No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 200 Oakview DriveCITY OF /r,,[✓rte / Agenda Item No: 9 +►Falb Meeting Date: January 20, 2009 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: Robert M. Brown(X 660/L ) City Manager Approval: Community Developmentecr ctor (SD) SUBJECT: 200 Oakview Avenue — Request for Amendment of an approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow the maximum building height to exceed 30 feet and the downslope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet for a single family residence under construction. The overall constructed building elevation would remain unchanged with the approval of this Exception. The Exception is required since the downhill slope grade is steeper than initially identified, thus resulting in 42.5 -ft. height for portions of the downhill facing wall elevation located on an approximately 1.3 -acre lot; APN: 010-360-02; Single Family Residential (R1a-H) District; Patsy Dickens, owner/applicant; File No(s).: ED08-051 and EX08-014 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving amendment of approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards. BACKGROUND: On August 4, 2003, the City Council approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED02-165) to allow the construction of a new 6,490 -sq. -ft, two-level, single-family home for the subject property located in a hills ide/ridgeline area. The approval included exceptions to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow: 1) the down slope walls to exceed the allowable wall height of 20 feet; and 2) development within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline. An exception to the maximum allowed 30 -ft. building height was neither requested nor approved. The design of the new residence also did not meet all the hillside design guidelines, however, the City granted an Exception to deviations from the hillside design guidelines finding that the proposed alternate design solution met the objectives of the hillside guidelines and was appropriate for the site. Construction of the subject residence is almost complete. However, the project as constructed, does not match the approved plans in that the constructed building height' extends to as much as 42'/2 feet, which exceeds the 30 -ft. maximum allowed height. Additionally, this discrepancy has resulted in increasing the height of the down slope walls from 30 feet to as much as 421/2 feet. This discrepancy between the as - built and approved plans is due to the following reasons: • An inaccurate topographic survey map submitted with the Environmental and Design Review application approved in 2003; • Removal of unquantified, unconsolidated material and organic debris in preparing the site and building foundation for the project construction; and ' For residential lots subject to the hillside residential design guidelines, the height of all structures, fences and walls shall be measured vertically from the existing grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge, wall parapet, mansard or other feature perpendicular to that grade. FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 2 • Drilling, forming and construction of the foundation components required some amount of slope removal and grading of the existing surface to provide access and set up areas for construction equipment, shoring and scaffolding. In order to bring the building into compliance, the applicant has applied for an amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception. The request for the amendment has been reviewed by both the Planning Commission (PC) and the Design Review Board (DRB). Both the PC and the DRB held one meeting each for the project. The primary issues discussed during both the DRB and PC public hearing process were: 1) the difference in the approved plans and the as -built condition; 2) the potential reasons for the difference in the approved plans and as -built conditions; and 3) whether the change creates any visual impacts over and above the approved project. The DRB reviewed the request for an amendment on November 18, 2008 and recommended approval of the modification. Minutes are attached as part of the Planning Commission staff report (Page 61 of this report). The Planning Commission then reviewed the project on December 9, 2008. A copy of the report is attached to this report (Attachment 7). The Commission accepted public comments from 14 people, with 5 people against the project and 9 in support. The majority of the public comments against the project were about the project as a whole and regarding a clerestory feature on the roof. The Commission found that those issues were not applicable since the house and its design, including the clerestory, had been previously reviewed and approved by the DRB, Planning Commission and Council and had been built per approved plans. The only issue was that of the change in height of the underfloor space. The Commission grappled with the height issue and concluded that the there are no new impacts from this error since only the bottom of the building is taller and that the actual top of the building is at the same elevation as approved. Further, the Commission found that the taller underfloor space was still heavily screened from off site by dense oak trees. The Commission ultimately voted 6-1 (Commissioner Mills dissenting) to recommend approval of the modifications to the City Council and recommended an addition of a condition of approval requiring maintenance of the dense oak woodlands at the base of the structure to continue visual screening. Staff has included the new condition about maintenance of screening vegetation as condition #4 of the draft City Council Resolution. Minutes from the December 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting are attached (Attachment 4). ANALYSIS: Environmental Review: The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts construction of new single-family homes on residentially zoned parcels. Analysis of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The amendment to the approved Environmental Design Review Permit and Exception applications would permit the under -construction house to be completed. The Planning Commission determined that the project is consistent with the provisions of the Hillside Overlay District and Hillside Guidelines. A full analysis of the General Plan 2020 and Zoning Ordinance is contained in the December 9, 2008 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7) and in the findings contained in the attached, draft City Council resolution (Attachment 2). In summary, the original project was reviewed and approved by the City Council in 2003. The attached City Council resolution approving the project (Attachment 3) shows that the originally requested Exception to Ridgeline Development and downslope wall height of the project was approved based on the following findings: A. The proposed project design would be in keeping with the surrounding development because existing adjecent houses have been constructed with similar designs. B. The project would retain a majority of the natural state of the property by limiting grading to the upper portion of the parcel. C. The project woud not require removal of any existing trees. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 D. The proposed exterior color and materials would not be highly visible because they would be earth -tone and would blend into the hillside. E. The project's design would meet the stated objectives of the Hillside Guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and would maintain a strong relationship to the natural setting by minimizing grading and retaining existing on-site trees. F. The project's design minimizes grading, retains a majority of the project site in its natural state, minimizes visual impacts, protects significant trees and natural resources, and the City's Design Review Board has reccomended that the project would result in a demonstrably superior project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatibility with and sensitivity to nearby structures. The Board determined that the project was well designed and the elevated pillar design minimized grading. The above findings can be made again for the increase in building and stepback wall heights, since the as -built project has the same architecture, and the top of the house is at the same elevation height above the mean sea level as was approved by the City Council in 2003. The project does not create any new visual impacts or additional grading. The extra height that has been created is solely an increase in the underfloor of the building and would not be visible from off site. Attached to the report are reduced copies (11"x17") of the project plans that show the approved project and the discrepancy in the existing grade and grade on the approved plans. Also attached are pictures of the story poles, constructed piers, and the under construction house. NOTICE/CORRESPONDENCE: City Council public hearing public notice was published in the Marin Independent Journal and mailed to neighboring property owners, businesses and residents within 300 feet and surrounding neighborhood associations. A copy of the public hearing notice and the notification list are attached (Attachment 5). Since the Planning Commission hearing, several new letters were received which are attached (Attachment 6). The first letter is from the Los Ranchos Improvement Association, dated January 7, 2009, which cites concerns about the excessive height of the project and that the as -built height does not reflect the story poles that were presented in the original 2003 approval. This issue was raised at the Planning Commission (PC) hearing on December 9, 2008. The PC consensus was that the intent of the story poles is to represent the main building volume and are not required to represent architectural features such as chimneys or clerestories, which are not included in calculating building height. Additionally, the PC determined that the as -built house was consistent with what was represented by the story poles. Additional correspondence includes emails between Lorene Jackson, a neighboring resident and other neighbors, as well as City staff. Also included in this correspondence are two letters (dated December 16, 2008 and January 14, 2009) from Lorene Jackson. Staff response to the December 16, 2008 letter was provided in the emails. Staff response to the January 14, 2009, letter is as follows: • Incorrect Public Notice: The public hearing notice (Attachment 5) states that 'the Exception is required since the downhill slope grade is steeper than initially identified, thus resulting in 42.5 -ft. height for portions of the downhill facing wall elevation.' When the notice notes that 'the overall building height remains unchanged', this refers to 'no change in the built elevation and the approved height of the building above the mean sea level.' • Clarify the Approved Building Height: As stated above, the notice explains the as -built building height is 42.5 feet. The height of the clerestories has not been included in the 42.5 ft. height of the building since the clerestories were originally approved by the City Council as architectural features. As noted above, these features are exempt from height requirements. • January 7, 2003 Comments from the Marin County Planning Department: County comments were acknowledged. In 2003, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project and recommended approval based on the project's compatibility with other developed lots within the subdivision. This, project was processed after the adoption of Hillside Design Guidelines. All previous correspondence received on this amendment request through the Planning Commission hearing is included as part of the attached Planning Commission report (page 77 of this report). SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 FISCAL IMPACT: The project approved by the City Council in 2003 has changed in height of the side and rear walls in some areas of the building. Staff does not anticipate that the approval of the proposed amendments to allow in increase in the building height and stepback wall height will cause a change in City service costs because the amended project will not generate any more demand in city services or emergency response as well as street and drainage maintenance and other municipal services to these properties. OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the City Council on this matter: 1. Approve the proposed project as presented. 2. Approve the project with additional modifications or conditions of approval. 3. Continue the public hearing and refer the applications back to the Planning Commission for additional review and modifications. 4. Continue the public hearing and require additional information or environmental analysis. 5. Deny the project. ACTIONS REQUIRED: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit Exception applications (Attachment 2). ATTACHMENTS: NUMBERED PAGES IN REPORT (LOWER RIGHT CORNER) 1. Vicinity Map 5 2. Draft resolution approving the amendment to the approved 7 Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception 3. City Council Resolution approving the original project in 13 2003 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, December 9, 2008 19 5. Public Hearing Notice and Notification List 31 6. Public Correspondence since Planning Commission hearing 35 7. Planning Commission staff report with exhibits, December 9, 51 2008 Exhibit 3 — Letter from applicant 57 Exhibit 4 — DRB Minutes, 11/18/08 61 Exhibit 6 — Excerpts form Hillside Guidelines 67 Exhibit 7 — Public Correspondence 77 Distributed to the City Council only: • Reduced Plans Project Plans (11'x17') • Pictures of the story poles, constructed piers, and the under construction house. 200 Oak View Avenue ' � � ' ¢ � F" X11 / ei��/.