residents
of the Project Area and of the community at-
large.
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 5 0. 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. No 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.
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 residentially zoned properties being used for residential
purposes. The Agency is authorized to acquire structures without
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 Propere
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
iftw 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 Plan`?
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.
11
f
TABLE 2-2
( Ataseadero Redevelopment Plan
Proposed Projectsand Estimated Costs (1999 $)
Hoasin.8 S 7,500,000
Non-Housing
Curbs&Gutters 500,000
Sewer Literals 500,000
Civic Center Improvements
Y
Vehicular Improvement 2,000 000
d Pedestrian Improvement 200,000
Parking 2,000,000
Beautification 450,000
Incompatible Uses 1,500,000
Irregular Lots 1,000,000
Facade Improvements 500,000
Atascadero Creek Bridge 1,000,000
Lake Park Improvements 500,000
Atascadero Library 500,000
Residential Storm Drainage Improvements 500,000
i Residential Street Repair 1,000,000
i
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 Council May 1999
'` Ataseadero Redevelopment Plan 2_14
��.�.:,.. .k ..,.. xM• xx;� .�, '•?+' xc:=So",•,;`^:tom S%'c„�:,x . .,,q. y,;:, _ >iz''==:a::k`' ::
.:. x'E�' xa.x, ry'c• ,•> .r.:...m,.•,is>c > ;.., r �?r.J:• %. $ •',y : A:,.: :
.-:. HA
:: .SY.>t b^l' .>k>^''iei::%E >.'srxa.:..ix W cir• �:'% x ,y ^ ,'+`.. ...�
. ', ::-. n.>ax.x�%'. ., ,,I•31::Y`cy:°.':Exx�v,�>� a<�#t9flxkzxgxa,Ak"„S�w§�xi� � .
'-' "{{s°t-- a�x�<:Rc•. y�.:,^y�4x'r: ...,.� ':::: s:Sk�:::i; vc:: .n:Y:.f�"%;. ,t... . a� :':w 'K 1Sc%..,�#.-:y .C'r
" »�h;...'..a T'S.x,.;;.x�5er:: xr� •.•.. N:'�,;<v: .:...' ft. '.• #;'{: =°S, E,rt x. xAY. ..
x.,a KK:A.:-vf.. 'iC�, ,fes w=R. 3E a?Si � �;•::. x,,,y�•g5 ass .
3ib�°�'S»,tea R"::^ f'x3a�.. :•:,�:; :.:,�. r�9r'
... xx ri r �:.�� < r�+'':a2:• '>i S•roc:. .^'k'*i..:
.„..sxRf J< 'd= Y fi';'.m:.x:. di>'.K .:.::%" yfi;s R:tsxX :• 7Ee:x::-
......%..k...
n�
A&M—Pa:# .
�:ir,a�... ;;:x. •iz:�i�,:.. �roi�%%`.:.x �:•3 ..:.a..:g•.
•% •, ,3„!.:R < ...<•..•..::..^ :w;x;::x. .
N1,
,k:. 'y=..... < y -
. >Y # > :::::iz• R.�??fit:. r.^.:..
<My;cW,
.> ;Ms:�.M.:>x•:-....:,,..x.a,..„'a:'. -�a:'Scx..:x.ix �:�'::rt��`"s„.. w: .,;;x..,,.,>:
• r.x> 1-::•: yR x •. n •; ... ros i.:.:: .: x' _ _
i <� ...�° � •:' >+:
....n.. ....... ..�:,•'s:•::•;v r:�k.x :.r." x. 'aa,>;b'ix:i?.�;<,�.:���•n.,•. x�,mty
- - - :.a:.<'^:%:,:R:'x�K:W::[. x<.. :,,,„F,..y i#,,.R<:.. .�'. z'�"<::�..'"Y•i> ::.•.roio'3ea, :4Ri• t::i.'9?F k.3ti � -
.. .,:....,z...r 'z:x�:,:%w::: •>{�.•:>:�k,:.�?,:.i,...: i&:' •:K^••.w:�`:•::::a:•��..., y 9'"i:: ^.z�ii�.�.::IDc..::. 'y'���x.`y�-<",°s�'�',.v6: � �- -
-. ..r;^.::::.:::x.YF..x::x::.xW.. ir°> '9E.'.:s.;.s1•:;...:.'�.f:..:Jc..,;.•>sL"':A.iC` ... .: :., .:p%V::. a �<% 'ot:,:<. L..
