Attachment 5 - Applicant's Background & Request received February 25, 2015RECEIVED
FED 2 5 20$
February 25. 2015 TOWN MANAGp�
0
T8 Massol Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
The Honorable Mayor Marcia Jensen
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
Ref.: 130 Massol Avenue
Dear Mrs. Mayor,
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.
Than you�respectfully
Dieter Schmidt
att.
cc: Vice Mayor, Town Council Members & Town Manager w /att
ATTACHMENT 5
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2015
+<(Yk -02,C,.c-e< �
TOWN MANAGER
130 Massol Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Chronology of Events
1990 - 2015
OUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WHICH WE BUILT IN 1971, WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED
DURING THE 1989 EARTHQUAKE
BOUGHT THE 130 MASSOL AVENUE HOUSE IN 1990 SINCE WE WERE UNABLE TO USE
OUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE
THE BANKS HAD THE PROPERTY APPRAISED
LAND: $285,000.00 HOUSE: $0.00
ORIGINAL LOAN OFFER WITHDRAWN - NO FOUNDATION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 TOOK
2 YEARS
IN 1994 1 MET WITH THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE TO EXPLORE WHAT COULD BE DONE
WITH THE 130 MASSOL AVENUE HOUSE
DURING THE MEETING I LEARNED WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMITTEE AT
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
STARTED THE REHABILITATION PROCESS IN 2007 - SELECTED AN ARCHITECT WHO
HAD DONE PRO BONO WORK IN LOS GATOS
HE TALKED ME INTO LETTING ONE OF HIS FRIENDS ACCOMPANY ME TO ALL
COMMITTEE MEETINGS BECAUSE "HE KNOWS LOS GATOS TOWN STAFF WELL - PALO
ALTO AND LOS GATOS HISTORICAL COMMITTEES ARE NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT"
JUST THE OPPOSITE - MEETINGS WITH THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE WERE CORDIAL -
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE HELPFUL IN GETTING DESIGN APPROVED - FOR WHAT IT
IS WORTH: THE CONCEPT WAS CREATED BY MY BROTHER -IN -LAW
WE COULD HAVE SAVED A MAJOR PORTION OF THE ARCHITECT FRIEND'S "HELP" COST
OF $19,514.18
TOWN LETTER, DATED MAY 19, 2009 STATED THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEWS HAVE
BEEN COMPLETED AND PLANS ARE APPROVED - REMAING FRONT AND LEFT WALLS
ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE NEW STRUCTURE
NO COMMENTS REGARDING CONTIGUOUS MOVEMENT OF WALLS OR ANY OTHER
DIRECTIONS
RECEIVED BUILDING PERMIT IN 2010 - NO MENTION OF ANY SPECIFIC ORDINANCES
OTHER THAN THE "BOILER PLATE" TYPE
SELECTED A CONTRACTOR WHO HAD BUILT HOUSES IN LOS GATOS
STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED JULY 6, 2010, REASON:
"FOUR CONTRACTORS HAVE COMPLAINED TO THE TOWN - WE HAVE TO ACT" -
CONTRACTORS WERE NOT IDENTIFIED
FINE $82,950.00 -"WALLS TO BE MAINTAINED WERE NOT MOVED IN A CONTIGOUS
FASHION" AS PRESCRIBED BY TOWN ORDINANCE ALTHOUGH THE HISTORICAL
COMMITTEE HAD OTHERWISE DEMANDED:
"THE MIS - ALIGNED OUTER BOARDS OF A LATER ADDITON TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE
HAVE TO BE ALIGNED WITH ORIGINAL BOARDS AND THE FRONT HAD TO BE
SYMMETRICAL AROUND THE ENTRANCE PORCH"
WE FEEL THAT THE PROVISO CALLING FOR CONTIGUOUS MOVEMENT OF RIGHT
ANGLED WALLS WHICH HAD TO DIS- ASSEMBLED TO SATISFY ANOTHER TOWN
REQUEST IS TORTURING LOGIC TO THE EXTREME
IF WE DID NOT PAY THE FINE, THEN NO BUILDING COULD RESTART - HAD TO SIGN
TOWN ATTORNEY'S LEGAL DOCUMENT AGREEING TO TOWN'S DEMANDS AND