� l � ✓ � �� � �, v ` v � C � /ice ✓j i CIRCLi FHI'PO� 111I� / &$ p�� D .�-J IN�IjNN RO � C .. / - R E:S„ 3 A ❑ t p- `,, 'Op" o�e - `...14 - �r � ...... <wdv i y i nv si{• i •„� �.. Ilk J \'� f i SCALE 1 :7,708 500 Attachment 1 N A Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:46 PM I -1911 [IIKIN!�[1� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED08-051) AND EXCEPTION (EX08-014) TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 30 FEET AND THE DOWNSLOPE WALLS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STEPBACK WALL HEIGHT OF 20 FEET FOR AN UNDER - CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 200 OAK VIEW AVENUE (APN: 010-360-02) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows: WHEREAS, on August 4, 2003, the City Council approved an Environmental Design Review Permit and Exception from Hillside Development Standards to (a) build within 100 vertical feet of a significant ridgeline and (b) to exceed the 20 -ft. maximum building height for downslope walls for a single family residence proposed at 200 Oak View Avenue; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2003, the applicant obtained a building permit for the concrete -column foundation and after completing the foundations; obtained a building permit for the proposed single family residence on September 27, 2007; and WHEREAS, following up on a public complaint, Community Development Department observed a discrepancy between the approved plans and the as -built building. The discrepancy is that the building height from the top of the building to the existing grade is a maximum of 42'/2 feet at least at one point, compared with the 30 -ft. maximum height approved for the building on the plans, and the height of the downslope walls is 42'/2 feet compared with the 30 -ft, maximum height approved for downslope walls on the plans; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2008, the Community Development Department wrote to the applicant about the need to correct the issue or apply for an amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Development standards and the building permit. No stop work order was issued, however, the City staff noted that applicant was proceeding to finish the interior of the house at their own risk; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2008, an application for amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to allow the maximum building height to exceed 30 feet and the downslope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet was submitted to the Community Development Department and was deemed complete for processing on October 16, 2008; and WHEREAS, the San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project on November 18, 2008, and recommended approval; and ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts construction of new single-family homes on a residentially zoned parcels; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2008, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Rafael does hereby approve an amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-051) and Exception (08-014) applications to allow the maximum building height to exceed 30 feet and the downslope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet for an under -construction single family residence at 200 Oak View Avenue based on the following findings: Findings for an Amendment to Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-051) 1. Unless amended by the following findings, the findings made in the City Council Resolution No. 11398 for the project are still valid because the following facts on which those findings were in part, based are still valid for the as -built project: a. The proposed development would not have a significant adverse visual impact because the top of the building is not above the elevation level approved for the project; b. The location of the house would be consistent with the original subdivision approval and the house would blend into the hillside because the under -construction residence has been designed and constructed consistent with the neighboring houses; and c. The project would be demonstrably superior with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatible with the nearby structures because an alternative, stepped -down design would have resulted in a reduced natural state, more grading and more tree removal. 2. The proposed project to allow an amendment to an approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow the maximum building height to exceed 30 feet and the down slope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet for a single family residence under construction is in accord with the following General Plan Policies: a. Land Use Policies LU -12. Building Heights because the top of the under -construction residence is at an elevation (above mean sea level) that is 5'/�" lower than the approved elevation and thus will not cause any new visual impact. The residence is compatible with 2 the existing neighborhood design and colors, and has minimized grading and removal of natural vegetation. Further, the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception allow to exceed only the building height and stepback wall height as defined by Hillside Residential Guidelines. The actual design of the building including its top level is not changing. b. Safety Policy S-31. New Development in Fire Hazard Areas in that the under - construction residence contains fire sprinklers for fire protection. 3. As stated above, the proposed project is in accord with applicable General Plan Land Use and Safety policies. In addition, the proposed project meets the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapters 12 Hillside Development Overlay District and 25 Design Review given that the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for compliance with the Hillside Property Development Standards and design criteria in Chapter 25 to ensure that the design is compatible with the neighborhood and hillside design criteria, as required by the General Plan. Although the under -construction home is not consistent with all the Hillside Property Development Standards, requests for exceptions have been made and findings to approve the exceptions are provided below. 4. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located given that the site development complies with Single -Family Residential (RIA -H) District requirements and has been reviewed by the City's Design Review Board. Separate findings have been made in the following section to grant Exception to the building height and stepback wall height requirements. 5. As originally approved, the under -construction residence has a floor area of 6,490 sq. ft. compared with the maximum allowable floor area of 6,500 sq. ft. Therefore, the property is just under the maximum building floor area standard. 