HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-2013 b1 south broad street continued from march 5th!Meeting Date
3-19-1 3
Item Number B 1
council ,j aqenOa REpont
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Prepared By :James David, Associate Planne r
SUBJECT :CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE SOUTH BROAD STREET ARE A
PLAN .
RECOMMENDATIO N
As discussed by Council on March 5 a',adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) to include review o f
the South Broad Street Area Plan in the Land Use and Circulation Element update process .
DISCUSSION
The Council reviewed the draft South Broad Street Area Plan (Area Plan) on March 5, 2013 . A t
the hearing, 25 people provided testimony . Most of the testimony came from business an d
property owners in the area who expressed concerns about the zoning changes proposed as par t
of the Area Plan and how the changes would affect their respective businesses . Many of th e
business owners spoke of the neighborhood's existing identity and cohesion, how the busines s
•and property owners look out for one another, and how the mix of uses function together well i n
the area . Themes that came out of the public testimony can be summarized as follows :
•Concerns about "main street" uses accommodated by Area Plan zoning resulting i n
competition with the Downtown and negatively impacting the Downtown .
•The manufacturing uses that exist in the area create neighborhood vibrancy i n
addition to producing economic value and head of household jobs .
•Connectivity is important — across Broad Street and across the Railroad Track s
•Concerns about the infrastructure costs associated with the improvements in the are a
•Enhancements to Broad Street — slowing down traffic and providing signal(s) to ge t
across Broad — are supported .
The majority of individuals that spoke supported Broad Street enhancements but wanted th e
proposed rezoning and other elements of the Area Plan to be abandoned or scaled back to avoi d
existing uses becoming nonconforming . One objective of the Area Plan is to honor an d
acknowledge the existing diversity of businesses in the planning area while enriching the type s
of uses that are allowed . The intent of the proposed rezoning is to promote infill and mixed-us e
projects over the next twenty years . Due to the planning area's proximity to Downtown, transit ,
and other existing infrastructure and amenities, land values will increase over time and there wil l
be a natural market driven transition in the long term . This is already occurring with the recen t
vacancy of San Luis Obispo Garbage Company, the Housing Authority's Moylan Terrac e
project, and other new developments . Having a plan in place that anticipates this transition an d
also recognizes the vibrancy and contributions that existing businesses make to the City i s
•important . The Area Plan achieves this goal, implements General Plan policies (LUE 8 .3, H E
6 .12), and facilitates infill that makes sense within the City's contemporary urban pattern .
•
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013)
Page 2
•There is however room for improvement in the Area Plan, and changes to the plan should reflec t
recent public input and be completed as part of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE )
update, with Council direction . This specific direction is included in the revised resolutio n
(Attachment 1, Revised Council Resolution):
1.Remove the properties along McMillan and Duncan Roads from proposed rezoning .
Leave this area as a Manufacturing zone .
2.Review the proposed zoning and allowed uses in the area . Ensure that new commercia l
uses supported in the area are more directly related to neighborhood-serving uses that d o
not compete with uses in the Downtown .
3.Look for ways to support the manufacturing uses that exist in the area, but also plan fo r
the anticipated market driven transition of the area . Suggestions to consider include a
special South Broad Manufacturing overlay zone, extension of non-conforming use tim e
provisions, and disclosure requirements that would inform residents of new developmen t
that manufacturing uses exist nearby (with associated noise, odors, and activities).
Why include in the LUCE update ?
The Area Plan implements current General Plan direction to find ways to support mixed-us e
development and higher-density infill housing close to Downtown and job centers, and als o
provides a long-range plan implementing street connectivity and enhanced transit accessibility .
The evaluation that will occur as part of the LUCE update will provide a larger context fo r
consideration of changes to the plan and the area as well as consideration of how these change s
affect the City as a whole . For example, the LUCE process includes :
•Fiscal consideration of development alternatives and infrastructure cost s
•Consideration of land use inventory and capacity for all zones and development types –
does the City have enough land zoned for various uses? Where is it located? Wha t
projections for future development are being made ?
•Environmental review of proposed changes – how do any proposed changes affect th e
circulation system? What mitigations are appropriate? Where would the communit y
accept lower traffic speeds/more congestion in exchange for better pedestrian and bik e
connections (i .e . across Broad Street)?