CONDITIONS - WE PAID THE FINE AND CALLED THE FINE OUTRAGEOUS - TOWN
OFFICIAL AGREED
APPLICATION PROCESS STARTED OVER AGAIN - REPEAT PAYMENT OF ALL FEES
EXCEPT THE $7,101.27 SCHOOL DISTRICT FEE
RESTARTED BUILDING PROCESS ABOUT TWO MONTHS LATER, AFTER TOWN OFFICIALS
ISSUED PERMITS
AFTER INSTALLING THE FRONT WALL WITH THE PORCH AND THE LEFT WALL ON THE
NEW FOUNDATION, I CONTACTED BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR ADVICE WITH THE
REQUESTED ALIGNING THE EXTERIOR BOARDS OF THE TWO WALLS - NO HELP WAS
OFFERED
INSTEAD WE WERE TOLD TO TEAR THEM ALL DOWN AND INSTALL ALL NEW WALLS
I DID CONFIRM THE TOWN'S 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 LEFT WALL, THE TRIANGULAR TOP PORTION OF THE FRONT
WALL INCLUDING OUTSIDE BOARDS WHERE THEY DID NOT HAVE TO 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, THE
130 MASSOL AVENUE HOUSE WOULD EXCEED THE TOWN'S 50% 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 THE 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
WHY WE WERE NOT EXTENDED THE SAME COURTESY, I DO NOT KNOW
FINAL BUIDING INSPECTION: JUNE 17, 2011
EARLY 2013 A TOWN OFFICIAL WHO KNEW ABOUT THE FINE, VISITED AND STATED
THAT I SHOULD COMPLAIN TO THE TOWN BECAUSE A BUILDER WITH CONNECTIONS
HAD COMPLETELY RAZED A 19T" CENTURY STRUCTURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO
BUILD A NEW HOUSE - NO FINE WAS REQUESTED
A PROMINENT CITIZEN OF THE TOWN MENTIONED THE SAME IN A FEBRUARY 5, 2013
LETTER TO THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER
DURING A ROUTINE MEETING WITH AN EX MAYOR OF THE TOWN HE SUGGESTED THAT
I SEND A LETTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY
DID SEND THE LETTERS ON JULY 31, 2013 - NO ANSWER
SENT LETTER TO TOWN MAYOR REQUESTING ASSISTANCE ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
RE -SEND LETTERS VIA CERTIFIED MAIL ON OCTOBER 18, 2013
RECIPIENTS APOLOGIZED - BLAMED STAFF FOR NOT FORWARDING THE ORIGINAL
CORRESPONDENCE
DURING THE TWO SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WITH TOWN MANAGEMENT 1 PROTESTED
THE FINE WHICH I BELIEVE MADE US OUT TO BE CRIMINALS
IN ADDITION I LEARNED THE FOLLOWING:
TOWN WILL NOT IDENTIFY THE FOUR CONTRACTORS WHO COMPLAINED:
"TOWN DEPENDS INFORMERS"
SINCE THE RE- BUILDING PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED CLANDESTINELY DURING
THE NIGHT AND REGULAR INSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND
WHY THE TOWN DEPENDED ON FOUR INFORMERS
ACCORDING TO OUR CONTRACTOR ONE INDIVIDUAL SPEND SEVERAL DAYS TAKING
PHOTOGRAPHS DURING THE INITIAL PHASES OF THE RE- BUILDING PROCESS - WHEN
APPROACHED, HE DROVE OFF
TOWN CLAIMS NO PHOTOGRAPHS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE FOUR CONTRACTORS
WHO COMPLAINED
THE "CONTRACTOR WITH CONNECTIONS" AND HIS RAZING A NEIGHBORHOOD
STRUCTURE WAS LABELED "DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES"
"YOU SIGNED TOWN'S LEGAL DOCUMENT AGGREEING TO THE FINE" (TOWN ADMITTED
THAT IT WAS SIGNED UNDER DURESS)
THE TOWN ALSO DEMANDS THAT IF MORE THAN 40% OF EXTERIOR WALLS ARE TO BE
DISCARDED, THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER HAVE TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT
THIS WAS NOT DONE - REASON: DRAWING STATES THAT ONLY 39.1% OF EXTERIOR
WALLS WILL BE AFFECTED WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AFFIDAVIT REQUEST
THE DRAWING NOTATION IS IN ERROR, 46% WERE 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. Schmidt.