...:..x....:;�..: .iC2�..:.i•,:;9..t;<V�,'?.3..' moo. `�,. zc•.., =::ir::e::x. ,�E','r:x'';;Y'.,r,"7c,•
Y'f.'::`'•^:.4::• .."yt...... :. ..... . ...2 k•� :•.S:.x•�.sm:{vf.'s. s:::::..
,?�:-:n; : v,�,r:>�::��:•�%a�' ��fy::""„`:��,�; :Nags=-' �..
xk�
>::F?s.�':r::.:;>„ >:.Y.::#%`•::. �:�.f..;y,.....;a•.....: VC) U
'i»,`a,EC'»?':.:F?: < „...•.,r�;a '�..:. >�% ys��it.x
'a' "•'>�.r»i.'::: :::%c?:x'EEc`'•. #C^'>i:\,;.n ` „^,;_ ;°Y�r%'r:.: E::!r.t R:x3x.._??r::: •,p;.,;r..'�; Fa:>"... :#`$•'°
,y,.r.......... �a�' ..... ..4..w
.s�
..%�
.nx 32'• :<.' ....rs•:.awxx.tc:�r F.::...:,. .>-�.�� :x�':=3t?.E4. .. `
;.k .=k ..r :'kk: :. ...- ,..x:.,f'�<: � .:%7'.r>-i °�• rad zr.r.. •x`'c. z ;:�xf a'.r,;;.:;:E
�::<n..�:,,•::K::'�,•W. :x�,'..::x...::.E x;-'iV-�.. :��fw:.••r ''G2jvTv'Yy:x>a=:' :::{,.;.:�.yi ''.. :�L•SD:.:v>}•<r s/.:;.::><'.s+:'4.
..?Sii:,.:;?:>r,�'Er6r•:3c. •!#.:�yw.:`:x:,�gin:„�:_ ,,rF;d<,;...''.� 3Ev., n'zi�=yr•:�.s�? i:3X<v'��•x::.Y:;-"-"`,^� "'::Ac.xr
;.."::• r
t:.3x,».y.:..,,rn„::°...:�;.<;.<.»:%s•F<:.•.#«^ .7 tlw.;-„<•-.:;r>,:•:^w`:^�-.::::'R':,;�.•,,'..R' : »ax�;:..�':F'x:r,:r::#::.:s::• .. 'E�'r�;`_:`":".:;'# #.:xIii”
.`s".rrt'�"�'
:iry,,:a?:S>'
:;x,.. ,.�,. ;. x..x!:x:y:.;:•# „cad •hv•.��f.,x•:..x �-# ..
.�;ri v; ., ,x.,,:.Y!: ,.x�:�'_;:. ..r':::A.�:.;f:,f,+�.:z: xk�'Sr�r �3 `•��: � ..>:ex,':;t^',�,�;-�K;,>s;x _sa�`#'``•'°..'.s'r. '"s""::i .
SwEK• ..:. •.»::.:. �� ' HX
f��'�.t.,:R'•9:' ....:�+:` ,::T: .. ?.z•h„�'••x:. s^�` Y:#':Y 4i"�.�:. •> `W^K.::j0.r<
:::.�•»#...:.:ae:�:' "' ••... x,:. ,.:.��?Wt:>�:�`K +d:' >w :�;: '�xt�„%:;:;�xrk :•% „>,::s:>,?iz:°?:.F..'
�,>;::...;,,:„�•.:x>:?k:.. a::;;az:><2'i".[:�:.x: cv;: :-`' ._ �:` �; y �i�:a«s'•.:•:::rvi; •'•°`'�:��s::'�> :.. ., •fsE.',%:x'y,F
•;E;;:'..w,:i:<C:'•v r�.,:W... ..:K "� 'ti '"v R::•]0..::.`>'�'' ,„iR'.fy�x.. .Hi#E":i, ..
rzi ....... ro ...... ;xx,;” yxixc' .ki4k. 'x'5:..:» :,:: .:.
:: ar::».:.:.;nxm; ..,„g.��c.....A"3n ,k<`�:;:�.':�..; � .,� . �.:;.: i2z%. O
,�" .A.�!: •,t,>. ' .. �"T;�m.. '°,:< :xi'.< ..
