HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2016 Item 7, RowleyC(M TN('TT N/1FFTTN(:•
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods strongly supports the Walkers in their appeal of the
Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA) decision. We, also, request that you exclude the
following from consideration.
a. All items that were not listed on the amended Notice of Violation (NOV) dated February
23, 2015. (Staff Report, attachment 5.) This was the basis of their initial appeal and we do not
think additional items should be or should have been added.
b. All items that the CBOA determined to be legal, non -conforming, and all items they did
not consider to be violations. (Refer to CBOA audio recording.) Most of these individuals are
involved in development/re-development and know the codes; why should their findings be
discarded?
Over the years RQN members have attended many appeals hearings. Never have we seen the
opposing party, the City or anyone else, add more items to those that were being appealed.
Although such an action may be allowed, we think it is unfair to the appellant and that it would
be a dangerous precedent to set.
The Walkers purchased their 2 -on -1, R-2 property in 2009 knowing it had been a student rental
for many years and could need some paint and repair. They did their due diligence by getting a
property inspection in addition to the FHA property inspection for their loan; there were no red
flags from either inspection, and FHA made the loan. Thus, finding a rat infestation in the walls
must have been distressing. Their willingness to immediately address this problem
demonstrates their desire to have safe and sanitary living conditions.
After reading all of the material, we have come to the conclusion that had it not been for Mr.
Walker's catastrophic accident and long-term inability to work we would not be here tonight.
The bankruptcy would not have happened nor would one of the creditors have initiated and
pursued the actions that have been taken against them.
This couple and their children are exactly the type of family that Council has stated they would
like to see move into this student -impacted neighborhood and others like it. It is certainly the
type of family that RQN wants to see move in - and stay - in this neighborhood. Unlike the
many previous residents of this area and the greater Alta Vista neighborhood, the Walkers are
happy here and have no desire to move.
The couple has gone to extraordinary lengths to search out the history of their property and the
two dwellings located on it. They were fortunate to locate a gentleman with great recollections
of his childhood years who had lived next door to the property beginning in 1928. This
gentleman remembered the potato chip factory at the rear of the property, about when it went
out of business and about when it was converted into a dwelling. From that information they
were able to find data substantiating that the rear structure was a dwelling in 1932.
They searched out assessor's information and found notes of a permitted bedroom and % bath
addition to the front house, and learned the property was not annexed into the city until 1948.
They checked with the city and discovered permits for a laundry area and a carport. The
carport was apparently converted into the living room. Was there a permit? No one knows for
certain. But when the CBOA reviewed it, considering the information and the age, they
determined that it too, was legal, non -conforming. Other actions taken may or may not have
been permitted. Permit records are not necessarily complete (See letter from Linda White),
and there was a city fire that destroyed some records.
Due to the age of the dwellings it would not be surprising for permit and other records to be
missing. This is undoubtedly the case for many, if not most, of the older homes that give the
city character.
Summary
In addition to eliminating from further consideration items not listed on the amended NOV,
items the CBOA determined to be legal non -conforming and items the CBOA considered not to
be violations, we request you make the following findings:
1. Improvements made prior to the 2009 sale of the house are not the responsibility of
appellants.
2. The shed is a legal, non -conforming structure. The age of the shed was not discussed nor
was the code regarding set -backs at the time the shed was constructed; give the benefit of the
doubt to appellants.
3. Omit absence of kitchen sink as a violation. Photographs show there is ample room for
food preparation in the kitchen, and the sink in the second unit can be used for washing dishes.
(When this item was discussed, no mention was made of the availability of the second kitchen.
Fixing this item in the near term is an expense the appellant cannot currently afford and an
alternative does exist)
Recommendation
1. Uphold the appeal.
2. Add a condition: Appellants are to obtain permits for electrical and plumbing work done
since their occupancy in 2009.
3. Add a condition: Appellants are to obtain permits for future projects before work begins.
4. Verify for the record if there is a local, state or federal requirement for anyone preparing
plans to be a licensed design professional.
Whatever you decide, we do not recommend that you try to amend the existing resolution as it
would be very difficult and clarity may be lost.
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
2