My apologies.
I had recently informed the Mayor that I believed the only outstanding items regarding your
matter were my taking you up on your offer to host a neighborhood coffee for me to hear from
your neighbors directly, which is still my intention if you are willing. and to address with the
Council the policy matter of appropriate fines and penalties for future circumstances such as
yours. That policy matter has not yet been scheduled given the press of other Council business.
I did not understand that you were still anticipating public consideration of rescinding the prior
agreement you executed with the Town and reimbursement of the penalties you paid pursuant to
that agreement. Given my apparent misunderstanding. I will discuss this with the Mayor at our
next meeting and determine the appropriate next steps
All that said, I do want to assure you that in no way have you been or are you viewed as a
'criminal." Instead. I believe staff has repeatedly tried to share our consternation as to how the
Town adopted codes for historic preservation, demolition and fines have led to the unfortunate
circumstance for your property.
And best wishes tc, you, too, for the arrival of Spring
Greg Larson, Town Manager
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
Permit Number: B09 -0447 & B09 -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
of Los Gatos.
Needless to say that Simin 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 immediately. 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, that the appearance will be identical to what was
there before, and make the addition as unobtrusive as possible.
We 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. Harper'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
��1j_L� i
VIII --, <_i rt'II qt l.n:i l l l I I >vfll, „I
't'I:v'i1 i':IUI_.:I1111,nta llu IrW :,I!nID�L u'I n,�cu;iru —.1, u„�
Sect iou. if I:i "-: hill l � ; Is it head roarI n n
I'I, ie. rafill st:muI I iz ;1;, hit;L,ohuul, hr La -I'll Ili, if :m]
o Ia-if',Il�ut- chill li,,I l:hil,,;iud lilt, ,!hl t'ora,'al
.tiro it n l t'h:unpil,mhip. I” I in mw s,
Rut lik1 his prcdrvrs >ar. ('ill lolicu. \la1'h li roil i� n
1, Cher :and L,ader nlAnnnn r.!11' ficri rain ❑ cnac•h se( I fill
Willi' `ainninp uanue is ilupurl:ml to hint he is -I dill,.
,i•ronn': clod Ihat his pla\-e1 :.:Ire pond studvnt, al ¢! a „ofI
wit i>cl1- on I ho high .vhl w I rill I pus :old in I hr cu: nn 1111 it -
�Iu.Ikiaeellhrc,ln,lnw;it% lir;ill ,,opts tilt iunl lral!
In - •1;r1:v. -! Ill iut'In. <n,'I dluiuT.I,11h1.,cil
I It 1 1 l -i i1 xq;,•d. 111. n, 1. t 1`: a 11 1 stud1.11s fill
13 111 I -lo II:1,u u'ark rrcul'fl of doily
hi=tiII” :I, a c,,,1'h al I'it nrf`r iIi 1:a1.1 „�
hrnil vI' Is , Vlectod out tit pool nl'yualilit d Igiplic;utl
.� lilt I I adc Iho chiller all (hilt much murrdiff icull if .1 1 l
!lino_ eno ill itI l;Lit vvv ho!icrf -,hill Iv 'ail is thv rich:
,'h, lirr and tit' bust r;oxlidnte Io torte nn I ho u'al lit i, rcl
,tai it Lor Gal, s font6;111_
Hark k1111 Vy a'ci, his l d: rcrl :: <tI x'd: i1111P1 uli j If lulu
erll ❑,nn;hr 5t`!d. vat tso lull h: a by t; 1111 x� v, II?