..>:r... y.:roa:^ •x<.„:A:x�?;,a»..••rrr.::.;°::;:°xri.•�:ffi: '�:•;\;:�::::._..VL..:ik?�"'x'u• a :'max,[:„,r: ':`.!,_
:.r..:t.EEiyr.: .5'�3E•:x ... :^; »..;x..Y.u�. ,w:.y_t� y:.,...x..x..�>»?::iii. .:x;,r�=>'9':E''E':i:.�:'9,�::
x..�...v,;y:....,. ,g%� sY•vvi:'�• :.:.. xc F:... :x::�1G::.:"„4"R i:: ;.;.: tZ•6�::':';'%'
x :• ::::;: ..>i:•y. din.::... hw 7 a:.
_ :.,....n....a xc• x..;..r.9. .9• .#��:-i-
.., r..•!..:'"k3;tw�r:i,.;""x.: .:•.,;;�..x::•r+wi x3E: �•::,�•"......�,��r :' � ���3 t£t' .3S"i;�
x
k: .: x?;Z�i i• .. w y': �,5.:':>4 n ',r�::::',F .aifx :•^iS;
:r .........;zt• :z• �E':�' >>`xnc.%w's �^iFLsw': 'k's':':i0::..y,�� •a ::<,�.
.'w:RxK.f•. ..u''•.x:;7i:x rk: '!
:.o:;;:::F 3•$.;x,x,...;yK•a M.n>i x;o+::..,xa..::::::.,_” ':� ..%•:x�: �:.....:y<•,:''F5� n<RX•,��',+t3E,�:
:„.
vbs.:::#•k, ..a:rx w..„>„. ._^ Y. ...r :•::..,..:. r•:r: �,y x ..:< >s
..:..... .....�...... as•:... ,.,»:.;iE"�,;,:;
=.x; r.• ••»r,�irx .. ��.:,;.,; �':•:.,:
:�>..:.s:>.a::^".,:.y;n.;xt ,per•:.,. ... ° x..R%i. `�,#�„:a`x ::b:"ix � i'y3::,,,`'a2 ;E�`.�,;;"'.+!
wx
i-.i
.,„:;... ..>•:.• a.•A:;� 1�a Yo': .;,a: x
.,a .:?Skiff :..2=''`??':r^a.;:t. "^*� .i.;`".
.i:E yt:F,.. .:iP."R»''<'' E:K•" nrS>:""':.#i: T.: , Y���::>]'.x,!' <x ✓E.._xl::``EE:
O v.'.'3':.:.:„ ....z>�5,• .....`f .w..............:..:�...Y,.......%.. x:X"':::Ti �.::�:`.a':."' .: :c'.:s.:;i;:'�:'s:
•.y.....<5;...::.., .. ,,. �': sij��>t "'�iixx.''
,w:.;...:..,t.x,�A,«�x&i?'z, F".:::;,...�:•.<•• ,w:X,;r :53�y�::. 4�:;,4�, :6•�i>7x:�;>: �
V
k. .... .:r,ix`✓R�j.,�.r%>xs�V[. j '=:►x�°;'
;••:„x::�`..�^::,x:'Y:�:. ,.:R .,J:, -'i'C:: W,�
vJ:::.....iv > '•', 'r?y. 5 ::�t.:.>:'S:•c>'°°'>'. e :v<::r
x, ... ._�:•:r..,.,. ,�y.R,. ,xx:r ••a,::.:r .. ...
S .>r.x ¢i::Ti
FF
.�.i � � r�<• ...... Rt ;<:..„...x.�:.. .,�k;x.,n: #:. �:k:�x'a .: ,:'i�^5::,,#a -..'� :.a,`.�;�.i .
::xx�:Nf.•'':s:::3....k r'�` ,.a.e...- .. ...yxar::•Y..,y #:r �:'>r :i>'�??:.. : .Yr.'-i3E. '.;`�:�Yj
>:::.'•:� :.ra •- •;;• 'H;'�>�,'�,!:;y9x:rf .s:'::..�t .::y«x�.i�x*�: :.,�:.- :..',z'�..;r:9>:;i�:�;`%�;::��`� •awi' .:-�;:?�'<:;.�..°,r,>��;»,.?.'.�:s:
- t}�:a:•,.:.a•...... ` ... ._;. a,:.x......_....... M, i; ..r �:ckic. .:;Rz:arr.::. -
:::x'x.,x.:......r... .: :�' •.f;�vR.;o+.x'eitii':.-:. � :, ::�:;�:`.v.•x:'Rr.:.
