Attachment 1Robert Schultz
From: Dieter Schmidt <dieter5x@pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 4:07 PM
To: Robert Schultz
Cc: George Silva
Subject: 130 Massol Avenue
Good Afternoon Mr. Schultz,
Thank you for your note requesting our arguments why the Town of Los Gatos should re -pay the fine ($82,950.00 plus interest).
Central to the Town's levying a fine were allegations that our contractor ignored the Town's Demolition Affidavit which was never
presented by the Town nor signed by the contractor or us.
The Development Review Committee stated in its instructions that the front and left walls be maintained and incorporated into the new
structure. There was no mention of "contiguous" movement of walls.
The Town did not request the contractor or us to sign any affidavit of any kind prior to the issuance of a building permit other than
"Conditions of Approval" which we did acknowledge.
During the pre -construction meeting our contractor was instructed by the Inspector not to separate the front wall and the porch
structure. No mention of "contiguous" movement of front and left walls. It was well known that the Preservation Committee had
requested that misaligned horizontal exterior boards be re -arranged to show a continuous seam. This required that all boards of the left
wall and a portion of the front wall had to shifted, either up or down.
The Town Manager stated that Town staff is not obligated to alert contractors or owners regarding "contiguous" wall moving when less
than 40% of existing walls are to be removed.
The Town Manager further stated that since the 39.1 % shown on the drawings was so close to the 40% threshold, the architect was
asked to sign an affidavit to insure his calculations to be correct. The architect was never asked nor did he sign an affidavit.
Even after paying the fine, town staff refused to help deciding how to effect the lining up of the still existing exterior wall boards, but
instead instructed our contractor to scrap all exterior boards of both the front and left wall as long as the new boards were of the same
cross section as the existing ones.
The only original exterior still in place are the porch (except some of the corbels which were too rotten to save - and the triangular top
front wall where no alining of boards was necessary).
No hearings, no meetings, no statements, no clarifications, no appeals, no other explanations were given. The fine has to be paid or
construction will not be allowed to resume.
We request that the Town Council review he above brief summary of events and rule whether the above listed fine is warranted. We do
not think so.
Thank you again, respectfully, Dieter
i ATTACHMENT 1
R
FEB 2 5 2015
TOW
1-ecruary '7,-r)
es- ---
The Honorable Mayor Marcia Jensen
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
Ref.: 130 Massol Avenue
Dear Mrs. Mayor,
1
Massol Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
We have been trying to get a resolution to the request related in our
July 31, 2013 letter to the Town Manager and Town Attorney.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require details
beyond those provided.
Please review the attached and let us know your decision.
Thank, you, respectfully
Dieter Schmidt
att.