.0 l A rte( lal l I.:wd 1.” I,,ju<t llnr i n fir. a ILP l l: u l IIli I,
Ii irewell, Mary Ann
I� nailha!iltlr- rdul�s�.alonl. ,tplllnn :l,lu,�,i, .
>, tlu,` vr•.� h -
II uro:hnYM lrt _tit 1ut;i1, :,, `
� :. r -. .Iii � - I,ai :V I.(❑ ', II _...
I
U
Ir
I I
1PA'C'A CJ 11 I1: j If: tAr
" :,lily in rn n'crrnunl;
I el•ninr 1 Ih. ,III 1. Gill
:.1n IiI N'F .,fill ;1n A'unc AI
CI, n 1
DILL 111 I,Iht4111A .11 If
,.,.
;fir::- cubunrr vat
J1�; 1,ur
' > Ir 1 +1!11 nusxed bt h1 11 t
.,G, v
I ' -in, ,. '111(1 }�;,pi t „I n 1�',',
• -51,11 a {II -111 ,1,1', � :�;
herb Is- t;n•�1,:n ,nIIl,t I
trn, fittich I iiti 9'o111n: v: IL'1I it
t <anrs in.dl,nciup •`, hill :ind
of ,hop, tvn open ill lnvtl �.
h ra ill rr.:111 vpi n -h
Irvl'nliI I)n of "nut
l iMIR.': Pl ilpl t ov,-d in I_ot
Yvi tire: dluwod th,
t •hill l lh,•I' l if l'� nun ll`rc•
nut thin o.yn•u�n', nornlii
Nov. t h.d', +,.c, I ; I on.\i -, ,'.
:Ind I, not :dlrncr(I ac( of
in;! tuuti urdiunnti� <.'(I;..
did lilt, saua- 111111” liw;l
nut iun:d p! n Ill, c, mlpal n-
!'ranchiso slon'-
Alsa.the wi -ltd oar
'm It council into bo!ict
i Ig 111; d lilt, 111j,:1h" of l l p
movi1. lheator ;,s lr'r•al
,.pact• Purauvv,'Ir.0 ill or,:1
till' 11 ]]ill to hint• Io paA' I,.;
;Idditiunal parl<iuk',pact'.
Then ;I prnnlillonl buillL„
%vilh 1 unlit ic. I; .. onrcl iol)
vv :u ml filit (I G" - .cr;IJI
111111:,,
t I
,111 \'t•� : I 1 .1 ui :'. I
�pPt I "t I I 11 1 l t Mnllul'r
opinion on thesil
Letter, (o i l le vdit t o
t'nI1lI110111,lr \' I)jeccs
c.il't0OU- dn111'1 tit'it_
I I'i IN I I ' f If 1. t Ill(' c'di Lr'.
ullhi1o11 nth, Ala °i:h -
'�I'V141 :r
vequesi �(W L)
public hearing
about Tenplal
1;nn o'rit inp Il,. n: n-
,lot- u(1nf1n, in nlll, 1, AVIl
?hocked Ih:lt o
�'I:I. L11 Tl n,pin tilrn'
nml.!II, vtit lit nu :,uy Inlhln
,IJI n 111 ICI V
!V n ynr.i till l> L, I n ❑ ""
,anrvd. 9 Vill, i- not I chain
toi?i'r shop or an Anleril':,i,
Appm-el dial uds cuted
1!u\rn IIc 1110 po+vrrs I lilt
hr in Lox Galas mid thal v ,
hear about in Lilo \Voekh'
This !..f,nicthine'
tint rt,111% kill a +Ih' color
;e lt'r'1 ,olc ;,Pocl nnl nrdt
1'nl l ll liC'rC0 111 ill ll' told II I n''
M1,K'11n, ni off
Inc'lI our
-IMIth pot.
