The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-19-2013 B1 LyonsRECEIVED Grimes, Maeve MAR 18 2013 K Lyons, Robin P. <rlyons @mullenlaw.com> 51.0 CITY CLFFZ Monday, March 18, 2013 11:13 AM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Grimes, Maeve Cc: Lyons, Graham M. Subject: March 19, 2013 Meeting - City Council Agenda Item B.1 - South Broad Street Area Plan Attachments: Ltr to Mayor & Council Members 3- 18- 13.pdf COUNCIL MEETING: To Hon. Mayor and Council Members— ITEM NO.: Attached please find a copy of a letter from Graham Lyons to you of today's date regarding the above referenced matter. If you have any questions or any trouble opening the attachment please let me know. Thank you, Robin Robin Lyons Assistant to Greg Faulkner, Graham Lyons and Dennis Reilly Mullen & Henzell L. L.P. 112 E. Victoria Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 ^h: (805) 966 -1501; fax: (805) 966 -9204 eil: r! ons mullenlaw.com www.mullenlaw.com .!* kfe* W�YWfkft* kWl F+ FWtY****** WitW* WfltW* W* fR�kl eRie7 klktkikYrikieWWiF* inF* itikiFWiY* Wfk* iel t�FtF* itilW7l �!! I!!* fkW lklkfkleWW *tktkiklnliklWfkiFtk IRS Circular 230 Tax Advice Disclaimer: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, you are hereby advised that any written tax advice contained herein was not written or intended to be used (and cannot be used) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Mullen & Henzell, L.L.P Mullen &,Henzell L.L.P ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 18, 2013 e -mail: glyons@mullenlaw.com Despite Council's direction to staff that the Plan needed to be revised, staff is bringing back the same Plan for your approval. The proposed resolution would include the Plan, without any of the revisions requested by the Council, as part of the growth alternative in the LUCE update. 112 East Victoria Street Post Office Drawer 789 Santa Barbara, California 93102 -0789 (005) 966.1501 FAX (805) 966 -9204 f I I } Honorable Mayor and Council Members J. f L ANDREWS City o f San Luis Obispo City San lJ JAY l.. BECRERh4AN BIE 990 Palm Street Josm I F. GREEN MACK S. STATON San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 GREGORY F. FAULKNER WILLIAM E. DEGEN Re: March 19, 2013 City Council Agenda Item B.1— Continued Discussion of CHRISTINE P. RoBERTS South Broad Street Area Plan MICHAEL E. CAGE. LORI A. LEWIS PAUL K. WILCOX Dear Hon. Mayor and Council Members: JARED M. KATZ DEBORAH K. BOSWELL This office represents property owners, business owners, landlords and tenants RAM& R. GUPTA affected by the proposed South Broad Street Area Plan (the "Plan "). We would like to GRALIAM M. LYONS thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the Plan at the lest City Council IiAFAEL GoAl7aN741tLEZ meeting. We believe the more than two dozen affected citizens who spoke at your 4A S. JOHN9TON ,NDSAY G. SIUNN meeting effectively articulated the concerns created by the Plan. Simply put, the Plan ROBERT D. DOMINGUEZ discourages successful business owners from continuing to operate in the Plan area JENNIFER ADKINS TOMLIN and in many instances would force these businesses to eventually shut down or JARED A. GREEN relocate out of the area. We believe you heard these concerns and appropriately directed City staff to come back with a revised resolution. Specifically, a majority of Council Members wanted to see the following revisions to the Plan: (a) remove DENNIS W. REILLY McMillan Avenue and Duncan Lane from the proposed rezoning plan; (b) a special CHARLES S. BARGIEL KIRK R. WILSON zoning overlay for the South Broad M -zone, which would allow existing OF COUNSEL manufacturing uses to remain "conforming ", with a "Right to Manufacture" disclosure THOMAS M. MULLEN requirement informing residents that manufacturing operations exist nearby; and (c) 1915-1991 extending the 6 -month window for "grandfathered" non - conforming uses created by ARTHUR A. HENZELL changes in the underlying zoning of certain properties. Our clients were very pleased RuIREU 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 and instead has brought forward a resolution that does not reflect the direction you provided at -your- last - meeting. Despite Council's direction to staff that the Plan needed to be revised, staff is bringing back the same Plan for your approval. The proposed resolution would include the Plan, without any of the revisions requested by the Council, as part of the growth alternative in the LUCE update. 112 East Victoria Street Post Office Drawer 789 Santa Barbara, California 93102 -0789 (005) 966.1501 FAX (805) 966 -9204 f I I } Honorable Mayor and Council Members March 18, 2013 Page 2 The Council Agenda Report acknowledges revisions to the Plan are necessary but recommends such changes be addressed as part of the LUCE update. We fail to see 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 the 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 for South Broad that Council supports. Bringing an admittedly flawed plan to the LUCE 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 better served if the Council fixed the Plan now and brought forward the right Plan to the LUCE update. The Council has the authority to revise the Plan now. Revisions made by the Council 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 not 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 not 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 specific 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 already found to be flawed. Our clients and their neighbors hoped to come to the Council's March 19th meeting and support staff's revisions to the Plan. Instead, they will be coming back to once again demand that the Plan be revised before it is approved by Council and moved forward to the LUCE update process. We would ask that the Council not approve the proposed Resolution and instead direct staff to revise the Plan to: (a) remove McMillan Avenue and Duncan Lane from the proposed rezoning plan; (b)_p are a special zoning overlay for the South Broad M- ane- alowir oxising xatufauring use g tavitlr tixe _ _ underlying zoning, with a "Right to Manufacture" disclosure requirement informing 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 Honorable Mayor and Council Members March 18, 2013 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. c Very truly yours, Graham M. Lyons of Mullen & Henzell L.L.P. GML:rpl G:120046\0001\DOCMGH9912.DOCX