cc: Vice Mayor, Town Council Members & Town Manager w/att
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2015
TOWN MANAGER
130 Massa! Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Chronology of Events
990 2015
R PRIMARY RESIDENCE. WHICH WE BUILT IN 1971 WAS SE_'.`f-RE[.AMAGt
DURING RING 'THE 198E EARTHQUAKE
BOUGHT THE 30 MASSOL AVENUE HOUSE IN 1990 SINCE WE WE E UNABLE T
)i l PRIMARY RESIDENCE
lE BANKS HAD THE PROPERTY APPRAISED
_AND: S285,000 00 HOUSE. SO 00
ORIGINAL LOAN OFFER WITHDRAWN - NO FOUNDATION
BECAUSE OF ITS POOR CONDITION WE ONLY COOKED AND SHOWERED THERE AFTER
INSTALLING A NEW SHOWER
RAIN LEAKED THROUGH THE ROOF, THE WALLS., AND CHIMNEY
PLANTS CRAWLED THROUGH THE WALLS TO THE ATTIC
WAINSCOTING, FLOOR IN SOME AREAS, LATH AND PLASTER WALLS AND CEILINGS
DAMAGED IN ALL ROOMS EXCEPT THE KITCHEN
ALL ORIGINAL WINDOWS INOPERATIVE - ONLY ONE FRONT WINDOW (NOT ORIGINAL)
COULD BE OPENED
MOST NAILS HAD RUSTED AWAY, ESPECIALLY ON THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDES
COVERED CHIMNEY AND AFFIXED PLYWOOD TO SOME OUTSIDE SECTIONS TO KEEP
RAINWATER OUT - COVERED SOME FLOOR AREAS WITH PLYWOOD
REPLACED ENTRY STEPS - ADDED RAILING AROUND FRONT PORCH - ACCESS TO
AREAS WITH DECAYED BOARDS WAS BLOCKED
KNOB AND TUBE WIRING DAMAGED - CLOTH AND RUBBER INSULATION BRITTLE AND
MOST HAD FALLEN OFF - INSURANCE LIMITED TO $10,000.00
INSTALLED INDUSTRIAL CONDUIT WIRING IN MOST ROOMS
DURING THIS TIME WE STARTED REBUILDING OUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE WHICH I OK
2 YEARS
IN 1994 I MET WI7ri THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE 70 EXPLORE WHATCOULD BE DONE:
WITH THE 130 MASSOL AVENUE HOUSE
DURING THE MEETING I LEARNED WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMITTEE A7
THAT TIME, THAT KNOB AND TUBE WIRING IS PERFECTLY SAFE ,AND THE USE: OF A
LOCAL ARCHITECT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
MY ARCHITECT BROTHER-IN-LAW WHO DOES NOT RESIDE IN LOS GATOS HAD
PREPARED SOME SKETCHES WHICH WERE REJECTED
2
STARTED THLHEJAB 0TAT|DNPROCESS |N2D07-SE|ECTEDANARCHUEClYVH[
HAD C0NEPHOBONO WORK |NLOSGAT08
HETALKED MEINTO LEI T|KGONE ()FHIS FRIENDS ACCOMPANY k4ET0ALL
COMM17 I LIE MEETINGS BECAUSE 'HE KNOWS LOS GATOS TOWN STAFF WELL ' PALO
ALTO ANOL0SGxTOSmSTOB|CAI_ COMMITTEES ARE NOTORIOUSLY D|FF{CUT^
JU8TTHEOPPOS|TE'MEET |M�SYV\lH7HEHIS lOR|CALC0x4m|TTEEWERE CORDIAL -
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE HELPFUL |WGET-TING DESiGNAPPROVED FORWHAT O
|SWORTH THE CONCEPT WAS CREATED RYKXYBROTHER'|N'LAVV
VVECOULD HAVE SAVED AMAJOR PORTION QFTHE ARCHITECT FRIEND'S 1HELP^COST
OF$18.5`418
TOWN LETTER, DATED MAY 19.2009 STATED THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEWS HAVE
BEFNCOMPLETED AND PLANS ARE APPROVED 'REkXA|NGFRONT AND LEFT WALLS
ARE REQUIRED T<]BEMAINTAINED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE NEW STRUCTURE
NOCOMMENTS REGARDING CONTIGUOUS MOVEMENT DFWALLS DRANY OTHER
DIRECTIONS
RECEIVED BUILDING PERMIT |N2O10'N0MENTION OFANY SPECIFIC ORDINANCES
OTHER THAN THE "BOILER PLATE~TYPE
SELECTED CJNTRAC7ORWHO HAD BUILT HOUSES |NU}SQATOS
STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED JULY6.2O1U.REASON
"FOUR CONTRACTORS HAVE COMPLAINED TDTHE TOWN -WE HAVE TOACT"