'.'it I, I'S lI
I,
I,
130 Massol Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
July 31, 2013
Mr. Greg Larson
Town Manager
Town 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 fine 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 four 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
walls" 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 fine 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, respectfully,
Dieter Schmidt
cc: Ms. Judith Propp
Mr. Steve Rice
130 Massol 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 assume that 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, respectfully,
Dieter Schmidt
aft.
cc: Mr. Steven Leonardis, Vice -Mayor w /att
From: Dieter Schmidt [mailto:dieter5x@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday.
November 04. 2013 10.14 AMTo: Janette JuddSubject: Meeting
Good Morning Mrs. Judd.
After last week's meeting with Mr. Larson, he suggested to meet again
tomorrow, but 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 later 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: FIN: (D.Schmidt) Meeting request
FYI -
I will be contacting Mr. Schmidt to schedule a time with you
next week (week of Nov. 11.)
JJ
FW: (D.Schmidt) Meeting
request
trom Greg Larson to you + 1 more
From Greg Larson
To dieter5x @pacbell, net
CC Janette Judd
Mr. Schmidt,
Thank you for the meeting last week and our thoughtful and
respectful discussion, and for following up to schedule our
continuing discussion next week as you are available.
I also want to follow -up in writing to reiterate what I told you
when we met: the delay in considering your request was totally
my responsibility. I apologize that the Mayor and Vice Mayor
did not receive your prior communications until last week after
we met. We have taken steps to ensure this will not happen
again.
In addition, I have since met with the Mayor and Vice Mayor
regarding the handling and substance of your case. Per their
request, I 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 @pacbell.net" <dieter5x @pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 3:29 PM
Subject: Your correspondence
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
As you are now aware, town staff did not forward any of your
letters to me.
I first learned of your concerns this past Friday and was only able
to discuss them with Mr. Larson yesterday.
I 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 Morning 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 following is a synopsis of my recollections of our meeting:
I. 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.
The architect, Mr. Roaten Hinson, stated on
after our meeting that he was never asked to sign
any building department document(s), therefore, he
did not refuse his signature
2. A "Stop Work Notice' was issued on July 6, 2010. Reason: "Four
(4) contractors have complained to the Town forcing the Town to
act ".
The contractors were not identified. Our contractor recalls that a
series of photographs were taken by an unidentified person
cruising Mlassol Avenue and the alley.
When approached. he would hurry away. We do riot know
whether any these photos were submitted to the Town as part of
the cor- ,!factors complaint
3. During all subsequent meetings with the building /planning
departments, the contractor and I were told that the "to be saved
walls" had to be moved in a contiguous fashion.
�:!li' <.i0i u, ❑!;> I,� U,1i,11) i`Ii„ li)sifuction meeting the o-
emphasis was on moving the front wall and the porch withcul
separation, this was done.
The short North wall which meant to be saved according to the
drawing, did not exist. It was removed during one of the many
additions /changes to the original house.
The 'less than 40c�,o clause" was never mentioned
4. 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 ?"
All payments were made accormnc to the I own =- tteied schec,
(August 27, 2010, October 27. 2010, November 18, 2010, MarcP�
"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 "?
schedule did not allow any time for
delays, especially not a two months delay. We made
commitments to vacate the house we occupied at a certain date,
no postponements. Our signature was provided under duress to
put it mildly. Extortion seems to be a more apt description
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.
Your Demolition Affidavit states that demolition of a structure
means "demolition of more than 50% of all exterior wall areas'
Does that mean that the structure was riot demolished prior to
abandoning the saved exterior walls as requested by the Town?
(see pdf sketches and photograph - attached).
This all is very ironic to us considering that the Town demolished
their own magnificent house and retreated into a brick and
concrete bunker which does net add anything to the Towr c
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.
7. 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.
Mr- Larson, I do not know of any organization that does riot
"suffer" from staff cliques who indulge in friendships between
groups inside and outside the organization. Some call it
professional incest. Whether that is the case here, I can only
speculate, but it hurts when you feel you are on the receiving end
of real or imagined conspiracy.
