HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/3/2017 Item 13, Axelrod (2)
Christian, Kevin
From:Boris Axelrod <BorisAxelrod@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October
To:Pease, Andy; E-mail Council Website; Harmon, Heidi
Subject:Re: 1135 Santa Rosa
Dear Mayor Harmon, Ms. Pease, and other city council members:
I appreciate the personal replies I received last week and over the weekend in response to my
email regarding the 1135 Santa Rosa building. I spent some time this weekend educating myself on the ARC
guidelines and on the history of the process followed thus far (as outlined in the Agenda Packet for
tomorrow's meeting).
Firstly, I want to commend the council and all parties involved for the thoughtful and dedicated approach to
the entire process - clearly both Stalwork and the SLO people's representatives are very interested in doing
what's best for the city as a whole.
In reading through the "case history" and ARC guidelines, I believe the question of whether there
was intentional departure from the original proposal does not seem to be in dispute and is not relevant, and the only
remaining question is whether a new design changes request should be approved. From the documents
included in the agenda packet, it looks to me that the Stalwork team chose to adjust the original design within
the proper limits of discretion for the benefit of the new building AND for the benefit of how the new building
integrates with downtown SLO. Based on Mr. Kulick's response to the original notice of violation, I think
Stalwork has in the past, and is currently working in good faith. The position taken by Stalwork is not a cost-
saving measure, but rather coming from a sincere belief that the new design benefits the building and the
downtown as a whole. This is evident by Stalwork's willingness to screen in the equipment on rooftop without
argument, regardless of cost incurred. It demonstrates to me that Stalwork fundamentally believes in the
better appeal of the building as it stands now in regard to paint and tile . It is a sentiment that I share, and
seems like majority of SLO residents with an opinion share as well, including those that are now building
occupants.
Admittedly, above is personal opinion, and while personal opinions and preferences do matter, they can hurt
the integrity of the process if such opinions and preferences are allowed to be considered as equivalent to
facts, laws, and code. From a factual perspective, I believe Stalwork has done everything "by the book". As
recommended by the city representative (Mr. Mezzapesa) in the original notice of violation, the city advised
Stalwork to apply for a change approval by the Community Development Director or ARC. Stalwork has done
that, so the only remaining question is whether the requested changes fall inline with ARC guidelines.
After reading the materials this weekend, I've come to further conclusion is that the question of whether the
requested changes match the original design is irrelevant to the current and future discussion. By virtue of the
fact that this is a change request, the departure from original design is self-evident, and the "not per original
design" argument is in no way pertinent to the consideration of the change request. Personal opinions and
conjecture aside, the fundamental question is whether the requested changes are within ARC guidelines. In
reading the guidelines, ARC's arguments, and Stalwork's counter-arguments, I have not seen any properly
1
applied and cited guideline-based evidence by ARC or other parties that demonstrate violations of
specific guidelines. Contrary to that, Mr. Kulick articulated very accurately his factual counter-argument to
opinions voiced at previous meetings. In the agenda packet (pages 223 - 229), Mr. Kulick demonstrates not
only the full set of guidelines met, but more importantly, Mr. Kulick points out instances where improper
citing of inapplicable guidelines have created a false narrative regarding the building's non-compliance.
I do believe wholeheartedly that such misunderstanding of ARC's own guidelines by ARC itself is not in essence
malicious. I believe it stems in a simple fact that we are all human and that personal opinion drives our
interpretation of guidelines, code, and law. However, in this specific case of 1135 Santa Rosa, if ARC and the
city council were to evaluate the new building against the actual printed and recorded guidelines, they'll find
that all the applicable guidelines have been met and none have been violated. In fact, if one were to drive
down Marsh or Santa Rosa, one would see that other buildings on these streets, new and old, "match" the
current 1135 building as it stands, with color schemes and other features/details. For example, I don't recall
any buildings where two dominant colors are required - most of the buildings in the vicinity are of single
color. In other words, while part of the original proposal, such elements are NOT required per ARC guidelines,
and none of the other buildings in the vicinity conform to ARC recommendations/requirements that are being
asked of Stalwork. The "requirements" seem to be born of personal preference rather than stated guidelines
or facts. I hope you'll agree with my interpretation of the current situation in that while not conforming to
original design, the new building does indeed conform to official design guidelines for downtown SLO, and as
such the change request submitted by Mr. Kulick and Stalwork Construction should be approved and the
building should be allowed to stand as-is.
Thank you again for your time and consideration
Boris Axelrod
2