|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Did Mountain View city staff nearly stumble into a civil lawsuit by offering some friendly advice? Did a longstanding Mountain View family almost lose their home by attempting a simple fix-up?
The answer seems to be yes for both in an unusual and complicated dispute swirling around Jim and Katarina Hayes and their University Avenue house. A Gordian knot of city land-use rules, the conflict between city officials and a local family trying to perform home improvements generated about two hours of discussion at the City Council meeting last week. In the end, the council basically called a mulligan on the whole affair. Council members said emphatically that city staff took the right actions, even though the council’s decision essentially overturned staff’s handling of the situation.
The dispute circles back to around May of this year, when homeowner Jim Hayes applied for a series of clearances to do small fix-ups to his house, which was built in the 1930s. He intended to perform the work himself, and he obtained over-the-counter permits to replace the roof, remodel a bathroom, and replace a portion of a wall.
But city staff allege Hayes essentially tried to pull a fast one. Instead of the minor repairs outlined in his permits, Hayes began taking down walls and making upgrades for what city officials say was an illegal companion or “in-law” unit. When city planning officials learned of this, they revoked Hayes’ permits and told him he was forbidden from finishing his work or restoring the house to its former state.
At the Oct. 6 City Council meeting, Assistant Planning Director Terry Blount presented a slideshow showing how Hayes’ work consisted of more than just repairs. His house’s roof, walls and most of the structure were being rebuilt.
“These permits did not authorize the work that was actually performed by the owners,” Blount said. “If you go beyond ordinary maintenance and move to structural modifications, you’ve moved from legal nonconforming to an illegal status.”
The heart of this dilemma lies in the city’s arcane rules for dealing with structures and lots classified as “nonconforming.” Put simply, this term refers to older buildings that don’t meet current land-use and zoning rules. City planning officials typically allow nonconforming properties to remain in use, but under the assumption that these sites will eventually be brought into compliance. Whenever modifications are made to a nonconforming site — such as what the Hayes family performed — then city officials say that property must meet current building codes.
In the Hayes’ case, city planning officials couldn’t allow an in-law unit because the property was about half the required size and it lacked the needed parking and setbacks, explained Blount.
But the Hayes family and their attorney have another side to the story. They contended that the companion unit was built in the 1930s. Hayes said that when he approached the city’s building department in May with the plans, he was specifically instructed by officials to completely replace the section of roof and walls in order to meet other building requirements. At the time, none of the building inspectors raised any concerns about a companion unit, said the Hayes’ lawyer Eric McAllister.
“All the work the city is now complaining (about) was (at) the express direction of the building department itself.” McAllister said. “My clients have clearly detrimentally relied on those requirements.”
To his point, McAllister showed city officials some crude sketches one building official had drawn out for Hayes on how their work should proceed. City officials responded that those drawings were only suggestions made by one building official who wasn’t aware about the companion-unit issues at the time.
This whole tangled mess resulted in an appeal before the City Council as the Hayes family sought to restore the revoked building permits. It was made abundantly clear during the hearing that if the city didn’t reverse its actions, the Hayes family was prepared to take the matter to court.
The decision left council members in a true dilemma. The Hayes and their attorney wanted the city to declare an “estoppel,” a legal term that would mean that public officials had committed a grave injustice, leaving them unfit to be further involved in the matter.
But an estoppel would be entirely inappropriate, said City Attorney Jannie Quinn. She pointed out that staff had followed the city’s policies every step of the way, and any bad advice they gave was based on inaccurate information coming from the Hayes family.
“City staff does their best to assist people, but it depends on the information that’s provided,” she said. “This is not an estoppel case. These facts don’t rise to the level that (what) we’ve done is so egregious that they’ve relied on that (and) we should be estopped from revoking those permits.”
If the city made an exception for this one home, then it would be hard to make the argument that other properties shouldn’t get similar leeway, Quinn said.
Her recommendation was for the city needed to address this as a policy matter. City Council members had already expressed an interest in loosening the rules on companion units in the coming months. Those modified rules may bring the Hayes’ property into compliance, she suggested.
But that process would likely take several months, and council members were reluctant to leave a family literally without their home for that length of time. Jim Hayes said that with an El Nino-fueled rainy season on the horizon, he worried that a prolonged delay would leave his home completely exposed to the elements.
Hayes, who was at the meeting with his wife and their two children, ages 10 and 3, gave city leaders a clear picture of whom their decision would impact. Hayes said his family is renting a home in Milpitas but they are eager to come back to Mountain View. His family’s plan was to live in the companion unit while his uncle would live in the main house.
“We want a solution that doesn’t deprive us of a home,” Hayes said. “We love this city; we love this neighborhood, and we cannot afford to lose this house.”
Describing it as a Catch-22 situation, Mountain View council members were split on how to tackle the issue. Councilman Lenny Siegel made a motion to declare the situation as an estoppel, effectively restoring the Hayes’ building permits to recommence repairs. But other council members balked, saying it was tantamount to faulting staff and flouting the city’s policies.
“I can’t in good conscience agree with that,” said Councilman Chris Clark, “I’m not going to grant a permit in violation of the zoning code.”
In a 4-3 vote, the City Council approved restoring the Hayes’ building permits as a legal estoppel with council members Clark, Pat Showalter and Ken Rosenberg opposed. The city attorney and other officials pledged they would work in the coming days to see that the Hayes’ house is built “up to code,” per the council’s direction.
“Why tear down a home for no good reason?” Hayes said. “We’re happy that we found a mutual solution — no one wants to keep litigating and wasting resources.”
Email Mark Noack at mnoack@mv-voice.com
-
“I’m not Racist … am I?” follows a group of New York City teenagers from diverse backgrounds who agree to spend a year having facilitated conversations about racism. Photo courtesy of The Calhoun School. -
Joel Greenberg’s film, “From Billions to None: The Passenger Pigeon’s Flight to Extinction,” tells the story of what was once the most populous species of bird in North America. Photo courtesy of Waubansee Productions. -
Bob and Kim Stetson talk on the couch in their Los Altos home with their dog Sheba after Bob gets home from work on Sept. 22, 2015. They are currently renting the home while their new home in San Jose is being renovated. Photo by Veronica Weber. -
The house is ready for a new owner after Kim and Bob Stetson team with contractor Stuart Morgan from FYI Properties in Walnut Creek to renovate and sell their home in the Old Palto Alto neighborhood. To spruce up the outside, they painted the exterior, and added a new lawn, front fence, roof and stamped-concrete driveway. Photo by Cherie Cordellos. -
The kitchen opens to the family room after the interior remodels, creating a more open space. Photo by Cherie Cordellos.
Most Popular
Candidate Comparison Grids: Mountain View Whisman School District Board of TrusteesOctober 5, 2026 12:47 pm