•What areas are appropriate to accommodate more housing ?
All of this analysis is already scoped, planned, and funded in the LUCE update . Doing thi s
analysis does not commit the City in the future to adopt this plan, but it does keep options on th e
table for future consideration . Furthermore, there is indirect cost savings by including the Are a
Plan in the LUCE update since fiscal, environmental and traffic analyses of the Area Plan woul d
not have to occur separately at a later date .
Conclusio n
The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the Area Plan at a November 2012 public hearin g
and recommended its inclusion in the LUCE update . Many of the Area Plan concepts align with th e
grant objectives outlined in the ongoing LUCE update . It is clear from recent public testimony that
•
•
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013)Page 3
• the proposed rezoning included in the Area Plan needs additional work, along with reevaluating th e
neighborhood commercial corridor on Victoria Avenue . This specific direction is included in th e
revised Council resolution, and the implementation of these changes can and should happen in th e
larger context of overall circulation improvements and policy decisions that will occur through th e
LUCE update process . The fact remains that the South Broad Street area presents goo d
opportunities for infill housing, mixed-use projects, and additional diversity in commercial land use s
that could benefit the existing neighborhood and City as a whole . Additional steps must be taken to
ensure that the Area Plan supports existing manufacturing businesses in the area, and enhance s
rather than diminishes the vibrancy and cohesiveness that neighborhood champions have worke d
hard to create .
ALTERNATIVE S
The Council may elect to exclude consideration of the South Broad Street Area Plan from th e
Land Use and Circulation Element update or only include circulation improvements along Sout h
Broad Street and not advance any proposed land use changes . This is not recommended . The
area will continue to evolve and absent a plan will likely develop in a piecemeal manner .
Furthermore, land use capacity and opportunities, traffic impacts, and larger policy issues wil l
not be considered in the Citywide context of the LUCE update .
ATTACHMENT S
1 . Draft Council Resolutio n
•2 . Legislative Draft Council Resolutio n
ENCLOSURE/LINK
Draft South Broad Street Area Pla n
www .slocity .org/communitydevelopment/southbroad .asp .
T:ICouncil Agenda Reportsl201312013-03-19ISouth Broad Stret (Johnson-David)I GPI 49-06 (South Broad Street Area Plan)-CAR .docx
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO .
(2013 Series)
A RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE THE SOUTH BROAD STREET AREA PLAN FO R
REVIEW IN THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE . (GPI 49-06 )
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearin g
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 5 ,
2013, for the purpose of considering Planning File No . GPI 49-06, the draft South Broad Stree t
Area Plan ; an d
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo ,
California, on November 28, 2012, for the purpose of formulating and forwardin g
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the South Broad
Street Area Plan ; and
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department conducted approximately 3 7
public outreach efforts and 25 public hearings while developing the South Broad Street Are a
Plan ; and
WHEREAS,the City's General Plan contains policies supporting development of a n
"area plan" for the South Broad Street Corridor to encourage innovative design concepts tha t
help revitalize and beautify the area ; and
WHEREAS,the City's General Plan also contains policies that identify the South Broa d
Street area for possible rezoning to encourage mixed-use development and higher density
housing ; and
WHEREAS,"South Broad Street Corridor enhancement" was adopted as a Major Cit y
Goal for the Community Development Department in the 2003-05 Financial Plan ; an d
WHEREAS,the City received a California Department of Transportation Commun Y -
based Transportation Planning Grant in Fall 2006 ; an d
WHEREAS,potential impacts and mitigations associated with developing the Area Pla n
need to be reviewed in the larger context of citywide circulation improvements and polic y
decisions that will occur in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update process ; an d
WHEREAS,the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimon y
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo as follows :
•
•
B1-4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2013 Series)
Attachment 1
SECTION 1 . Findings .Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings :
1.The proposed South Broad Street Area Plan implements General Plan policies because i t
establishes an area plan to help revitalize and beautify the area, and proposes rezoning t o
encourage mixed-use development and higher density housing .