O .;,sx.:".;.::;;.....;.C.•i•4k ...x..w.....,,CL
a•.::t:'::::::::v%..k' .....x xSc>�A:.E;�.o.:skli;i.:u..i ':i.. ”:#iFiG:+i':: s:�yiv.f '.'��i.}:»���y��:
yy�r' -< •�.. �� .x=<Rs;;.xr:,'<.x>:�:<xt::.t:'. „:,�'��' s.�t;T, ,;��'( ;k:�:«.:
:zT!:,+,o.:�.;.::»�: r•.'C�.."�...n......z x":':o:' w:ti:i. M:'y'.:: "r�.!�'
CD
. :...::x:r.:
..„,.:•...,:.:. .._<.: .?>> :a>':.;y;xsx.f:y�:.x.:.a” ^ii>�'''z c.�'f � .,a;
.... 'x,.r x2:.: :..�
..o:.;<x.: :'�s,y::•. �>�.°ii`.,� .z.. • a„�.>• ��°�.`>ys..x;'
N :.r.r,::.;.:„.,,n -'3:t.. •-;.t•i.::aY x '2 zFx�:�
.:s
*�<x
'' .:'s
.s:r,<,..,.. .. .'"�.•. <r...rw:�•':;awrrt�' <,r:
-
.x...,i;rro. ^. �d �t�
,>.R:::�,f.. �.. »:l>.k"xi....:... x6.��: .,>,iY:` ..Yn�� n#3.'::••x. arX ,:,.>.r
.::..v..-, ..
«xir:'>'�:::x� .,., =
;:r�:<;<::.y..,:z:?<.•z.,.::;,'x .. ...w �.;:sy” �' :«�'Ae: �::ioN::.: i.£Y.'°Z,=°x, ..a.,x::.:
:).::::::i.<z ?:v.a:a>�<... .:>xmt.:•x�.:iH::;. ..F ..; ,irz '
:<...y.......>....'x:S•: .>x........;z::',,...F:....z:; ,x.:;.y:::.x :•'r:x. #>� :.•�'i;
x«<%;:..:'srT.kx. ..........
....••...:E>G•:.:E.x2 ::":;:%:� 'S x>':>�:xc.,.; x.._..
:::� :sn.feR?ksw x.y.....x:.. x.>.v�. .....,; .:<�W'.: t Vii:•.:'
"Zanxkc`'' :•' z:`c>!.kx•z^. F.�:.'�f?�t£'..•�Y �'�!.. :wE:.:,.E„
?:;"::°..::.a,....Y'_x ...�•.<.:....x�.., ,zxP�' s.'.s:': ¢ »'�',:7,v:'Rsk. 3
�..,:::a:�':.:::. ;,c.r:. �.A•.:!?--E'e;^t".:a,r::,k;>:..: .ro<�: .x... .y:3,.. ; ;......E •`•.rt•'sx.:r...:: x:•s";.':fi;':"".C:i's+::,:#:>:
::�w.r:xr.
.. • �
Naas,
;::=sr:>�'=��=:t.�«.:, �.. �,
a
.> ....x.;.>.,'xt,T%.k "`�:>,K..•:�:c'�.. ...:»:.... ,� :::�� �;ily�''�t=;,xq:�.rEv:E ...., x.>`
y,ixrYx,-±eu'F, s:„�„x,`,xaEp;rxx?5�i...::'w:..w::.:;:;u's�:;..�x`?>:F...��:%'v'.'+`.'.�.�„,..'r.+�<,i�..x�pix.':".'.: �".��::>✓:s°,>:.r....�ii�c. �
N
..,ra ..
LL
a
51
..::.. .._ ... A f..
� f
O O O O 1O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
• O O O O O O_
� eo
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:
(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.
0 $ a0 $ $ 0 008 88g
-oommdoulo � o0
CW
Q 0 . . w .
Oa 0000 0 q0 0 0 0 0 0
' p' $� t� nPuf.. .� � Ognacog -
m 4OP to N IA o0 00
e7 M M — •- 't .w -
�. al to
o m mmmmeo � e to mato
F".W d. - O
F- W
. 000000 0 0 8 8 0 0
O trf n 00 <
ea P CO — N
N O p ea m m 0 _
0
K N
cc -jOO0000 0p8008 $
1A
N .- .•. IO
N d d d d cc N d d v V A 'C
m m m m a0 •' r• A M A A 4 w
« G d d O O`I « c .- f d d w O a
3 J cy A 3 J H. 0 w
00" 000000Y 000000 x w
coo. 10na0, 00 N LL 0000 N c
LL �ol. . q .
