HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/3/2017 Item 13, Dietrick
Christian, Kevin
From:Dietrick, Christine
Sent:Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:23 PM
To:Johnson, Derek; Codron, Michael; Oetzell, Walter; Davidson, Doug; Agenda
Correspondence Routing
Cc:Ben Kulick
Subject:RE: 1135 Santa Rosa
Bcc: CC (for public record)
Mayor & Council,
Staff received the inquiry below from the appellant, the response to which we felt would be helpful to both the
appellant and to the Council in considering appeal. Appeals to the City Council are de novo, which means they
are reviewed by the Council with no obligation to defer to the underlying reasoning, policy interpretations or
decisions of the body whose decision is appealed. In other words, the Council may review the appeal and
reach any conclusions it could have reached if the application for modification had been submitted to the
Council in the first instance, constrained only by the ordinances and guidelines adopted by the City. As a
practical matter, Councils generally do afford some deference to the findings and conclusions of their advisory
bodies.
In this instance, the scope of the ARC application that is the subject of the appeal was a request for
modification to the originally approved color scheme and relief from installing the bulkhead as reflected in the
final approval package. Given the de novo nature of City appeals, there are a spectrum of options available to
the Council, including:
1. To deny the appeal in its entirety, which would uphold the ARC decision and require the appellant to
conform the building to the originally approved color scheme and bulkhead requirement.
2. To approve the appeal in its entirety, which would allow the building to remain as is with regard to color
scheme and would relieve the applicant of any obligation to install the bulkhead feature.
3. To grant the appeal in part, allowing components of the request, but disallowing others (e.g., direct
color compliance, but grant relief from bulkhead requirement or vice versa)
4. Deny the appeal, but provide direction to applicant, staff and the ARC to consider alternatives (to both
bulkhead and color scheme) that conform with design guidelines, but that may differ from both the
original approval and the existing condition (essentially, this would be a remand to ARC with direction
for consideration of alternative proposals consistent with Council input).
5. Grant the appeal in part, giving final approval to some modifications, but providing direct Council
guidance to the applicant regarding implementation of an alternative color or bulkhead modification,
which could emerge through discussion and deliberation of the appeal and would be subject to final
approval by the Community Development Director to verify any changes were consistent with Council
direction.
I hope this information is helpful and staff will be prepared to address any additional questions during the
hearing.
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
1
City Attorney's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E cdietrick@slocity.org
T 805.781.7140
slocity.org
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the
designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client
privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of
this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or
the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this
document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER
NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you.
From: Ben Kulick \[mailto:ben@stalwork.com\]
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:07 AM
To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietrick@slocity.org>; Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org>
Subject: 1135 Santa Rosa
Dear Christine and Jon:
In preparation for city council I would appreciate some legal/procedural clarity.
Stalwork was operating under the impression that an applicant selected building colors and these were approved or
denied by ARC based upon stated guidelines.
ARC stated “We pick building colors.” We are essentially appealing what we believed to be a clear procedural process.
The applicant is allowed to design and colorize a property as long as the building fits within guidelines.
http://www.ksby.com/story/36504022/beauty-or-blight-downtown-san-luis-obispo-building-color-up-for-debate
"That's what we'll be considering - does this paint color work, does it follow the design guidelines, and we have a couple
options," Harmon said.
Those include allowing the building to stand as is, making the developer go back to the approved color, or picking a new
color altogether.
What the applicant clearly did not know, that an appeal of an ARC decision to City Council, where we thought the
procedural process was to approve or deny an appeal, gave the Council the right to “pick a new color all together.”
Stalwork keeps reading the guidelines in an attempt to follow them, and we miss these sections. Our appeal very much
2
centers around clarity of a process, guidelines, “rule following”, and procedural events. I’m not sure our appeal is
appropriate if appealing an ARC modification granted city council the right to pick “a new color altogether.”
Can you clarify under what guidelines or process the Mayor is stating City Council can pick colors for a building when an
ARC appeal is presented? Under what guidelines can city council pick a color in any instance? The applicant was under
the impression there were two options: 1) Approve the appeal. 2) Deny the appeal.
The staff report presented these options beyond denying the appeal:
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of this item to a future date, providing further direction to staff or applicant; or
2. Uphold the appeal allowing modifications to approved colors and project design, based on findings of consistency
with the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines.
We also believe we have every right to submit a new request for modification to ARC if this appeal is not approved
without consequence or bias.
Please provide clarity on all the above.
Thank you.
-Ben Kulick-
STALWORK, INC.
CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN
License #948012
P.O. Box 391
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
O 805.542.0033
F 805.542.0837
ben@stalwork.com
www.stalwork.com
3