My wife and I do not take the matter lightly, we resent being
labeled criminals
Sl akespear's Othello comes to mind
Good name in man and woman, dear my lord
Is the immediate jewel of their souls
Who steals my purse steals trash, it is nothing
But he who filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed
We shall see how it all ends. We will meet tomorrow.
Sincerely, Dieter
November 14, 2013
11/24/13
Good Sunday Afternoon Mr. Larson,
Thank you for our second meeting last Friday regarding our
complaint about your building department criminalizing our
actions during the initial re- building phase 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 to check with the architect again whether he
is familiar with the above document and why he refused to
sign it.
Mir. Hinson, our architect, did review his Tile and found the
letters and confirmed that he had answered all comments as
necessary.
Most paragraphs needing explanations or corrections
referred to the amended drawings. References and
comments were scribbled on the left side 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 of applying for the demo permit" .
I do not know how the annotated original letter was returned
to your staff, but it must have been received, otherwise the
permit would not have been issued.
When I picked up the permit no mention was made to sign
any documents or affidavits, only a check covering the fee
was requested.
Clearly, your staff must have known it as well. but nothing
was said, offered or requested.
Ad 2.
The Town does not divulge the name of informants. The
Town's people are very possessive when it comes 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.
I believe that denunciation without personally facing the
people you think did wrong. does not recommend you to
your fellow man, even when you loose a bidding process.
As it relates to substance, 130 Massol Avenue looks just as
the Preservation Committee wanted it to look.
Ad 3, and 4.
Acknowledged.
No additional comments.
Ad 5.
Because the two walls in question were not moved in a
contiguous fashion, it is considered a demolition. I recognize
that the walls had been re- assembled to form the corner "as
was ", but the separation constitutes demolition.
What difference it makes as to how portions of a building are
moved and re- assembled into their original positions; we do
not understand.
The Town's Historic Preservation Ordinance does not
specify how to move walls, as long as they are contiguous
when incorporated into the new structure.
On August 15, 2009 1 send a letter to the Building Division
that we read and understood the 48 "Conditions of
Approval ", dated May 19. 2009.
Ncre the 48 conditions n,eniion contiguous
The Town's Planning Comments, dated August 10. 2010.
Section 10 states:
The remaining front and left walls must be maintained and
incorporated into the new structure"
After the walls were maintained and incorporated into the
new structure (photo in your possession), we were told to
abandon them. Why?
Maybe your staff should revisit the current demolition rules
and generate more sensible guidelines.
Ad 6.
Acknowledged.
No additional comments.
Ad 7. 1.
These e- mails /letters should have been included in the 130
Massol Avenue file.
You will check
Ad 7.2.
Violations by other contractors.
Was hearsay. riot important
Simin and I want to thank you for your letter explaining why it
took three 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
r
---_
_.
,'�
�.� i
�.
,�
��
z
��
r
-4 -M
j -M I
11% 1.
'N
■
- ON
x
N
. r
,1 r;9 t1ti ��
��
r� �
i t'''�.�'4'I
� �� � ;
�.
� � k
�.
li
''
i
�
Y e Y • �
lie
r -
f
• /tl i a
hr.1
f J
la .
I
�tp
•
.. • y' .ham :.
C IP J
�• rf I\{
r � ,
Y-
E
+ i
l
LA 4` 1
/ w \ f ♦ -�!- 1•' \ if
Af
a. A
Jk
r �'rf .- rf ••t
,•t J
} �� �,. mow. "` �•I.
s �
i •�
WAO
�Y
`�~,
R�
_" � �.dfe.�:.
_ � � -
_
r_
��
.,
�r
�
°{ '- q
.
tea:
.i1 .
� �"�.
�::
� �v
�..'� _ 1.
1-
`�
��► . <e
� �< .
�,� __
_
+� ^�,.
�
\ ^�� �.
^,'
4�el 3..
r . .' day
�w,3"` -��sa
+L 1
I
1
ip
Ad
, ,
.:.r
A. f
e' '
Ill
98
0
N
i
,1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank