Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2016 Item 7, WalkerCOUNCIL MEETING:_v&A— t RECEIVED ITEM NO.: �{_ Maier, John Paul 1 APR 01 20 From: Kathie Walker < '}-- ICRS` Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:51 PM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; Maier, John Paul Subject: Walker Case "Ignorance is bliss." Sadly, this catchy clich6 has proved to be increasingly true since I have become involved in the politics and management of this city. The only blessing is that my great-grandmother and grandparents are not here to witness what is happening at City Hall in their beloved hometown of SLO. I have witnessed manipulation, cronyism and outright lies on the part of City staff, especially in City management. It seems Staff will stop at nothing to push their agenda forward. They manipulate and even use false information in their presentation of facts and figures to justify their position and to ultimately gain approval. My first realization happened unintentionally when I was recruited to help some friends with a Power Point presentation for an appeal to City Council. I was not involved in the case and didn't know anything about it so wasn't especially interested in the project itself. However I was willing to help my friends so I delved into preparing the presentation which exposed me to the facts of the case. The developer and Staff misrepresented facts to the Planning Commission in order to gain approval for a lot split which enabled him to capitalize on more homes than would usually be allowed. While this might be tolerable because the City routinely allows variances (although a variance wasn't requested in this case) it was the course of events that happened subsequently that was especially troubling. City staff used false information, such as misrepresenting lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhood as much smaller than they actually are, in order to manipulate their agenda for approval. There were multiple examples of dishonesty in this case and it was only due to the actions of the public in double-checking Staff's representations, that their actions were exposed. Ultimately the project was downsized to a great development that is consistent with the neighborhood but only because of the diligence of the public in uncovering the dishonest contentions made by the City Staff. This example is not an isolated "mistake." It is one of many misrepresentations that I have encountered since stumbling into the politics of the City. The more that is uncovered, the more disheartened I become. I question why the public is not angry and I realize it is because most people don't know. I guess ignorance really is bliss. Unfortunately, we have personally become embroiled in a code enforcement case which has dragged on for over two years due to the unpreparedness and delays of the City. It wasn't a complicated case and we were working with Chief Building Official Joseph Lease, however has become a nightmare since he left the City and Chief Building Official Anne Schneider took over. She has been brash, inflexible and unreasonable in her pursuit of the charges against us. Her behavior is evident in both hearings she has prosecuted before the Construction Board of Appeals. (There have only been two so far; we were the second case. The first resulted in the demolition of a rental unit at 1353 Higuera Street which a perfectly nice place. The audio transcript of the hearing reveals the attorney for the Appellant states concerns that code enforcement was "inappropriate" in their dealings.) Members of the public who attended our hearing were appalled at Ms. Schneider's adversarial behavior and some wrote letters to the City regarding their concerns. In fact, before Ms. Schneider was even hired as the Chief Building Official, I personally witnessed her screaming at a customer at the public counter in the Building section of the Conuilunity Development Department. I was using the computer in the lobby to research property and print documents and I heard a woman screaming, "You have to stop digging! You are not following the plans and we need plans!" The chair I was sitting in had wheels and I scooted back to see what was happening. There was a male staff member next to her looking through plans and he ignored her behavior but looked up at me and we made eye contact. As Ms. Schneider continued to scream at the man, he asked to speak with someone else and she refused. I took out my cell phone to videotape the ordeal because it was so surreal. First, I couldn't believe City staff was treating a member of the public that way and second, I couldn't believe other staff members were witnessing the behavior and acting as though it was normal. I shared the experience with several people at the time. But that was long before I crossed paths with Ms. Schneider again after she became Chief Building Official. I was shocked to recognize her from the screaming incident. Based on my observations and experience with Ms. Schneider, I sincerely question why she was hired as Chief Building Official. I understand that Katie Lichtig appointed her to the position. According to a member of the interview / hiring panel for the Chief Building Official position, Ms. Schneider was the "worst" and least qualified candidate. She also has a history of drama at her previous employer of Moreno Valley in San