2.The proposed South Broad Street Area Plan implements a past Major City Goal of th e
2003-05 Financial Plan because it implements strategies to enhance the South Broa d
Street Corridor .
3.Many of the Area Plan concepts align with the grant objectives outlined in the ongoin g
LUCE update, and potential impacts and mitigations associated with developing the Are a
Plan need to be reviewed in the larger context of overall circulation improvements an d
policy decisions that will occur through the LUCE update process .
4.Existing manufacturing uses in the area provide neighborhood vibrancy as well a s
economic value and head of household jobs .
SECTION 2 .Plan Amendments .Direct staff to develop for the Land Use and Circulatio n
Elements update Task Force and public review zoning and plan amendments that address th e•
following :
1.Concerns about creating non-conforming uses that could erode the viability of existin g
head of household jobs in the plan area . Solutions to be considered shall include, bu t
should not necessarily be limited to : an overlay zone to allow existing manufacturin g
uses to continue ; retaining M zoning for the McMillan/Duncan Road properties ; a dua l
zoning overlay; and requirements for notices for new development to advise tenants an d
future owners of existing manufacturing uses occurring nearby and establishing that th e
continuance of existing uses will not be considered nuisance activity for purposes of Cit y
enforcement .
2.Changes to proposed zoning to promote neighborhood serving commercial uses an d
promote neighborhood connectivity and vitality and focus on the immediate retail an d
service needs of the neighborhood, while complementing the continued vitality of th e
Downtown commercial area .
SECTION 3 . Environmental Determination .The City Council recognizes that additiona l
environmental review of the South Broad Street Area Plan is necessary, which will occur as par t
of the LUCE EIR .
SECTION 4 . Action.As recommended by the Planning Commission, and as amended by th e
City Council include the South Broad Street Area Plan for further review as part of the growt h
alternative of the Land Use and Circulation Element update .
•
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote :
•
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2013 Series)
Attachment 1
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this , 2013 .
Mayor Jan Mar x
ATTEST :
Maeve Kennedy Grimes, City Cler k
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
J . Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
•
•
•RESOLUTION NO . (2013 Series)
Attachment 8 1
A RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE THE SOUTH BROAD STREET AREA PLAN FO R
REVIEW ASPARTOF THE PREFERRED CROWTH ALTERNATIVE OFIN THE
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE . (GPI 49-06)
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearin g
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 5 ,
2013, for the purpose of considering Planning File No . GPI 49-06, the draft South Broad Stree t
Area Plan ; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo ,
California, on November 28, 2012, for the purpose of formulating and forwardin g
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the South Broa d
Street Area Plan ; and
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department conducted approximately 3 7
public outreach efforts and 25 public hearings while developing the South Broad Street Are a
Plan; and
•WHEREAS,the City's General Plan contains policies supporting development of a n
"area plan" for the South Broad Street Corridor to encourage innovative design concepts tha t
help revitalize and beautify the area ; and
WHEREAS,the City's General Plan also contains policies that identify the South Broa d
Street area for possible rezoning to encourage mixed-use development and higher density
housing; and
WHEREAS,"South Broad Street Corridor enhancement" was adopted as a Major Cit y
Goal for the Community Development Department in the 2003-05 Financial Plan ; an d
WHEREAS,the City received a California Department of Transportation Community -
based Transportation Planning Grant in Fall 2006 ; and
WHEREAS,potential impacts and mitigations associated with developing the Area Pla n
need to be reviewed in the larger context of citywide circulation improvements and polic y
decisions that will occur in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update process ; an d
WHEREAS,the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimon y
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing .
•NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo as follows :
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2013 Series)
Attachment 81
SECTION 1 . Findings .Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes th e
following findings :
1.The proposed South Broad Street Area Plan implements General Plan policies because i t
establishes an area plan to help revitalize and beautify the area, and proposes rezoning t o
encourage mixed-use development and higher density housing .
2.The proposed South Broad Street Area Plan implements a past Major City Goal of th e
2003-05 Financial Plan because it implements strategies to enhance the South Broa d
Street Corridor .
3.Many of the Area Plan concepts align with the grant objectives outlined in the ongoin g
LUCE update, and potential impacts and mitigations associated with developing the Are a
Plan need to be reviewed in the larger context of overall circulation improvements an d
policy decisions that will occur through the LUCE update process .