U- VM m In F .- m 01 m 3
G r eh en m N N N r M m eo N N 0 100 o
r IM�JL co 9L
w'
0 0 0 0 0 0 rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ A fl 0
N E O o Y E 0 $ c c o
w .. o O m w r 0 y IO ?7
> N w 7 j In N m s In C) «y+
W O p co W
F Y Q p N F p co p o0 C C � in Q p
W F- 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 8 8 8 0 0 w e m LLS44
0 x r o o 0 0 o o d 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p t
D "' c a o 0000 o c 0 0 C 0 0 o c >
Z ,a m m m m m g Z o � m m m m 0 c p :
z «� a r en p m
m
- !a
�0- 0oso ar�o aq
to0 � g0 � 0 z O CD
oW P p C
o c rX0 b P a0 O
40 40
ona
IL &L EnN ga MoG
-
m y C
W z O O O O O N 800 '00888
0 0 0 0 0 t 0 a< 0 0 C
Q 000008 W 0 0 0 r E O o
-J > W n a; m oo m > N P A m m .- j C' 00 0 J
Q O mO mO a m � 0; w3 0
W O aC t7 v m 0 m d S ¢ co .t m O eo it w + > o
O r d N In IO m a0 d �, d In In t0 ea Go W O O N 7
� 3 z N D Z N P o ?p LL
0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - N C c s O N
uN Q 0 0 0 0 O m - t 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 « N C
In e7 N c'! O W •- r, H e7 N co C IG .- rw 1 o C •; C w
W = m m m M m W 2 m IC v- m In m d o oC e y c w L7
Q N N d m P m O N N v m P m O o y L
Q .- r — a0 r r r r r m U W pe V O
_ _a. a w a ° a d
r
0 0 0 01 0 00 d O O O O Q O Ln o o c o `i o
W O O O a3
N LL N O
O o O N m C r mdo
m - _ w C 47 m G + U V O - >• O.
W - W d Z r r r O/. - 0 •7 p c > J. E w
m 000000 d0 m 0Og8 0 p a " w A CLa
d N N E > c ` x c
OLL _ o � O 0 03 V OC o :° o
a. W w O E
I.- 3 a 3 c o o t/ E
ui LL 000000 O 000 � 0 �pO w U od a 1n o0 m a d ao Z O to1800
a0 e0D "I �t0 oD o COO 2 0 d o 0 0
O P •= riInPPw O � P .- MInPw c ao e � w
mosmmmd F- mmmmmd x � o waw ca o
w 3 lw d 3 « 4 d p E o EEo p
O 00 0 O O O O 2 ; N .. C wC C
> 0000
080o� 0000U -�
If1Z
0
a. rminmU) d mWmw m l7 M 7 E O « 4
3 1D In 41) 0 - - d 3 p m " 0mPd 2 .. c ac o _o
O a m P co a0 m O N p /D Pao W m O O `p ` > e w er e v
dl7 Q a� 0, a � Sawc o '`' v op o
zIA m P CD m z d IA m P a0 m 3 -j Z Q W L Z m
W a) mmcna) W � mo» � � m
U } eqd W mPao U YendmmP <b m
(A U- m m m m I m m IA ii m m m m m m Q r- N Iq d N tO P ea m
O V
O ~ W
Z CD
Q W Q
Cl) 0) M r-
� X00LC) d' .
z >. W � M 00 M O
LO O � N �
Q O •G. i N 0 l) r- � O
Q 0 '� `- N N 00
z LU
V = W
Q = W
i
yam. W
> Q Oj� jN mi'llt 'in _
W
t _
s
O:O °00 .10€0
O`O O 0 ,10 =0 =
r-=N N NNN
i
a
W
00'•.0:0 N M
J O€01€0 0 O €0 €
a rna.) O OoO
V N N :N ;N
i
Attachment: D
Special Joint City Council/
Redevelopment Agency
RnC �al9/9
RECEIVED Funk veronnsutl S
AN29 planning • enuironmentai studies • mediation
T,�SCADERQ CITY MANAGER
June 25, 1999
Mayor and City Council
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 even look 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
coming 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/ CEIVED
Redevelopment Agency
Meeting Date: 6/29/99 2$ 1999
June 26, 1999
Atascadero City Council: [ATAIS:CADERO CITY MANAGER
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
who would 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 misrepresentation 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,
l
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 Project 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
Atassadero 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 El 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 Johnson
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 lived here
for 2S years and plan to retire here in ten years or more.
Mrs. & Mrs Ciessinger
9070 La Paz Lane
Atascadero, Ca
06/2911999 07:54 6054614017
Attachment: I
POLY VECTOR CONWA►NY Redevelopment Agency
AN** $970 Entrada Ave.,Suite.B Meeti# jje6Q o :
Ataseadero,CA,93422 Mike Kohle
Phone:805461-4015
4, 1'u:805-461-4417 Jane 29,1499
o-mAil:Ong @P01 Pages: 3
To: Ataseadero Redevelopment Agency
Atte: Marcia M TtIrt erson
Citv Clerk Cify of Ataseadero
Dear Marcia,
Please find attached cornments regarding the proposed Atascadero Redevelopment Plan.Please enter
these comments imo the official record for the.tune 29; 1999 public meeting for the purpose of
reviewing the proryised Atascadero Redevelopment Platt.
7./ r-Thank,-you-for yow-assistance.
Regards,
Mike Kohle
06/2911999 07:54 6054614017 POLY VECTOR COMPANY PAGE 02
Michael R.Kohle
5345 Merceds Avenue
Atascadero,CA 93422
_ Tel:462-1844
�rw Tune 29, 1999
Atascadero Redevelopment 'Igency
Atascadero City Council
6500 Palma Ave.
Atascadero.Ca 93422
Honorable City Council Mcmftrs.
Regarding the proposed Atascadero Redevelopment Pian :ould W-e to Mi-ess r:,r c minents to two
areas;as it affects my Tesido:ntial property included in the pean i,,rea i. d se .atdly the A'ascadero
Redevelopment Plan in gletioral
Regarding my.Tsidentiai property located at 5345 Mercedes;Avenue,I would like to vfficslly request
t,,bat,ltgy,Wperty and all of!.IK residential property on the east .edge.af Mercedes Avenue,soon tole, ,
Highway 41,be removed from the project area. I do not consider this a blighted area and see no
potential for the use of Rc:dec clopment f unds in this area. I also object strongly to the expanded powers
given to the Redevelopmen, A gency 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 funds to improve the downtown area,however
there are specific areas of the proposed plan that in my opinion should be addressed.
i. 1. in general, the use cif Redevelopment Agency funds is an inefficient use of tax monies,so
they should be uscd judiciously.Much ofthe funds will used to service debt inourred by the
Agency. These funds used to pay debt service would have otherwised been used to benefit
the taxpayer. rather than the lending institutions. r;nce the fand`G art,being redirected to other
than their currents%: designated usage fac taxpayer ioald a; cv c t ;ua ox these fu:.?ds and
the use of debt it) rE nance the Redevelopment Plan.
There is a tendencc- 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 i -re is noway to anticipate or to micromanage the planning of the
downtown deve lopment to insure the funds will be used in the appropriate areas.Fund
expenditures should be time-phased to insure they are used most effectively and will be
avai table%iien rietaded the most.
In addition. it i s com mon pnretice for expenses that would normally be incurred out of the
City's General Vu?id to be shifted to the RDA. (City Staff salaries and expenses are a prune
example).
As a result of"the:«: issues I believe three revisions should be made to the plan.
a ' Any debt incit-cd in the forms of loans or bonded indebtedness entered into by the RDA
should be apprwed by referendum with a majority of the voters consenting to entering
into this dehi
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 t here should be a minimum reserve level established for future fund use.
c. There should be safeguards for the use of RDA funds for non-RDA uses. I would suggest
that any RDA budget iters that shares 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 Flava and subsequent det=ination of non-conformance
with the Agency pian. Some protections need to be afforded to residential property to assure
that zoning changes are not trade and then properties that were originally in confbrmance
with the original designated usage are then found to be non-conforming.
Two other changes should be made to the eminent doer, .in p wisidn t 'the plaza.
ertatninent domain by the Agency should require a unanimous vote.
r'
h. Affected n��?perty owners should be givers a tninimurn of 60 days prior notice of any
public heanng regarding the use of emminent domain. 10 days is not sufficient notice.
3. Section 4?0 RElowe use of funds out of the project area. The requitement that all funds should
be used inside the project area will prevent the indiscrete use of the funds and will insure that
the maximum benefits are dervied by the project area.
4, Regarding Section 430 of the proposed plan,the requirement that the percentages be applied
to the aggregate ate i 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 to 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 level 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 vote 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 pian, 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.
Ru ReA4ler
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/
Junepev ment Agency
e'�t'�ate: 6/29/99
Cibj CteA - Pteaae reread into tern rd. Thank you.
/ am againat the Redeve.Lopment Ageacg plarta beta ze they arte not zpeci.4i..c. /t
uouCd be like hulung a cordbwcion to zemodet your Aou.6e without hnouuncg what Ae intenda
to do on Aow much it would coat. /maryine P xtheA 4 the contwcton za-d he w2nted A.,_6
money up f wnt and wou.td teU you Atz ptane .Latent.
/ am not agcwtat nedeve topment. /n Ap tU / vi.aited my hometom o4 Ctevetand, 0/u.0
and =6 am Sed to .aee what, a good pb they had done .in downtom C.tevetand atong the
.Cake jrtont. TAc dL ce i.6 that the people voted on each pnoyect, They knew uVzat
they were ge#ting and w-,Le mill irrg to pay �on i f.
/ fleet we ahoutd know u/iat you p.tan to do wLth ours taxpayer money be4wm we ane
wZtUng to invent in a pnoyect. / .stLU xemembert the Cannon #otet Aaaco and how the
cont=cton ab.aconded mink. ours money be,�one the pub.CLc knew what waa going on.
Come back when you have a zpeciAc project and can teU ua Aow and wAat you plan
to do w. . t.
Fon now, / urge you to vote no, no, no on any nedeve a p hent.
V.Lngirun Powe
7505 Caxneei 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,ass exodus faithful
employees who I had personal contact with on many occasions. This
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 respccting our General Plan-
and its'principles.
Sincerely,
Carol DeHart
4305 Lobos Ave.
Atascadero,CA. 93422
Attachment: N
Special Joint City Counc:
Redevelopment Agency
Connections and Places to Linger June 29, 1990eeting Date: 6/29/99
To the Council,
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 El 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 E1 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. I-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
+� 1 i nger 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 $!40,000 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: O
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.
I truly hope that you will postpone your decision to form a CRA until more
community in=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,
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,
Craieg
6620 Atascadero Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
466-4547
Attachment: Q
Special Joint City Council/
Redevelopment Agency
Meeting Date: 6/29/99
June 29, 1999
HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
RE: OPPOSITION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
I am convinced that adoption of the Atascadero City Redevelopment Plan is
a grave error. My concern centers on the accumulated debt that is a
cornerstone of the Redevelopment Plan.
Spending authority that is Project specific debt,is appropriate. However, the
public must not sign a blank VISA or Mastercard check that authorizes
current members of the City Council, and those elected over the coming
-t"o4y4e4yyear life of the Plan, to assign projects and generate undue debt.
A Redevelopment agency is a valuable tool when a broad area of dramatic
needs are present with limited resources.
I urge that you adopt resources that engage a more narrow focus and
liability.
Sincerely,
*7BRAARRIE HAFLE
5455 BOLSA RD.
ATASCADERO, CA 93422
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 .2911999
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.
Attachment: S
Special Joint City Council/
Redevelopment Agency
June 29, 1999 Meeting Date: 6/29/99
AtascsdeTo City Council/Redevelopment Agency
6500 Pt lma Ave
Atascadero%, CA- 93422
Gentlemen:
I believe that people who favor redevelopment do so f`br one of
two reasons. One : they have -no idea of the power it gives throe.:,
sometimes two, people 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:
l.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 citisenryT
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 $150.9000 to rewrite the entire General Plan.
Heaven help us! Let 's demand rejection of that idea. That-
money would 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
Obispo because our Farmers' Market doesn't bring in the money
theirs'doe4which 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
fir' 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 Fancy 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 "NO" to redevelopment. Say"YES" to Mainstreet, USA.
Dorothy F. McNeil
8765 Sierra Vista Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422
Attachment: T
Special Joint City Council/
Redevelopment Agency
Meeting Date: 6/29/99
6-23-99
Dear Atascad.ero 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
$100 Million, without voter approval, to this city council and
every other city council in the next 45 years ! I have lived in town
for the last 24 years and have seen nothing but complete inc q,�etence
in the finance department since the city was formed. How can I possibly
think that this will change now?
