HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2020 Item 12, Halls
Clerk, Intern
From:
2:23 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Item 12, page 6, tonight's city council agenda
I am writing regarding the appeal by William S. Walter. Item 12, p.6
A bit of background:
Mr. Walter is making improvements to the Bello property at 679 Monterey Street that include replacing two stairways
and making foundation repairs.
As part of the permit to do this work on his property at his expense, the city has required Mr. Walter to replace an
existing 50+ year old light with a new decorative pedestrian style lamp in the city’s right of way.
Mind you, this requirement has nothing at all to do with the stairways and the foundation repairs to the Bello building.
But nonetheless, staff required it as a condition to get the permit. Think of it as a “condition of opportunity.”
But on top of this requirement to make unrelated public improvements at his expense in the city’s right of way, the city
is determined to charge him an encroachment permit fee of over $2000 to do this work.
We should encourage people like Mr. Walter for preserving an old historic building in a beautiful stretch of downtown.
He should not have to do the city’s work as a condition of fixing the foundation and replacing two stairways. But be that
as it may, since the city has determined the light must be replaced at his expense, the least the city can do is not to
charge him over $2000 in permit fees for the privilege to do the city’s work that has nothing to do with his stairways nor
foundation repairs.
In the interest of promoting greater cooperation and transparency, I strongly urge the city council to drop the
encroachment charges. If this has been agreed to from the get-go, there would not have been excessive staff time spent
on this and it would be done by now.
I read the staff response: this sets a dangerous precedent; this is true cost recovery; he should have complained two
years ago, etc.
I believe staff messed up and is now trying to cover themselves with petulant excuses at Mr. Walter’s expense. If this
sets a precedent, waiving a permit fee for a permit to do unrelated mandated work that is really the city’s responsibility,
on city property, as a condition of a permit to help preserve an old building downtown, this is a good, logical, and fair
precedent. It will encourage greater transparency and cooperation, rather than an antagonistic relationship between
citizens trying to do the right thing and “city hall.”
Finally, these kinds of punitive actions, if upheld and condoned by the council, tend to reverberate and take on a life of
their own every time someone else feels like he got the short end of things at the city. That hurts everyone.
You are the final arbiters here. Please do the right thing, waive the fee and tangibly demonstrate that you really do listen
to residents and want to do what is fair.
Thank you.
1
Very truly yours,
LESLIE HALLS
1359 Oceanaire Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 9305
2