At their regular meeting Oct. 27, the Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioners voted 4-1 to reject a request from Councilmember Steve Finn for an amendment to a previously-approved construction permit and variance for work done on his own residence in Los Altos Hills.
At issue was whether Finn had exceeded the parameters of the permit and variance he was granted in 1997. The work cited in the 1997 permit and variance - restoring and moving an historic school to another site on the property - is still in process.
Building inspectors have made several trips to check the progress of the restoration of the school. However, it was not until Sept. 3 that the planning department was requested to sign off on the work. At that time, the department found the work done by landscapers over the past few months - building retaining walls and terraces - exceeded the original 1997 permit and variance.
On Sept. 9, Planning Director Curtis Williams sent an e-mail to Finn, notifying him of the code violations and suggesting that he file an amendment to the original permit to retroactively cover already completed work. Finn did so on Sept. 30, and the issue was put on the agenda on the planning commission's Oct. 27 meeting.
Finn was not present at the Oct. 27 meeting, but was represented by a landscape contractor who explained that Finn believed the additional work did not exceed his approved permit since the changes did not violate any ordinance.
He also believed, since building inspectors had visited the site, that planning staff members were aware of the extra work being done.
However, although building inspectors had visited the site to inspect work on the school building, landscaping was not within their purview, and no one from the planning department had visited the site within the past year.
The majority of the commissioners believed it was clear that an amendment to the 1997 permit and variance was needed for work not expressly permitted therein.
The commissioners said an amendment should have been applied for and approved before any additional work was begun.
Charles Wong, at his first commission meeting since the council voted Oct. 21 to keep him on the commission, cast the dissenting vote.
While Wong agreed that what Finn did was not proper, he wanted a motion that could be productive instead of just passing the matter on to the council. "We should try to fix the problem here," he said, adding that a penalty of some sort should be assessed by the commission and that Finn could be forced to return the area in question to its original state.
Williams said there is a provision in the building code that permits assessing penalties for violations, but to his knowledge, it has never been enforced. Negotiated resolutions have been found for previous code violations.
Protocol permits Finn to appeal the planning commission's decision. As of press time it had not been determined whether Finn will appeal. If he does, the earliest the issue could be placed on the council's agenda is Nov. 18 or Dec. 2.