4_SEC Tr ON 2Existing manufacturing uses in the area provide neighborhood vibrancy a s
well as economic value and head of household jobs .
SECTION2 .PlanAmendments . Direct staff to develop for the Land Use and Circulatio n
Elements update Task Force and public review zoning and plan amendments that address th e
following :
1 . Concerns about creating non-conforming uses that could erode the viability of existin g
head of household jobs in the plan area . Solutions to be considered shall include, bu t
should not necessarily be limited to : an overlay zone to allow existing manufacturin g
uses to continue ; retaining M zoning for the McMillan/Duncan Road properties ; a dual
zoning overlay ; and requirements for notices for new development to advise tenants an d
future owners of existing manufacturing uses occurring nearby and establishing that th e
continuance of existing uses will not be considered nuisance activity for purposes of Cit y
enforcement .
2 . Changes to proposed zoning to promote neighborhood serving commercial uses an d
promote neighborhood connectivity and vitality and focus on the immediate retail an d
service needs of the neighborhood, while complementing the continued vitality of th e
Downtown commercial area .
SECTION 3 .Environmental Determination .The City Council recognizes that additiona l
environmental review of the South Broad Street Area Plan is necessary, which will occur as par t
of the LUCE EIR .
SECTION 34 . Action . As recommended by the Planning Commission,and as amende d
by the City Council include the South Broad Street Area Plan for furtherreview as part of the
preferred growth alternative of the Land Use and Circulation Element update .
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote :
•
•
•
e
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2013 Series)
Attachment 8 1
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this , 2013 .
ATTEST :
Maeve Kennedy Grimes, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
LChristine Dietrick, City Attorney
Mayor Jan Mar x
•
Page intentionally left 0
blank .
•
Mullen &Henzell L .L .P
A T T O R N E Y S A T LA W
March 18, 201 3mh
RECEIVE D
MAR 2 0 201 3
SLO CITY CLERK
e-mail : glyons@mullenlaw .com
J . ROBERT ANDREW S
JAY L . BECKERMA N
JOSEPH F . GREE N
MACK S . STATO N
GREGORY F. FAULKNE R
WILLIAM E . DEGI N
CHRISTINE P . ROHERTS
MICHAEL F . CAG E
LORI A . LEWI S
PAUL K .WiLcn x
JARED M .KATZ
DEBORAH K . BOSWELI
RAMON R . GUPTA
GRAHAM M .LYONS
RAEAEL GONZALE Z
JANA S . JOHNSTO N
LINDSAY G .SIIIN N
ROBERT D .DOMINGUE Z
JENNIFER AIJKNS TOMLI N
JARED A . GREEN
DENNIS W. REILL Y
CHARLES S . BARGIE L
KIRK R . WILSO N
or cr s a
THOMAS M .MULLEN
1911-199 1
ARTHUR A .HENZEI L
RInR .n
Honorable Mayor and Council Member s
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Re : March 19, 2013 City Council Agenda Item B .1- Continued Discussion o f
South Broad Street Area Pla n
Dear Hon . Mayor and Council Members :
This office represents property owners, business owners, landlords and tenant s
affected by the proposed South Broad Street Area Plan (the "Plan"). We would like to
thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the Plan at the last City Counci l
meeting. We believe the more than two dozen affected citizens who spoke at you r
meeting effectively articulated the concerns created by the Plan . Simply put, the Plan
discourages successful business owners from continuing to operate in the Plan are a
and in many instances would force these businesses to eventually shut down o r
relocate out of the area. We believe you heard these concerns and appropriatel y
directed City staff to come back with a revised resolution . Specifically, a majority o f
Council Members wanted to see the following revisions to the Plan : (a) remove
McMillan Avenue and Duncan Lane from the proposed rezoning plan ; (b) a special
zoning overlay for the South Broad M-zone, which would allow existin g
manufacturing uses to remain "conforming", with a "Right to Manufacture" disclosur e
requirement informing residents that manufacturing operations exist nearby ; and (c)
extending the 6-month window for "grandfathered" non-conforming uses created b y
changes in the underlying zoning of certain properties . Our clients were very please d
with the Council's response to their concerns and assumed staff would bring forward a
revised Plan at the next meeting . Unfortunately, staff did not revise the Plan an d
instead has brought forward a resolution that does not reflect the direction yo u
provided at your last meeting .
Despite Council's direction to staff that the Plan needed to be revised, staff is bringin g
back the same Plan for your approval . The proposed resolution would include th e
Plan, without any of the revisions requested by the Council, as part of the growt h
alternative in the LUCE update .
112 East Victoria Street Post Office Drawer 78 9
Santa Barbara, California 93102-078 9
(805) 966-150 1
FAX (805) 966-9204
mh
Honorable Mayor and Council Member s
March 18, 201 3
Page 2
The Council Agenda Report acknowledges revisions to the Plan are necessary bu t
recommends such changes be addressed as part of the LUCE update . We fail to se e
the logic behind this recommendation . Why approve an admittedly defective plan an d
forward it to the LUCE update process where the Council will be forced to revisit th e
same issues it already considered and already directed staff to resolve? It is muc h
more efficient to correct the Plan now so the LUCE update process includes a plan fo r
South Broad that Council supports . Bringing an admittedly flawed plan to the LUC E
update process will only further confuse what is bound to be a long and complex
review of the City-wide Land Use and Circulation Elements . The City would be bette r
sewed if the Council fixed the Plan now and brought forward the right Plan to th e
LUCE update .
The Council has the authority to revise the Plan now . Revisions made by the Counci l
do not need to go back to the Planning Commission, since the Planning Commission
acts only as an advisory body in this instance . Therefore, fixing the Plan will no t
delay the LUCE update process, which appears to be a concern of staff. In fact ,
revising the Plan now will speed up the LUCE update process as the Council will no t
have to revisit the Plan's faulty provisions.
The simple question before the Council is : Why approve a plan you have alread y
found to be flawed? The majority of Council members agreed on three specifi c
revisions to the Plan and directed staff to make those changes . Staff did not make the
requested changes and is asking Council to approve a Plan the Council has alread y
found to be flawed .
Our clients and their neighbors hoped to come to the Council's March 19 th meeting
and support staffs revisions to the Plan. Instead, they will be coming back to onc e
again demand that the Plan be revised before it is approved by Council and move d
forward to the LUCE update process .
We would ask that the Council not approve the proposed Resolution and instead direc t
staff to revise the Plan to : (a) remove McMillan Avenue and Duncan Lane from th e
proposed rezoning plan ; (b) prepare a special zoning overlay for the South Broad M -
zone allowing existing manufacturing uses to remain "conforming" with th e
underlying zoning, with a "Right to Manufacture" disclosure requirement informin g
residents that manufacturing operations exist nearby ; and (c) extend the 6-month
window for "grandfathered" non-conforming uses that may be created by changes in
mh
Honorable Mayor and Council Member s
March 18, 201 3
Page 3
the underlying zoning of certain properties . Once the Plan has been revised, staff ca n
return to Council for approval of the Plan with the full support of our clients .
Very truly yours,
Graham M . Lyons o f
Mullen &Henzell L .L .P.
GML :rp l
G:\20046\0001 \DOCS\GH9912 . DOCX
COUNCIL MEETING :a9/3
ITEM NO .:6 I
HARRIS FAMILY PROPERTIES, LL C
P.O . Box 636 TELEPHONE (805) 238-011 5
PASO ROBLES, CA . 9344 7
March 18, 2013 -
City of San Luis Obisp o
City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Council Members :
Unfortunately, we were unable to attend the Council meeting of March 5, 2013 ,
during which the South Broad Street Area Plan was presented and discussed. We hav e
obtained a copy of the minutes, as well as the Planning Commission Draft of the Broa d
Street Plan, and we would like the record to show that we strongly object to "The Plan" a s
presented, especially as it pertains to changing the manufacturing zoning in the area .
As the owners of the property at 778 Francis Street (which has been zone d
Manufacturing for a long time), we feel that any change would affect the value of ou r
property negatively .
What does it mean when you say, "the property would be 'Grand-fathered' in"? Ho w
would this apply
1--if there was a change of tenant or use ?
2--if the property was improved or remodeled ?
What would happen if the area was ordered to be rezoned, which resulted in a reduce d
value on our property? Would we be entitled to compensation, and on what basis o r
formula?
We would like to add our name, HARRIS FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC . (Nancy N .
Harris, Mgr.), to those of John Boitel, Russ Kimmell,John Caruana,Ted Engdahl,Paul Torba ,
who spoke concerning the 'M" zoning at the meeting on March 5, 2013 .
Yours very truly ,
HARRIS FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC.
Nancy N . Harris, Mgr .
03/08/2013 09 :52 8055498212 PAGE 0 1
RECEIVE D
MAR 08 201 3
SLO CITYCLERK .,ap /3
6 " "COUNCIL MEETING : ~/9
244 a~ITEM NO .: 1Q/
,.t/w aat,euw a2 E9
~~ILL/ -~
i3
Grimes,Maeve
RECEIVE D
MAR 18 201 3
.SLO CITY CLER KLyons, Robin P . <rlyons@mullenlaw.com >
Monday, March 18, 2013 11 :13 AM
To:Marx, Jan ; Smith, Kathy ; Carpenter, Dan ; Ashbaugh, John; Grimes, Maev e
Cc:Lyons, Graham M .
Subject March 19, 2013 Meeting - City Council Agenda Item 8 .1 - South Broad Street Area Pla n
Attachments:Ltr to Mayor & Council Members 3-18-13 .pd f
To Hon . Mayor and Council Members –
COUNCIL MEETING :%,_00.
ITEM NO .:■el/
Attached please find a copy of a letter from Graham Lyons to you of today's date regarding the above reference d
matter. If you have any questions or any trouble opening the attachment please let me know .
Thank you,
Robi n
Robin Lyon s
Assistant to Greg Faulkner, Graham Lyons
and Dennis Reilly
Mullen & Henzell L .L .P.
112 E. Victoria Street, Santa Barbara, CA 9310 1
(805) 966-1501 ; fax: (805) 966-920 4
II:rlyons(ilmullenlaw.com ;www.mullenlaw.com
*RR*Y*iii##if##iii i f **ffR *****R*****Y#H#i*i#i**R*fR*******#Yi##ff#R#ifRRf*fR*YYYi#i
IRS Circular 230 Tax Advice Disclaimer: As required by U .S . Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, you ar e
hereby advised that any written tax advice contained herein was not written or intended to be used (and canno t
be used) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U .S . Internal
Revenue Code .
**##**fi********##***************#i#*f**Y#*#**i**#**#**i*i*Y*f************ii*#*Yi i***Rffffi****
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential . If you receive d
this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments .
Mullen & Henzell, L .L .P .
•
I 1
Mullen &Henzell L .L .P.
J . ROBERT ANDREW S
JAY L BECKERMA N
JOSEPH F. GREEN
MACK S. STATON
GREGORY F. FAULKNER
WILLIAM E. DEGEN
CHRISTINE P . ROBERTS
MICHAEL E . CAGE
LORI A .LEWIS
PAUL K . Wncox
JARED M.KATZ
DEBORAH K. BosWEL L
RAMOON R . GUPT A
GRAHAM M .LYONS
FALL
GONZALEZN
A S. JOHNSTO N
DSAY G.SHIN N
ROBERT D .DOMINGUEZ
JENNIFER ADKINS TOMLI N
JARED A . GREE N
DENNIS W. REILLT
CHARLES S . BARGIEL
KIRK R . WILSO N
OF CwRSE L
THOMAS M .MULLE N
1915-1991
mh March 18, 201 3
Honorable Mayor and Council Member s
City of San Luis Obisp o
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Re: March 19, 2013 City Council Agenda Item B .1- Continued Discussion of
South Broad Street Area Plan
Dear Hon. Mayor and Council Members :
This office represents property owners, business owners, landlords and tenant s
affected by the proposed South Broad Street Area Plan (the "Plan"). We would like t o
thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the Plan at the last City Counci l
meeting. We believe the more than two dozen affected citizens who spoke at you r
meeting effectively articulated the concerns created by the Plan . Simply put, the Pla n
discourages successful business owners from continuing to operate in the Plan are a
and in many instances would force these businesses to eventually shut down o r
relocate out of the area . We believe you heard these concerns and appropriatel y
directed City staff to come back with a revised resolution . Specifically, a majority o f
Council Members wanted to see the following revisions to the Plan : (a) remove
McMillan Avenue and Duncan Lane from the proposed rezoning plan ; (b) a special
