Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2016 Item 7, Schmidt?!._JNCIL MEETING: Ll_� 'Zd� I vi !\ O : To: Maier, John Paul Subject: RE: Walker Appeal APR 05 2016 Item 7 - AC From: Richard Schmidt [ Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 11:26 AM To: E-mail Council Website Subject: Walker Appeal Dear Council Members, This note is in support of the Walker's appeal, and a big brickbat for staff who would base ANYTHING on the city's faulty records. Let me share with you just two of the records problems I have encountered concerning my own home to prove to you that the city's records are incompetent, and unsuitable for making any claim whatsoever. I'll focus on two illustrative issues: 1. Boundaries of my property. When I purchased my house, the city's plot map records matched the county's records, and were correct. My lot originally ran from Broad clear through to Chorro, but at various times the rear portion of it was sold to others, who combined it with their adjacent properties, so my lot today is 175 feet deep rather than nearly 400 feet deep. This is, and going back to the early 1970s always has beeen, what shows clearly on the county assessor's map. So one day in the 2000s, I was at the counter making an inquiry, and the lady pulls up my property on her nifty magic lantern show, and shows me my property, and it on her screen included some of the stuff separated from it long ago. "I don't own all that," I told her, and showed her where the boundary should be. She said surely I did own it since the city's records are correct. I told her I didn't own all that, the city's records are incorrect, and asked her to fix the erroneous boundaries. She said she couldn't because the city's maps are from the assessor's maps, and that's what the assessor showed. (This claim without switching screens and verifying the truth of her statement.) I told her that most certainly was NOT what the assessor's map showed (I knew that for a fact), and again asked her to see it was fixed. She said she couldn't because the assessor's map was right. So I changed tack. "I've always wanted to own all that land, and since you claim I do, I'd appreciate it if you could prove it so I can claim it." She again referred me to the assessor's map. Some public service CDD offers! Several more contacts on the same subject, same sort of reaction. Fast forward a few years, and my neighbor from hell who let two huge poplar trees near the creek die, did nothing about them, city arborist did nothing about them, so one day the inevitable happened: in the middle of winter they fell across the creek and onto the garage of the neighbor behind me. Still the tree owner did nothing about the trees, so, concerned about getting flooded from water backing up behind these trees, I called Neil Havlik to see if he could light a fire beneath the guy. Neil said he'd take a look, and after looking called me and said the city had Zone 9 funds to remove the fallen trees during flood season, and he'd get right on it. I think he let my neighbor off too lightly, but at least the fallen trees would get out of the creek. He called me back a second time and said I'd need to sign some paperwork giving the city permission to work on my property. I said I didn't understand what property he was talking about since the trees weren't on my property either before or after falling. "You own the property where the trees fell, where the garage is," he said. I assured him I didn't own that. He said the city's records said I did, so if the trees were to be removed I'd have to sign giving permission to enter my property! I objected, and suggested he needed to deal with the actual owner. "We've worked it out with the tenants," he said (the property is a student rental), but he still needed an "owner's" permission. I said I didn't see why I had to sign giving the city the right to access somebody else's property the city claims I own. He said, please just sign it so he could get the work done. This is the type of BS bad record-keeping leads to. 2. Date of Construction. My home consists of two parts, an original traditional redwood cottage with a midcentury-modern addition. When I purchased my home, the city had records that showed the house was built in 1929, the addition in 1953. 1 subsequently confirmed those dates independently: the toilet had a note under it giving the 1929 date of installation which I found when changing to a low -flow model, and I found the building inspector checklist for the 1953 addition still hanging in the garage. Separately, the house is in the city's historic survey, and its residents from around 1930 are enumerated.[1][1] So, my earthquake insurance company, which sends me a property description sheet each year and asks me to make "any corrections," popped me a description several years ago stating the house was built in 1945. 1945, period; no two dates anymore, just one that's wrong. So I corrected it: 1929 and 1953. They replied they'd updated my house date according to what the public permit records currently showed, so I'd have to produce a building permit to get the date changed back to what they'd always showed before! So I went to the city, and instead of the dates they had when I purchased the house, they had only 1945." 1 said that's wrong. They said that's right. Does this sound familiar? So I went straight to Derek Johnson to see how to get this and the boundary issues settled. He said he had faith in the 1945 date, whatever that means. I told him about the toilet note, the inspector's checklist, the historic survey, and the dates previously in city records. Rather than try to figure out where the records went wrong and how to fix them, he came up with this inventive confection: Well maybe, he said, they tore down the 1929 house and built a new one in 1945. Right, and post-dated the inspector's checklist for 1953? I said, Derek, I'm an architect, I know something about building materials and practices in different eras, and you're just plain wrong. The 1929 house is built like a 1929 house — nearly full dimension framing lumber, lath and plaster walls with textured plaster of that era, "sanitary house" detailing around windows so there's no dust -catching trim or sills typical of 1929, Malibu tile around the fireplace — it's a 1929 house, not a gyp -board flimsy World War II house with smaller framing lumber. He refused to budge. And this is the sort of treatment a resident gets when going to the Director himself! Conclusion. To me, it's incredible that the city once had good records, but no longer has any. This by the way has nothing to do with the 1950s city hall fire that staff is claiming caused loss of the Walker's records. We're talking about loss of records since the 1970s. I suspect a lot of errors were made when the city switched to digital records and trashed its archival paper records. The dates I've encountered records problems strongly suggest this recent malfeasance rather than accidental loss years ago. I suspect this may also be the source of the Walkers' problems as well. THIS IS THE KIND OF RECORD KEEPING THE CITY IS USING TO MAKE CLAIMS AGAINST THE WALKERS. THE CITY'S RECORDS ARE INCOMPETENT, AND THE STAFF DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR INACCURACIES. YOU JUST NEED TO ADMIT YOUR RECORDS ARE WORTHLESS FOR PROVING ANYTHING ABOUT THE WALKERS' HOUSE. THE CITY'S ACTION IN ASSERTING ANY VALIDITY TO ITS RECORDS IN THE WALKER CASE IS OUTRAGEOUS. Why don't you just get off these peoples' backs? Sincerely, Richard Schmidt [2][1] Your historic records are also a mess. I have the paperwork from the historic survey stating my house is a "contributing property," but current city records classify is as "potentially contributing" rather than "contributing." I'd add that as owner, I was not officially notified of the original designation, nor of any change in designation, leading me to believe this change in status is just more sloppy record keeping.