Laserfiche WebLink
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br /> 7.1 Request from Dr. Hau for Waiver of Additional Appeal Costs Relative <br /> to his Project at 13901 W. Edith <br /> Dr. Jonathan Hau, applicant, thanked the Council for waiving the appeal costs <br /> in November 1991 related to the City Attorney's time spent on his project. <br /> At this time, however, he was requesting Council to waive the $787.50 in <br /> charges he had been billed for the Director of Public Works' time charged <br /> on the appeal of his project. He also did not believe these charges were <br /> valid. In response to an inquiry from Council as to the status of his <br /> project, Mr. Hau responded that discussions were currently taking place <br /> with the Water District. They wanted him to widen the creek but he <br /> objected to just widening it on his property. Discussions were ongoing <br /> with the Los Altos neighbors involved. In addition he was working with <br /> Los Altos on the sewer issue. <br /> Casey noted that Dr. Hau had been charged approximately $5,000 in fees for his <br /> project and she believed the same argument was valid for the Director of <br /> Public Works' time as was true for the City Attorney's time concerning the <br /> appeal of Dr. Hau's project. She believed the Director of Public Works had <br /> worked on conditions of approval for the Hau project which had not been <br /> directed by Council and the time and fees charged to Dr. Hau could not be <br /> justified. In her opinion Dr. Hau was being charged for costs related to an <br /> appeal he did not start. <br /> Johnson noted that staff was expected to work on all aspects of a project and did <br /> not need direction from the Council. He further noted that the person <br /> who caused the expense was responsible for paying for it. Although he <br /> had supported Dr. Hau with respect to the City Attorney's costs he could <br /> not support him in his request for waiver of the Director of Public Works' <br /> time. Siegel noted that this was not a new policy; applicants had always <br /> paid the costs. Siegel and Tryon commented that this was a very complex <br /> project and staff time had appropriately been charged. <br /> haw May 6, 1992 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> 4 <br />