HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2017 Item 8, Dietrick
Christian, Kevin
From:Dietrick, Christine
Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:45 AM
To:Ben Kulick
Cc:Ansolabehere, Jon; Codron, Michael; Oetzell, Walter; Agenda Correspondence
Routing
Subject:RE: 1135 Santa Rosa
Ben, I think staff did respond to the issues you raised via the staff report on the resolution on the
agenda. http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=17176
That said, we always encourage individuals with items on the agenda to attend. The item is currently on
consent. You still have an opportunity to speak on that item when the Mayor calls for public comment on
consent items and your comment may include your request to consider additional information you feel has not
been presented if you believe it may influence the Council’s final decision on whether to adopt the resolution
reflecting its direction from its last meeting. A Councilmember may also ask for further information or
responses to questions that s/he may have from either staff or the appellant or may request that an item be
pulled from consent for further discussion prior to Council action. Comment on consent items is limited to three
minutes, so if there are issues or information that you feel should be addressed and require more time, you are
free to provide correspondence to the Council in advance of the meeting. The most efficient way to do that is
through the E-mail City Council portal on the website , which ensures it gets distributed to all council members
and involved staff and that it is entered into the record on the item. http://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-
and-city-council
As to any design ideas discussed with staff, the one photo simulation you presented was included in the
current staff report along with the status of discussions between you and Mr. Codron to date. However, per the
Council’s prior direction and current recommendation and resolution, final review and approval of any design
will be with the ARC. It is not my understanding that there has been any discussion with the ARC, as a body,
at this point. It is my understanding that the CDD Director touched base with the ARC Chair to give him a
heads up as to the nature of the design solution you likely will be proposing, as reflected in the current Council
staff report. However, as you know, all of the City’s advisory bodies act only through a majority of the entire
body, at noticed public meetings. Thus, any preliminary reactions or suggestions by any individual advisory
body member, or any staff member, should in no way be relied upon as reflecting City approval of any
particular design concept or proposal. The only action that may be relied upon is a final action of the
authorized decision making body, here the ARC majority.
I hope this is helpful in clarifying your questions.
Best,
Christine
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
City Attorney's Office
1
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 \[ ]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 10:52 AM
To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietrick@slocity.org>
Subject: 1135 Santa Rosa
Hello Christine:
I am unclear on the next steps with 1135 Santa Rosa.
It appears as though multiple processes are in play.
1) Staff did not supply correct information to city council which may have materially impacted their decision? This
would mean no changes are required. What input do we get on this process?
2) Staff has had discussions with ARC on a proposed design element, cedar as located per photo simulation and an
outcome is TBD? What input do we get on this process? Is this process valid considering #1.
3) City Manager suggested new elements on the elevations not directed by city council to address? What input do
we get on this process?
4) Should we contact City Council? Are we copied on communications? Will we see these
communications/discussions? Should we attend City Council?
5) Is a document being prepared that lists all the items incorrectly presented to ARC and Council by Staff that may
have impacted decision making? Should we draft this document and have it validated by Staff. The errors to our
knowledge have never been directly addressed or stated in any definitive form.
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
2
www.stalwork.com
3