HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2016 CBOA Agenda Correspondence (White)JAN 2 8 2016
I just became aware of the Walker's problem with the city and have a few comments. I realize
that the Walker home is not a rental but an owner occupied home. However, the Walker case
does play right into the hands of those who strenuously oppose the rental inspection program. As
opponents predicted, common sense has been thrown out the window and staff are taking a hard-
line, no- prisoners -taken attitude. Hopefully you will be able to interject some common sense into
this case in order to refute the rental housing inspection opponents prediction of City staff
overreach.
I supported the rental housing inspection program. I keep my own home and rentals in
outstanding condition and even invited Joseph Lease to put my rental properties at the top of his
list for voluntary city inspections. I have 4 properties and 4 checks to register my rentals.
However, after reading the Walker response to the Construction Board of Appeals, I am not
handing in my rental registrations and four checks of $65. I don't believe that any of my rentals
or even my own personal home could withstand the scrutiny of the inspection undergone by the
Walkers.
After reading the Walker summary, I visited CDD to check on my own personal property permit
summary. My file for 2077 Slack St. is missing so I had to use the computer. I know that my
home was built as a 2 bedroom 1 bath house in the early 1950's. A second story was added over
the garage by Mario Rizzoli, the owner at that time. Later yet, he extended the house out the
back of the lot turning the existing living room into a master bedroom and bath and adding a
living room, dining room and exterior deck. As a single mother of two, I purchased the home in
1979.
I expected to see that summary. However, the first permit shown on the history is dated
11/13/2000 when I upgraded my electrical service adding 2 outlets in my kitchen. When I asked
where the other permits were, I was told that they were probably lost or destroyed.
What happens when inspectors tell me that my house and all of the prior additions were done
without permit? I have the historical oral history from the Rizollis but will that be believed any
more than you believe the historical testimony for the Walkers? Will I be required to bring my
home up to today's standards in one fell swoop?
Those of us who have chosen to live in San Luis and don't have rich parents have all started out
with starter, fixer - uppers. We use sweat equity, improving a bit at a time as we can afford. This
is exactly what the Walkers are attempting to do.
I can't believe that the Community Development Department has allowed themselves to become
the pawn of a vicious, vindictive, evil step- mother -in -law. It should have been realized, as it was
by the IRS, Child Welfare Services and finally the Federal Court judge that they were being
played by a very sick, malicious woman.
It is not the fault of the Walkers that over the past 2 1/2 years that this has been an issue, that the
City can't retain staff. How many staff have they thought they received an agreement with only
to find that person has resigned. This is a travesty. Just on the basis of inept, unprofessional
treatment, toward the Walkers, this case should be thrown out.
To illustrate the out of control, dare I say vindictive, treatment that the Walkers have endured, I
would like to offer a recent true anecdote:
My father lives at 125 Longview Lane. The home next door at 139 Longview was recently sold
for $1,025,000 to a Cal Poly parent. During the short time that the house was on the market, the
Realtor, in her handout, stated that there was a non - permitted studio above the garage.
Immediately upon closing, the out of area owner began tearing out walls and making electrical
and plumbing changes. The construction dumpster was parked in the drive and emptied twice.
When I called the CDD, I was told that no permit had been pulled. I put in a code enforcement
inquiry through the website and it was lost by the city. Weeks later, after the dumpsters were
removed but dry walling continued, I visited CDD. There was no inquiry on file. When I showed
them the dated, printed copy that I had made at the time of the initial complaint, they said that
they would send a Code enforcement officer out. I mentioned the illegal studio with kitchen and
bath above the garage.
I never received an answer to my complaint and sent an e -mail to Michael Codron. In response, I
was told that the owner was putting in a new shower pan and would get a permit. I was also told
that a permit for the "studio" had been issued in the 60's. Mrs. Hollister was the owner at that
time and she was an artist. This was built as an artist's studio not a living studio. At that time,
secondary units were not allowed and I am sure that the kitchen was not included in that permit,
perhaps even the bathroom was unpermitted.
As to the new permit for a shower pan, I continue to wonder how two construction dumpsters
were necessary for a simple shower pan replacement.
Why is there a difference in the treatment of these two cases? Does it have to do with the cost of
the home - -- $1,025,000 vs. fixer upper?
Owners of illegal rentals are supposedly being given all sorts of concessions to bring their rentals
into compliance. Where are the common sense concessions for the Walkers? As a city employee,
I would be embarrassed to defend this case after all of the missteps, resignations, going back on
previous agreements, etc.
I will be holding on to my rental registration forms and checks. If the Walker case is not thrown
out, I will be joining the Rental Inspection Opponents.
Linda White, co- chairman
Monterey Heights Neighbors