zoning overlay for the South Broad M-zone, which would allow existin g
manufacturing uses to remain "conforming", with a "Right to Manufacture" disclosur e
requirement informing residents that manufacturing operations exist nearby ; and (c)
extending the 6-month window for "grandfathered" non-conforming uses created b y
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
e-mail: glyons@mullenlaw .com
112 East Victoria Street Post Office Drawer 78 9
Santa Barbara, California 93102-078 9
(805) 966-150 1
FAX (805) 966-920 4
ARTHUR A. HENZELL
changes in the underlying zoning of certain properties .Our clients were very pleasedR[*v®
with the Council's responsein their concerns and assumed staff would bring forward a
revised Plan at the next meeting . Unfortunately, staff did not revise the Plan an d
instead has brought forward a resolution that does not reflect the direction yo u
provided at your last meeting .
Despite Council's direction to staff that the Plan needed to be revised, staff is bringin g
back the same Plan for your approval . The proposed resolution would include th e
Plan, without any of the revisions requested by the Council, as part of the growt h
alternative in the LUCE update .
•
m h
•
Honorable Mayor and Council Member s
March 18, 201 3
Page 2
The Council Agenda Report acknowledges revisions to the Plan are necessary bu t
recommends such changes be addressed as part of the LUCE update . We fail to se e
the logic behind this recommendation . Why approve an admittedly defective plan and
forward it to the LUCE update.process where the Council will be forced to revisit th e
same issues it already considered and already directed staff to resolve? It is much
more efficient to correct the Plan now so the LUCE update process includes a plan fo r
South Broad that Council supports . Bringing an admittedly flawed plan to the LUC E
update process will only further confuse what is bound to be a long and comple x
review of the City-wide Land Use and Circulation Elements . The City would be better
served if the Council fixed the Plan now and brought forward the right Plan to th e
LUCE update.
The Council has the authority to revise the Plan now . Revisions made by the Counci l
do not need to go back to the Planning Commission, since the Planning Commission
acts only as an advisory body in this instance . Therefore, fixing the Plan will no t
delay the LUCE update process, which appears to be a concern of staff . In fact ,
revising the Plan now will speed up the LUCE update process as the Council will no t
have to revisit the Plan's faulty provisions .
The simple question before the Council is : Why approve a plan you have already
found to be flawed? The majority of Council members agreed on three specifi c
revisions to the Plan and directed staff to make those changes . Staff did not make the
requested changes and is asking Council to approve a Plan the Council has alread y
found to be flawed .
Our clients and their neighbors hoped to come to the Council's March 19a'meeting
and support staffs revisions to the Plan . Instead, they will be coming back to onc e
again demand that the Plan be revised before it is approved by Council and move d
forward to the LUCE update process .
______ __ ------We would ask that the Council not approve the proposed Resolution and instead d irect
staff to revise the Plan to : (a) remove McMillan Avenue and Duncan Lane from th e
proposed rezoningplan.(b)prepare a special zoning overlay for the South Broad M
-.i ',wit - •t.'*.' urn ....ll nF'~A - ~i n •1 1 1 -•11 1 11111 `1 1 1
underlying zoning, with a "Right to Manufacture" disclosure requirement informin g
residents that manufacturing operations exist nearby ; and (c) extend the 6-month
window for "grandfathered" non-conforming uses that may be created by changes in
•
mh
Honorable Mayor and Council Member s
March 18, 201 3
Page 3
the underlying zoning of certain properties . Once the Plan has been revised, staff can
return to Council for approval of the Plan with the full support of our clients.
Very truly yours ,
Graham M. Lyons of
Mullen &.Henzell r..r..e.
GML :rpl
0:\2009610001\DOCS\GH9912DOCX