Bernardino County. After she was terminated, she sued the City and they settled by paying her $600,000. Documentation in the lawsuit include statements from her people who worked with her and claimed she was "difficult". In any case, since she has taken over the handling our case, things have gone downhill and our case has become a nightmare. Unfortunately we have had to appeal our case and it will be heard on Tuesday, April 5. The appeal is partially based on the Resolution from our appeal before the Construction Board of Appeals, because it does not reflect the oral ruling of the Board. During our hearing, the Construction Board of Appeals deliberated after hearing presentations from the City and from us. During their deliberation, as they were fashioning a motion that was strongly in our favor, recognized we needed a permit for the work Steve and I performed since owning the home but waived the other requirements done in the decades before we owned the property, Ms. Schneider interjected without being addressed and made multiple arguments against their reasoning. At one point she intimidated, almost bullied, Board Member Rebecca Jansen. I have transcribed the audio transcript for your information. Ultimately, Ms. Schneider's intimidation and arguments changed the Board's motion although the Board did find in our favor for many items. As documented in the audio transcript, the Board did not want to rewrite the Resolution presented by Staff because they felt it would create a 100 -page document and would take too long. The Resolution does not accurately represent the oral rulings made by the Board. The Board told us to trust Anne Schneider to enforce their oral rulings but based on our dealings with her, we don't feel comfortable putting our trust in her. For example, the Board recognized the existing use of the property and stated the alleged "carport" is actually a living room and not subject to the strict scrutiny of today's code. Ms. Schneider previously said that that portion of the house would need to be demolished and it is still listed in the Resolution as illegal construction. This could potentially be a big problem for us. The Board essentially drew a line between the work done since we have owned the property in 2009 and the older work, before we owned the property and recognized the older work as being "in conformance." They also ruled that the second house on our property is legal, nonconforming. However, Ms. Schneider has indicated she will require work beyond the scope of pre -2009, including items that are not even listed in the original Notice of Violation. Now, as I have just read the Agenda Packet for our case, I see that some information is completely untrue and places an unfair bias against us. Also, the Community Development Department did not include all information in the Agenda Packet but placed some documentation under the Agenda Correspondence, titled "Background Material- Walker." I urge you to review the case from the beginning and sincerely appreciate the time it will take to do so. We have been living this nightmare for over two years, have been denied permits to complete work "due to the outstanding code enforcement case" and have been unfairly portrayed as uncooperative. I would like to highlight that Steve and I have done all we can, within our power, to improve our neighborhood. My first goal was to clean up Hathway Alley which was essentially a disgusting dumping ground when we moved into our home. It took me several years to get this accomplished due to the continual overturn of City staff and seeming ambivalence of the City. Meanwhile, Steve and I took it upon ourselves to clean up the alley. I began taking photographs of the piles of trash and discarded items that littered the alley and sent them to Staff on several occasions. I crafted a solution and proposed it to the Community Development Department, to require the properties that abut the alley to place their waste containers on the street rather than have trash picked up in the alley. Finally, the City listened, trash is taken to the street and stored behind fences, and the alley is now much cleaner. In fact, the City included the clean-up in a recent City newsletter. I continually made the effort to enact this positive change until it was done because I care about our neighborhood and our environment. As you will see when you review our case, Steve and I made changes to our home after we moved in due to a rat infestation. We had no idea how bad it was until we began removing the wall board and insulation. Then he was involved in a catastrophic accident and our lives were turned upside down. Our house and our lives remained in limbo while he received treatment for his injuries over the following years. Shortly before our inspection, I became sick which was ultimately traced to mold in our half -bathroom. The contaminated areas were removed and it revealed the wall was barely supported by one 2x4 timber so we added additional support. We didn't change the existing framing and didn't realize we needed a permit to add reinforcement. After Steve's accident we were financially ruined. He took a lower paying job which does not enable us to pay for expensive permits and improvements. That's the unfortunate truth. We accept our situation but ask for some understanding in light of our circumstances. Sincerely, Kathie Walker