HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc - Kinney (Rental House) 01-06-2017JA! 0 q 7,17
The Honorable Mayor Harmon and
Council Members Rivoire, Gomez, Pease, Christiansen
San Luis Obispo City Hall
999 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Housing Shortage and Quality Neighborhoods
San Luis Obispo, CA
January 4, 2017
I now have two issues with Community Development. The first is getting approval for
converting a legally permitted "art studio" into a "detached room." By adding a permanent
heat source, I would be able to legally rent the room, i.e. provide low income housing and earn
extra income. I was denied this simple request for unspecified reasons.
Also, the Rental Inspection Program has no interest in seeing that the absentee landlord next
door to my home take care of his concrete wall falling onto my property. Not only is it falling
but the tenants have an assortment of dogs who are left unattended and causing a disturbance
by fence fighting. I am powerless to remedy this because his concrete wall leans too far over
my property. I am paying an attorney to sue for the estimated $5000 for its removal. The City
in July had agreed to cite him but after three months changed course unexpectedly and left
me hanging. His property management company declared that a surveyor (unnamed) claimed
'the wall to be on my property but offered no proof. Also, he filed his appeal to the citation a
month past deadline.
Additionally, the Rental Inspection Program has a practice of excusing from Inspection any
properties that are handled by property management companies (a "different classification")
until such time as is convenient for them.
Seems as if the City has been wringing its hands about the housing shortage and "quality
neighborhoods" but working against both.
I had thought this was all behind me, but am including an abbreviated history of my dealings
with the City involving property I owned. It is definitely insightful into how the City is capable of
operating. This is a little long but believe me, it's easier to read about it than it was to live it.
I purchased property from Union Pacific on the creek side of Pismo Street. After two very
difficult years, I closed escrow on vacant lots in 2000. 1 will let you decide if this was "business
as usual.",
The Bureaucrats' Revenge
I can only guess that most of the problems stemmed from the fact that I had entered into a
sales contract with Union Pacific for two lots across the street from affordable housing then
under construction on a vacant lot on Pismo Street. The City had been involved in purchasing
that lot from the railroad and I believe intended to construct more housing on the lots I bought.
(I was from out of town and had merely stumbled onto the property because of bad directions
from a realtor who had a vacant lot for sale one block away.)
I was told:
■ by a Planner that I would need to build a bridge across the Creek from Pacific Street to
access the property rather than use Pismo Street;
• that I was not privy to City Council discussions about the property I had under contract
with Union Pacific because of the Brown Act. I was NOT in a real estate transaction
between myself and the City so (rather than assuring transparency) the Brown Act was
invoked, against my objections, to hide information;
■ that I would be required to build a cul de sac at the end of Pismo Street but since the
property being developed across the street had not done so, I would also be required to
relinquish enough property (and pay for) the other half of the cul de sac as well. The
Fire Chief who assured me that there was no need for a cul de sac in that location;
■ at one point the City hired a local engineering firm to do design work on Pismo Street
fronting both my property and the development across Pismo. They had the firm send
me the bill for it;
■ that I would be responsible for the cost of the bike path but when I requested specific
information be made available at the Counter on a specific date when I would be in
town, only an outdated copy of the Bike Plan was furnished. Sometime later, someone
slipped me the updated document with an exhibit showing half of the property (that 1
had under contract) as being a city park. In stunned disbelief, my attorneys in LA
advised me to try to get local counsel in lieu of doing a lawsuit against the City.
After closing escrow I just considered most things to be the normal headache of dealing with
this City. Eventually I had to give up on my dream of building a house on the Creek but when I
tried to sell I was told that I needed Certificates of Compliance. As the real estate market was
teetering, my request languished in Engineering until finally Mayor Dave Romero stepped in to
sort it out.
He took care of things and let me know that I had "quite a reputation" in that Department _ the
very Department that had jacked me around, cost me a lot of sleepless nights and many
thousands of dollars.
I thought this was all in the past but the last few months indicate maybe not.
I will probably speak at any Council discussion of the Rental Program, but I am also sure that
meeting will be something of a madhouse. Part of my objection to this sort of Program is the
very real concern that "rampant favoritism"could become its norm.
Best wishes on getting this City under control. I don't know where the problem lies, but feel
genuinely sorry for the employees working under these conditions. They must feel like they are
in bumper cars from Monday through Friday. I just wish I wasn't caught out here in the middle
of it. Please give me a hand getting up off the floor.
�
Jeanne Kinney
In spite of my feelings for this City, a few years ago I offered FOR FREE a
remnant parcel from this transaction. It was next to the planned bike path
at Pacific Street and someday would have made a wonderful "vest pocket"
park next to the creek for bikers. At the same time I offered it to the SLO
Railroad Museum because it is perfect for a caboose as an extension of
their museum. The SRRM had promised that they would be back to me
within a month after making inquiries with the City. 1 don't know what the
City said to them but thereafter the SRRM would not even return my
emails. (The City never got back to me about my offer.)
- BUCKL£Y
MARSH 341
F=
fp
f .�K
DALLIDET
TRACT
�J
002-34
F
Sr
2.i
s°
PACIFIC
G
llcM
,8 ('1
1 1 LOT A
� w
35 AC e
11R fat
11
q 11
ll �,R
P1I 4t
17 Ir4
4�1i
I
f iD ws
s>E
�
�
sD
ly
27 ' 24 29 2A
21
22
21
26
ID
I
�
� 1
rys n
R
v
--
If --it fIZltE=1 e5 pREpAJltil iIXi
'-1 pSSNi PJRPoSES fNJLY.
LJ _
KNOWLES TRACT Per Vol. 081, Pg.461-462. V \ & "51"CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CENTRAL ADDITION TO CITY OF S.L.O., R.M. Bk.A Pg.55. user's Sw NTr of
SCHWARTZ ADDITION, R. M. Bk. A Pg. 50. OK unZ nG_
s°
PACIFIC
G
llcM
N
� w
k
f
14 AC.
W
rys n
�•
to 9
zo
0 +
is
I
A
v
--
If --it fIZltE=1 e5 pREpAJltil iIXi
'-1 pSSNi PJRPoSES fNJLY.
LJ _
KNOWLES TRACT Per Vol. 081, Pg.461-462. V \ & "51"CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CENTRAL ADDITION TO CITY OF S.L.O., R.M. Bk.A Pg.55. user's Sw NTr of
SCHWARTZ ADDITION, R. M. Bk. A Pg. 50. OK unZ nG_
OF
Z
t