Loading...
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TO USE OUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE THE BANKS HAD THE PROPERTY APPRAISED LAND: $285,000.00 HOUSE: $0.00 ORIGINAL LOAN OFFER WITHDRAWN - NO FOUNDATION BECAUSE OF ITS POOR CONDITION WE ONLY COOKED AND SHOWERED THERE AFTER INSTALLING A NEW SHOWER RAIN LEAKED THROUGH THE ROOF, THE WALLS, AND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