CONTRACTORS WERE NOT IDENTIFIED
F|NE$82SS0 00 ^VYALL5T0BE'NA|NTA|NEDVVERENOT MOVED |mAC0NTlGOUS
FASHION" AGPRESCRIBED 8YTOWN ORDINANCE ALTHOUGH THE HISTORICAL
COMMITTEE HAD OTHERWISE, DEMANDED
�
"THE MIS ALIGNED OUTER BOARDS OFALATER ADD|TONTCTHE ORIGINAL HOUSE
HAVE TOBEALIGNED WITH ORIGINAL BOARDS AND THE FRONT HAD TOBE
SYMMETR|CALAROUND THE ENTRANCE PORCH'
VYEFEEL THAT THE PROVISO CALLING FOR CONTIGUOUS MOVEMENT OFR|GHT
ANGLED WALLS WHICH HAD TOD|5'ABSEMBLEDTDSATISFY ANOTHER TOWN
RpOUEST|GTORTURING LOGIC T0THE EXTREME
IF WE DID NO| PAY THE FINE, THEN NOBUILDING COULD RESTART ' HAD TOSIGN
TOVVNATTORNEY'SLEGAL DOCUMENT AGREEING TOTOVVN'SDEMANDS AND
CONDITIONS VVEPA|DTHERNEANDCALLEDTMEF|NEOUTRAGEOUS-TOVVN
OFFICIAL AGREED
APP 4CH,1 ECN PROCESS STAR1 ED OVER .AGAIN - REPEAT PAYMEty
EXCEPT THE S7 101 27 SCHOOL DISTRICT" PEF:
RESTARTED BUILDING PROCESS ABOUT IWO MO NTH ; LATER. AFTER TOWN OE( ICIAI_S
SSUED P[RM1TS
AFTER INSTALLING THE FRONT WALL WITH THE PORCH AND THE LE F-1 WALL ON THE
NEW FOUNDATION. I CONTACTED BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR ADVICE WITH THE
REQUESTED ALIGNING THE EXTERIOR BOARDS OF THE TWO WALLS - NC HELP WAS
OFFERED
INSTEAD WE WERE TOLD TO TEAR THEM ALL DOWN AND INSTALL ALL NEW WALLS
DID CONFIRM THE TOWNS REQUEST IN AN E-MAIL TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OFFICIAL COMPLAINED THAT THEY DID NOT APPRECIATE MY SENDING ALL
THESE CONFIRMING E-MAILS - DURING MY LATER REVIEW OF THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT 130 MASSOL AVENUE FILE, MOST OF MY MEMOS WERE NOT INCLUDED
NOR WAS THERE AN EARTHQUAKE REPORT - WHY NO ANSWER
WHAT REMAINS NOW OF THE OLD HOUSE ARE:
STUDS IN THE FRONT AND L.EFT WALL, THE TRIANGULAR TOP PORTION OF THE FRONT
WALL.. INCLUDING OUTSIDE BOARDS WHERE THEY DID NOT HAVE TC BE ALIGNED WITH
OTHER BOARDS
THE FRONT PORCH HAS NOW A HIDDEN STAINLESS STEEL CORSET SUPPORTING AND
LEVELING THE ORIGINAL SAGGING ROOF
STAINLESS BRACKETS WERE INSTALLED TO REINFORCE THE NEW WOODEN
EXTENSIONS REPLACING THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE FOUR POSTS WHICH HAD
ROTTED AWAY
SOME CORBELS WHICH HAD MISSING PORTIONS WERE REPLACED WITH NEW
CORBELS MATCHING THE ORIGINAL DESIGN
IF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAD ASSISTED WITH THE ALIGNING PROCESS
130 MASSOL AVENUE HOUSE WOULD EXCEED THE TOWN'S 50`c RULE BY 4%
ON JULY 6. 2010 TOWN ISSUED A LETTER STATING THAT,
"THE 130 MASSOL AVENUE HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED AND IS NO LONGER A
CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE HOWEVER. THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED IN THE ALMOND
GROVE DISTRICT AND REMAINS ON 1HE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY LIST"
DURING ONE OF THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS I BROUGHT UP THE FACT
THAT THE REBUILT TOLL HOUSE LOOKS JUST AS IT DID BEFORE, JUST NEW PAINT
TOWN OFFICIAL ADVISED THAT EVERY BOARD WAS INSPECTED AS TO ITS INTEGRITY
AND POSSIBLE RE -USE DURING THE RE -BUILDING PROCESS OF THE TOLL HOUSE
THE
u
'V%,'HY WE WIFIRE NOT EXTENDED THE SAME COURTESY, I DO NOT KNOW
c|NALBU|D|NGINSPECT ION JUNIF17.8GI1
EARLY281:� ATOWN OFFICIAL WHO KNEW A8OUTTHE FINE. VISITED AND STATED
THAT | SHOULD COMPLAIN TO THE iOVuN BECAUSE A BUILDER WITH CONNECTIONS
HAD COMPLETELYRAZED A19?'�CENTURY STRUCTURE \NTHE NEIGHBORHOOD TO
BUILD ANEW HOUSE -N0FINE WAS REOUESTED
APROMINENT CITIZEN OFTHE TOWN MENTIONED THE SAME |N'AFEBRUARY5.2013
LETTER TDTHE LOCAL NEWSPAPER
DURING AROUTINE MEETING WITH ANEXMAYOR OFTHE TOWN HESUGGESTED THAT
ISEND ALETTER TOTHE TOWN MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY
DID SEND THE LETTERS ONJULY31.2O18'NOANSWER
SENT LETTER TOTOWN MAYOR REQUESTING ASSISTANCE ONSEPTEMBER10.2U13
RE -SEND LETTERS VIA CERTIFIED MAIL ONDCTOBER18.2O13
RECIPIENTS APOLOGIZED BLAMED STAFF FOR NOT FORWARDING [MEORIGINAL
CORRESPONDENCE
DURING THE TWO SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WITH TOWN MANAGEMENT |PROTESTED
THE FINE WHICH I BELIEVE MADE US OUT TO BE CRIMINALS
|NADDITION ( LEARNED THE FOLLOWING:
TOWN WILL NOT IDENTIFY THE FOUR CONTRACTORS WHO COMPLAINED:
'TOWN DEPENDS INFORMERS"
SINCE THE RE -BUILDING PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED CLANDEST|NELYDURING
THE NIGHT AND REGULAR INSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED, VVEFAIL TDUNDERSTAND
WHY THE TOWN DEPENDED ONFOUR INFORMERS
&CCOHD(NGTOOUR CONTRACTOR ONE INDIVIDUAL SPEND SEVERAL DAYS TAKING
PHOTOGRAPHS DURING THE \N|T|A| PHASES OFTHE RE -BUILDING PROCESS WHEN
APPROACHED, MGDROVE OFF
TOWN CLAIMS NOPHOTOGRAPHS WERE SUBMITTED BYTHE FOUR CONTRACTORS
WHO COMPLAINED
THE "CONTRACTOR WITH CONNECTIONS" AND HIS RAZING ANEIGHBORHOOD
STRUCTURE WAS LABELED "DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES"
"YOU SIGNED TOYVNSLEGAL DOCUMENT AGC3REBNGTUTHE FINE" (TOWN ADMITTED
THAT !TWAS SIGNED UNDER DURESS)
:HE 7 OWN ALSO DEMANDS HAT IF MORE THAN 40% OF EXTERIOR WALLS ARE TO BF
DISCARDED. THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER HAVE TC SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT
THIS WAS NOT DONE - REASON: DRAWING STATES THAT ONLY 39.1% OF EXTERIOR
VIIALLS WILL BE AFFECTED WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AFFIDAVIT REQUEST
THE DRAWING NOTATION IS IN ERROR 46% vVERE TO BE REMOVED - THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT CHECKER MUST HAVE MISSED THE ERROR AS WELL
BUILDING DEPARTMENT STATED THAT BECAUSE THE ARCHITECT'S CALCULATIONS OF
39.1% OF WALLS TO BE REMOVED WAS SO CLOSE TO THE 40% TRIGGER, HE WAS
ASKED TO SIGN A BUILDING DEPARTMENT AFFIDAVIT — BUILDING DEPARTMENT
STATED THAT HE REFUSED
THAT STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE - THE ARCHITECT WAS NEVER ASKED TO SIGN
ANYTHING AND THEREFORE DID NOT REFUSE ANY REQUEST
THE APRIL 17, 2014 E-MAIL FROM THE TOWN WAS THE LAST COMMUNICATION:
Mr SchmiCt
My apotogte.s:
had recently Informed the Mayor v believed me only outstanding items teoarding your
tratter v.,e7e Ty takrrig you u;.: on your of1et to host e oelohborhood coffee lot rne. to hear
you! roots directly wt-ricri is stilt my infer:Iron If you are wining and tc address wilt-, V-16
Ccii ne poricy matter of apprornate fines anc penalties or future circumstances SACri
yours That policy rnatlet has nol yet been scheciuteci giver, the press 01 other Council b,r.i.wess
.incersd Mat yty, .-err si ariticipairrig pubric 1 escrncling the prior
actrer,-i.eot yob executed will7, Tok,,r; and rettnriuisenieol of the periallieS you pain purstlaril
Giv&nr pa!t-.'4 Pi!t?..fitoertitariorio v biscuss this With the Mayor at
rriestirrL ersc' dele,rmine the Eif)Pfc',j';alis rlexl sell
All !hit! r..`mO. • (5) v,,artt asswe haveVULec;:n ,Ve YOU Vif WE:
Med Ot,f
adopted (co: tor htolooc. l'esetvallon demotition tiave led to. Me unfortunate.
tcy vc)o,
WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THE TOWN'S ACTIONS WERE DISCRIMINATORY AND
INCONSISTENT - ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO FORCING US TO SIGN AN ONEROUS
AGREEMENT
WE REQUEST THAT THE FINE BE RETURNED TO US AND THAT PROCESS
IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE SO OTHERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE,
AND THAT THE PRESERVATION OF OUR TOWN BUILDINGS CAN BE UNDERTAKEN IN A
MORE SENSIBLE MANNER.
Correspondence
Photos
ber B9-447 & B9-0448
Good Afternoon Mrs_ Davis,
We are ready to proceed with the restoration of the referenced single
family house.
During a pre -construction meeting with the Town of Los Gatos
Inspector (Mr. Robert Harper) and the contractor (Mr, Paul
Dominguez), it was determined that additional guidance (beyond that
provided during the two year design process) from the Historic
Preservation Committee would be needed.
Specifically, it relates to the preservation and re -use of some of the
existing exterior walls. According to Mr. Harper a similar situation
had to be resolved at a Bayview Avenue project.
Please let me know what procedures have to be followed to effect a
site visit by the committee.
I am looking forward to your response.
Sincerely, Dieter
Good Afternoon Jennifer,
Thank you for today's update regarding the work stoppage request by the Town
o Los Gatos.
Needless to say that Sarin and I are very disappointed that no explanations have
been detailed with respect to what rules or regulations were violated.
It was two weeks ago today (Tuesday, July 6, 2010) that our contractor, Mr. Paul
Dominguez. a builder with a long history of building and refurbishing homes in
Los Gatos, including the Almond Grove District. called me from the site and
related the work stoppage request.
Quote: " Dieter, we have a problem. The inspector just visited and requested that
all work be stopped imrnediately. Four contractors complained to the Town of
Los Gatos that 'too much house was being removed'. This many complaints
require the Town to act".
Paul and I met with you the following Wednesday. You confirmed the Town's
request and speculated that a meeting with your supervisor that afternoon or the
following day (Thursday) should result in some explanation. At the time you
stated that the reason for the complaint was the moving and storing of the
'to -be -saved' walls separately, rather than contiguously.
A search of my meeting notes (I attended all meetings with the Town's
representatives over the past two and half years) and a review of the
architectural drawings signed by the Town's various departments, do not direct
the builder to move walls contiguously.
The Historical Committee specifically requested that misaligned horizontal
exterior boards be re -arranged to result in a continuous seam. This request can
only be met by separating the two walls in question or removing and re -aligning
all the exterior boards.
I am sure that Mr. Dominguez can explain in more detail what steps have to be
taken to satisfy the Committee's detailed request.
The signed building drawings do carry a notation that the front porch was 'not to
be removed from the front wall, except for rotten and/or termite destroyed
portions. That turned out to be the entire support structure.
This was done.
Jennifer, you can imagine that Simin, Paul, the immediate neighbors, and I are at
loss to appreciate anybody's complaint, especially since no effort was spared to
submit a design that saves as much
of the old structure as practical, tat the appearance will be identical to what was
there before, and rnake the addition as unobtrusive as possible.
Ne are looking forward to hearing from you and your department staff soon,
Paul and I are available to meet with you, your supervisor, or any other
department staff members
at any time convenient to you all,
Let us try to get this resolved now.
Thank you, Dieter
Hello Mike,
Thank you for your and Mr. Harpei s review of the exterior siding
problem
This is to confirm that the Town of Los Gatos has decided to allow
the abandonment of the existing exterior boards of the two (front
and left) sides of the house which were moved and put back into
their assigned positions.
They will have to be replaced by boards of like size and cross
section.
The existing studs will remain and will be reinforced by new 2 x 6
studs as required.
The existing porch structure will be maintained and any decayed
portions will be mended as needed.
Please let us know if the above accurately reflects your and Mr.
Harper's decision
Please forgive if the preceding summary appears petty, we are
only trying to avoid another expensive and building -time delaying
"misunderstanding".
I am looking forward to your reply and our next meeting.
Take care. Dieter
;., < <'• '
'NI
130 Messof Avenue
Los Gatos. GA 95030
july 31, 2013
Mr. G-eg Larson
Town Manager
lo+.vn of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Ref. 130 Massol Avenue
Dear Mr Larson
During a routine meeting with our Town's former mayor, Mr Steve Rice, I mentioned our intention
to write a letter to the Town Council requesting a review of the Building Department's actions
during our re -building effort of the subject property.
Mr. Rice's suggestion was to first request a meeting with you and the Town Attorney,
Ms Judith Propp
We are requesting a review of your Building Department criminalizing our actions during the initial
building phase and demanding a tine of $82,950.00 prior to allowing building to resume, resulting
in a two months delay and additional costs
Central to this event were allegations by tour contractors that we intentionally ignored the
Demolition Affidavit regarding "walls -to -be -saved'
This Demolition Affidavit was never presented by your Building Department at any time nor
signed by anybody
In fact, after saving the walls in question, we solicited assistance from your Building Department
as to how all Town Preservation Committee requests could be met without violating the 'save -the
walis' demands, we were told to replace all walls with new lumber
In light of the events related above, we are requesting re -payment of the tine plus interest and
other costs incurred because of the delay and the revoking of the Building Department's initial
request
Please let us know when we can meet at a location and time convenient to you and Ms. Propp
Thank you, respectfutly,
Dieter Schmidt
cc* Ms. Judith Propp
Mr Steve Rice
130 MasseA Avenue
Los Gatos., CA 95030
September 10, 2013
Ms, Barbara Spector
Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Ref 130 Massol Avenue
Dear Ms, Spector,
On July 31, 2013 we mailed a letter to our Town Manager, Mr, Greg Larson, and
our Town Attorney, Ms, Judith Propp, requesting a meeting to review the
building/planning departments' demand for an unwarranted fine.
Since our former Mayor, Mr. Steve Rice received his copy, we assumeassumethat both
letters reached their addressees.
Whether the vacation season interfered we do not know, but we have not
received any response to date.
We are enlisting your assistance to review our request and provide guidance as
how to proceed
Thank you, respectfufly.
Dieter Schmidt
att.
cc: Mr Steven Leonardis, Vice -Mayor w/a
tt
From: Owlet Schmidt ImaiticIthelerExi.04.)arl...)eh rie11 Sent: Monday
No---2en-ber 04. 201310:14 ANA.To!. Janette Judr.iSubjert: f\lieetpc1
Good Morning Mrs_ Judd.
After last week's meeting with Mr. 1 arson, he suggested to meet again
tomorrowbut to confirm with you first.
i have one of those miserable travel weeks ahead of me, I would appreciate
if you could help setting an different day for me to meet with Mr, Larson.
I never know when customers call, but next week or ater should be OK.
Sorry I missed you last week, take care, Dieter
From: Janette Judd Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:22 AMTo:
Greg LarsonSubject: FW: (D.Schmidt) Meeting request
FYI
will be contacting Mr Schmidt to schedule ime with you
next week (week of Nov. 1.)
JJ
FW: (DSch id ) Meeting
request
From Greg Larson
To. diel4r5x(pactell.,net
ce Janette -Judd
TVir Schmidr.,
Thank you for the meeting last week and our thoughtful and
respectful discussion, and to following up to -schedule our
continuing discussion next week as you are available,
1\11arIr
•vve.rel We Lave taKE-t-:! not hanne,n
addition, have since met with the Mayor and Vice Mayor
regarding the handling and substance of your case. Per their
eguest. f am sending you this email and am following -up on
additional issues they have raised regarding your concerns. We
can discuss this more fully when we meet next week.
Again, my apologies for the delays in responding to and the
mishandling of your communications. Regardless of the
outcome of this matter, please do know that we are giving it our
utmost attention.
Greg Larson
Town Manager
From: BSpector <BSpector@losgatosca.gov>
To: "dieter5x@pacbeil,net" <dieter5x@sacbell.net?
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 329 PM
Subject: Your correspondence
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
As you arc now aware. town staff did not to ward anv of voun-
letters to me.
I first learned of your concerns this past Friday and was only able
to discuss them with Mr. Larson yesterday.
understand that you will be continuing your discussions with Mr.
Larson. If you would like to talk, please call
me at 408 781-5213.
Regards,
Barbara Spector
Mayor
Good Morntnq Mr. Larson,
Thank you for our October 29, 2013 meeting to review our complaint
regarding your Building Department criminalizing our actions during
the initial re -building phase of the subject property and demanding a
fine of $82,950,00 prior to allowing building to resume, resulting in a
two months delay and additional costs estimated at $9,000.00.
The folio ing is a synopsis of my recollections of our meeting,
An owner and contractor signature was not required because
the "walls to be removed" did not exceed 40%. Because the
architect's calculation of 39.1% "walls to be removed" was so
close to the 40% trigger, he was asked to sign a building
department submitted affidavit,
2, A "Stop Work Noticewas issued on July 6, 2010. Reason: "Four
(4) contractors have complained to the Town forcing the Town to
act"
3 During all subsequent meetings with the building/planning
departments., the contractor and were told that the "to be saved
walls" had to be moved in a contiguous fashion
You presented the "Agreement for Payment of Fine" which we
were forced to sign prior to being allowed to resume construction.
You asked:
"Have all payments been made?"
"According to the Town's regulations no affidavit had to be signed.
I can only go by the words on the agreement you signed, that you
will pay the fine without further dispute even if the Town had
presented an affidavit and your architect had acknowledged it by
affixing his signature, How does that action take precedence over
the agreement you signed"?
5. The Town's 130 Massol file includes two statements:
July 26, 2010 — 130 Massol Avenue was demolished and is not
longer a contributing structure but remains on the historic
resources inventory list.
December 16, 2010 — 130 Massol Avenue, a contributing structure
to the Almond Grove Historic District, was demolished
6. Assuming that all your allegations are correct. Town staff can not
reimburse any monies because of the agreement you signed to
pay the fine. Your attorney and the Town's attorney may have to
get involved.
You agreed to get an explanation why none of my e-mails were
included in the Town's 130 Massol file. You further agreed to look
into the alleged code violations by other contractors (without being
fined) as presented to us and implied in a letter to the editor of the
local newspaper.
We shall see how it all ends. We will meet tomorrow.
Sincerely, Dieter
November 14, 2013
11 /24/13
Good Sunday Afternoon Mr Lars
Thank you for our second meeting last Friday regarding our
complaint about your building department criminalizing our
actions during the initial re -building rase of 130 Massol
Avenue.
We reviewed my November 14, 2013 summary of our first
meeting on October 29, 2013.
Here is a summary of last Friday's meeting:
Ad 1.
You produced a letter, dated September 10, 2009 with
enclosures addressed to me by your Building Official, Mr.
Anthony Ghiossy.
The letter's enclosures consisted of a ten -page letter, dated
September 9, 2009, addressed to Mr. Ghiossy by Ms. Susan
O'Brian of "O'Brian Code Consulting, Inc." plus a one page
Santa Clara Fire Department "Plan Review Comments"
letter.
Ms. O'Brian's Plan Review letter included a Demolition
Affidavit notation, Paragraph A4 — A. page 3.
The paragraph states that signatures are required from the
architect, engineer, contractor, and property owner prior to
issuing a building permit.
You requested lo check with the architect again whether he
is familiar with the above document and why he refused to
sign it
HeedinQ exOlanations COrrennons
refet red to the amended drawings. References and
comments were scribbled on the left aide margins of the
letter, The drawings were re -submitted with the architect's
"wet" signature,.
The "Demolition Affidavit" paragraph carries the notation:
Will be signed at the time or applying for the demo permir
do not know how the annotated original letter was returned
to your staff, but it must have been received, otherwise the
vermit would not have been issued,
Vfiten I picked rip the permit no ihention was made to Sign
ar documents or affidavits, or check covering the tee
Ad2.
The Town does not divulge the name of informants. The
Town's people are very possessive when it conies to
keeping their community pure. The Town depends on its
citizens to report whatever they consider an infringement on
their views as to how others should behave.
iks
t)reSer\fatiitin 1:;(7.:Triditlittee.ififairititsci idtok.,
Ad 3, and 4.
Acknowledged.
No additicnal cornments.
Ad 5.
Because the two walls in question were not moved in a
contiguous fashion, it is considered a demolition. l recognize
that the walls had been re -assembled to form the corner "as
was", but the separation constitutes demolition.
dAihaf difference lt makes as to :IOW portions of a bulidind moved and re-asserribled into their original positions v,./e
not underclaa.
ne (:),,r,,/ft's Litstcyffr
tc) as (c)H-t-lc; as
(atetr:-tto trlf? stfuctier,iiiie
(in Ai...ft...itist 15, 2009 serin ::Etter to lita:2 [91\„asi,on
that vve. read attici understood 'Oka 4,8 Gonditioris
,Approval' dated May 1
Atter the ',.evaHs were maintained and incorporated into the
new structure (photo in your possession). we were told to
abandon them Why?
Maybe your staff should revisit trte current demolition
and generate more sensible guidelines.
Ad 6
Acknowledged
Nc,
Ad 7. 1.
These e-mails/letters should have been included in the 130
Massol Avenue file
Ad 7.2.
Violations by other contractors.
hear no1
Simin and 1 want to thank you for your letter explaining why It
took tree letters and 83 days to get a response from your
office,
Our "then Mayor, Ms. Spector, also sent us an e-mail
explaining the delay.
Our "now" Mayor, Mr. Leonardis, paid us a visit and gave us
a chance to show that Simin and I respect the community
and it's values and have every interest in living with our
neighbors in harmony.
When I suggested that you should make it a habit to visit
with the people whose affairs you manage, you said that you
already made it part of your 2014 plans. I applaud that.
We are delighted that you agreed to visit with us at 130
Massol Avenue either coming Tuesday or Wednesday.
Your family and your staff are more than welcome to
accompany you.
Maybe we can demonstrate that we are hardly the criminals
your fine makes us out to be.
Please let us know what day and time you will arrive.
Sincerely, Dieter
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
1990
2015