The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-20-2012 pfau ph1Goodwin, Heathe r 0:To: Subject : Attachments : Grimes, Maev e Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9 :20 A M Goodwin, Heathe r Mike Pfau - San Luis Downtown Management correspondenc e Dietrick_11 .19 .2012_FINAL .pdf; ATT00001 .htm RECEIVE D NOV 2 0 201 2 SLO CITY CLER K AGENDACORRESPONDENC EDateitlaolIzItem#t Agenda Correspondence for PHI . maeve kcnneOy mime s City Cler k city of san Luis OBis o 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1 phone : (805) 781-710 2 email mgrimes@slocity .org From :Dietrick, Christin eSent:Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9 :17 AM To :Lichtig, Katie ; Codron, Michael; Johnson, Derek ; Grimes, Maeve; Goodwin, Heathe r Subject :Fwd : Application # A 57-12; 736-738 Higuera Street •se distribute as agenda correspondence . Sent from my iPhon e Begin forwarded message : From :Michael Pfau <mpfau@rppmh .com > Date :November 19, 2012, 9 :52 :58 PM PST To: "Dietrick, Christine"<cdietrick@slocitv .org > Cc : Hamish Marshall-WestPac <hamish@WESTPACUSA .com>,"CMF@oasisassoc .com " <CM F@oasisassoc .com > Subject : Application U A 57-12 ; 736-738 Higuera Stree t Ms . Dietrick : Attached is correspondence regarding the captioned matter . Please advise if you have any question s or comments . Regards, Mike Pfa u Michael E . PfauReicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LL P1421 State Street, Suite BSanta Barbara, CA 93101 1 • Tel : 805-966-2440 ext . 44 4 Fax : 805-966-332 0 Cell : 805-698-491 1 Home : 805-563-332 6 E-mail :mpfau CLrppmh .co m Website:www.reickerpfau .co m CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE : Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advic e contained herein is not intended and may not be used by any person for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be impose d upon a taxpayer or for the purpose of promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter . This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient . Any review or distribution b y others is strictly prohibited . If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail . • 2 • R .EICKER, PFAU , PYLE8 MCR .OY LL P A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W ALAN A. BLAKEBORO MAILING ADDRESS : 1421 STATE STREET, SUITE BDIANA JESSUP LEE SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 POST OFFICE Box 147 0 BRUCE W .McRov SANTA BARBARA, C A MICHAEL E . PFAU 93102-147 0 DANIEL A. REICKER TELEPHONE (805) 966-244 0 ANDREW D. SIMONS FAx (805) 966-3320 www .reickerpfau.com FERNANDO VELEZ, JR . KURT H . PYLE, RETIRE D ROBERT B .FOROUZANDEH November 16, 2012 By email to cdietrickAslocitv .org And By Facsimile No . (805) 781-7109 J . Christine Dietrick City Attorney 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 9340 1 Re : Application # A 57-1 2 736-738 Higuera Stree t Scope of Issues on Appea l Dear Ms . Dietrick : We are counsel to San Luis Downtown Management, LLC, the applicant under the above-captione d Application . In advance of the City Council's consideration at tomorrow's Council Meeting of the appea l filed by Save Our Downtown ("Appellant"),we are writing to urge you to keep the Council focused upo n the grounds for the appeal that were cited in the Notice of Appeal that was filed on July 20, 2012 . As you are aware, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the application on July 11, 2012, an d approved five conditions of approval . The Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal on July 20, 2012, citin g concerns with respect to the number of alcohol outlets in the downtown area, and the proposed creek - walk queing and general use of the creek walk by Applicant's patrons . The City Council considered the appeal on September 25, 2012, and after hearing extensive public inpu t at that session, directed the applicant to revise the project in response to five directional items . After that hearing, the City's Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a conceptual review of the Application an d provided four directional items to the Applicant and City Staff. Thereafter, the Applicant worked i n depth with City Staff to address the input from the Council and the Cultural Heritage Committee . On th e basis of the modifications to which the Applicant agreed as part of that process, the City's Community Development Director prepared and submitted to the City Council a comprehensive report , recommending denial of the appeal . J . Christine Dietrick November 19, 201 2 We and the Applicant are concerned that, after the extensive effort that the Applicant and City Staff devoted to addressing the directions provided by the City Council and the Cultural Heritage Committee , the Appellant may seek to expand the issues under consideration at tomorrow's City Council Meeting . Any attempt to expand the focus of the tomorrow's consideration of the appeal would subvert the rules o f the Municipal Code governing such appeals, undermine the integrity of the hearing process, and expos e the Applicant to arbitrary treatment . The Municipal Code requires an appellant, upon filing the appeal, to state the grounds for the appeal . The reason for that is fundamental fairness — to allow an applicant to understand and respond to th e appellant's objection . This Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal nine (9) days after the date of th e Planning Commission Approval, and thus had ample time in which to reflect upon the bases for it s challenge and to state them with clarity in its Notice of Appeal . Over the course of the intervening four months since that Notice of Appeal was filed, the Applicant attended two formal hearings at which th e Appellant's objections were considered, expended significant resources preparing its response, an d negotiated with City Staff to modify the project in response to the appeal and the directional guidanc e from the City Council and the Cultural Heritage Committee . For the City Council now to permit th e Appellant to modify the grounds for its appeal would disregard the extensive effort that has bee n expended responding to the objections . Moreover, if appellants are allowed to modify the bases for their appeals after the Applicant ha s considered and responded to the grounds originally identified, then as a policy matter the outcome will b e to dissuade Applicants from working with City Staff and appellants to resolve issues early . The proces s that ensued in this instance is a model for how Applicants can address concerns raised with respect t o projects, as the City Council and the Cultural Heritage Committee provided directional guidance, and the Applicant responded constructively to that directional guidance by working with City Staff to chang e elements of the proposal . If, instead, the Applicant is to face a never-ending series of modifications t o the objections raised by the Appellant, then there is no incentive to work to resolve issues early . That, i n turn, merely subverts the process. Finally, it is patently unfair to subject Appellant to new iterations of objections after the extensive effort that Appellant devoted to responding to concerns raised and directional guidance provided by the City Council and the Cultural Heritage Committee . Applicant worked diligently to address all concerns . If, after that effort, Applicant now is to be forced to respond to a new litany of objections that had not bee n voiced previously, then the prior effort will have been wasted and Applicant's responsible engagemen t with the City will be dishonored . We urge you to advise the Council to remain focused on the original bases for the appeal and, i n accordance with the recommendation of the City's Community Development Director, to reject tha t appeal . J . Christine Dietrick November 19, 201 2 Thank you, in advance, for considering the points outlined above . Very truly yours , REICKER, PFAU, PYLE & McROY LLP By Michael E . Pfa u Mr. Hamish S . Marshal l Ms . C.M. Florenc e (both by email ) MEP cc : • •