This council shouldn' t be pressured into adopting a plan before
the fiscal year- a plan that has no specifics and could be used totally
to benefit the developers and realtors and take money from all the other
areas we need like fire protection and paving roads outside the
redevelopment area.
This city council has 2 members who have such Direct financial interes
that they can ' t even vote on the plan due to conflict of interest . How
many other realtors and jevelopers will be on other councils in the next
45 years that will directly gain from their votes?
I like the idea of the MainStreet program, seperate from refevelopment
but it should be only used downtown.
Sincerely,
//� ^ A�-61
Marilyn Hoerl
5300 Fresno ST.
Atascad.ero
Attachment: U
r
pecial Joint City Counci
a-- l�t6evelopment Agency
pG U �1 h L kC E Rj Ll eting Date: 6/29/99
CA
e7A3 C,
L -
e ooh C, 00,
CC>Lt-
To
�0ck- TO
F (u; w
�w`r PL� Kj � 6 FO Y
d Lk
rix 61A
"*,,,,,,
Attachment: V
Special Joint City Council/
Redevelopment Agency
Meeting Date: 6/29/99
John W. McNeil
8765 Sierra Vista
Atascadero, CA 93422
June 25, 1999
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City Hall
Atascadero, CA 93422
Gentlemen:
What Redevelopment in Atascadero will do for you and to you.
Redevelopment sounds good. The downtown business district could
use redevelopment money to make it more inviting to business cus-
tomers, vehicle and pedestrian traffic . But, the so-called "blighted"
area qualifyirig for funds extends far beyond the downtown district
in the proposed redevelopment plan. One wonders if any of the money
will be allocated for the downtown revitali$ation by this dity Council
acting as the Redevelopment Ad*_is� 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 n 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 I 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
Carolyn Mitchell
Paul Mitchell
4660 San Ardo
Atascadero, CA
�w.r
Attachment: X
Special Joint City Council/
Redevelopment Agency
Meeting Date: 6/29/99
�e t1-1cr� - '�r �'Qc�e�l e(o P•ry,P,.�f- 1`n �G,.�S �+� --
1�L� �S '�U S-Ec� �r� 't� dOc,iu n-}O ccJr-� Q►'�Z.. Q�v-��_►'ZZ c�-
�-'• lt�r' �.✓too `t� �^e.S,'c{•en_ e�'a.l ��25 �� �r� �-��-y .
i Seery s C OQnC—,t S +^X
_ � i�eo�nSP�cv��S l•� -�, nd �._wa•..{ _-fo _ rase .mew_ _ _. _
•,�ne�e���eS by S!:���n� � � .�1e-t;�; �-cr.X 5 o v� r�s;denr�G..t _ _ _ •..
(-,ASO �� ����54�� � Cavrl c<< lea r,S �b��. 7'0
qok4,-,— CPP,-bJ*-t Ct,s+vrIes _
fie. _�.t�ow eco _
\.'s G.. rlor S ko.ICW lt- -
. .
OA-
✓1��--
�t and OS
4-)Q as,cle/2 c,
Cc"As;c r��rn� .. woO\,d oPer� qf'\P— JMr Uj,*.k. --
��
�Y\ Q cACL,S
,� c&exs�oteri ng , aY-a WNck�k&
06/29/1999 17:39 4664542 VIDEO PALACE:ADA Attachment: Y
Special Joint City Council/
Redevelopment Agency
Meeting Date: 6/29/99
VIDEO PA1.A('I:.
Jerry Taft
7101 El Camino Real
Atascadero,Californla W31422
805-466-9590
June 29, 1999
Mr. Mayor,Citi, (-'ouncil and Redev. Agency
Atascadero,Calif
1,Jerry Taft, owner.)+' the Video Palace located in the Vons Shopping Center,feel that
the Von's Center under no circuwstances, should be included in the redevelopment plan
as this center k no, .+ ,iart of the downtown area
I feel that any funds from the redevelopment agency should only be used for the old part
of downtown wher;, t: i-i obviously needed.
if Von's wishes to remodel theijr part of the center,let therm but not expect the City to
donate any funds out 4the redevelopment monies to help them.
Sincerely,
VIDEO PAl.r1CP
.r ,
J aft,cr�o nci►
JRT/gt