6. The project design is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, given that the project has been reviewed by the appropriate agencies. The approval of the requested Environmental and Design Review Permit will not in any way increase visibility of the house. Findings for Amendment to Exception from Hillside Overlay District Standards (EX08-014) 1. Under Zoning Ordinance Section 14.12.040 (Exceptions), findings to grant an exception can be made to allow an increase in the maximum building height above 30 feet to a maximum of 42'/2 feet and the downslope walls to exceed the maximum allowed height of 20 feet to 42V2 given that: a. The project design is in keeping with the surrounding development because existing adjacent houses have been constructed with similar designs. 3 b. The project retains 82% of the property in natural state compared with the required natural state of 64% by limiting grading to the upper portion of the parcel. c. The project does not require removal of any existing trees. d. The proposed exterior color and materials are not be highly visible because they are earth -tone and blend into the hillside. e. The project's design meets the stated objectives of the Hillside Guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and maintains a strong relationship to the natural setting by minimizing grading and retaining existing on-site trees. f. The project's design minimizes grading, retains a majority of the project site in its natural state, minimizes visual impacts, protects significant trees and natural resources, and the City's Design Review Board has recommended that the project is a demonstrably superior project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatibility with and sensitivity to, nearby structures. A project designed to strictly comply with the building height and stepback height standards contained in the Hillside Overlay District would have meant a stepped down house with a larger foot print that would have resulted in more disturbance to the natural state of the property and in removal of significant trees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does hereby approve an amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception for the project subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval (ED08-051 and EX08-014) General and ongoing Planning Division This project is approved to allow an amendment to an approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow the maximum building height to exceed 30 feet to 42'/2 feet and the down slope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet to 42'/2 feet for a single family residence under construction. The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans prepared by Architecture and Planning, dated received December 4, 2008, shall be the same as required for issuance of an amended building permit. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body. rd 2. All conditions of approval for the original Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED02- 165) continue to apply for the project, except those modified by the following conditions of approval. 3. The existing under floor area will not be converted to a building area for any purpose. 4. To ensure continued screening of the structure, all existing trees on the rear (downslope) and sides of the structure shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. Trees shall not be removed for any reason other than: 1) safety risk due to instability or disease, 2) death due to disease; or 3) vegetation management per the Wildland Urban Interface Ordinance. Removal of trees shall require that an arborist report be prepared by a certified arborist and be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. Any request for tree removal shall also include a replanting for replacement with a native species in an amount equal to that being removed. Replacement trees shall be of a size to provide the maximum amount of immediate screening. I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held Tuesday, the 20`h of January, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 11398 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED02-165), TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,490 -SQUARE -FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED IN A HILLSIDE RIDGELINE AREA AT 200 OAK VIEW DRIVE (APN 010-360-02) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT: WHEREAS, on December 20, 2002, an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit for a 6,490 -square -foot single-family home was submitted to the Community Development Department and was deemed complete for processing on June 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, the proposed project includes a request for exceptions to the property development standards contained in the Hillside Overlay District to allow the project to be located within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline, and down slope wall height to exceed 20 feet on the north, east, and west building elevations; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts construction of new single-family homes on a residentially zoned parcels; and WHEREAS, the San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project on March 3, 2003, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project applications and recommended that the City Council approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED02-165); and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2003, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project applications, as required by State law, accepting all oral and written public testimony, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the written report of the Community Development Department staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby approves the Environmental and Design Review Permit for the construction of a single-family home located in a hillside/ridgeline area located at 200 Oak View Drive based on the following findings and conditions of approval: Attachment 3 Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings: 1. The proposed project would be in accord with the following General Plan Policies: • Land Use Policies LU -21 Building Heights, LU -34 Residential Site Design, LU -35 Project Design Considerations, and LU -36a Community Design Considerations -hillside ridges because the proposed home would maintain a height below the 30 -foot height limit, would be compatible with the existing neighborhood design and colors, and would minimize grading and removal of natural vegetation. • Safety Policy 5-22 New Development in Fire Hazard Areas in that the proposed single- family home would be sprinklered for fire protection. 2. As stated above, the proposed project would be in accord with applicable General Plan Land Use and Safety policies. In addition, the proposed project would meet the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapters 12 Hillside Development Overlay District and 25 Design Review given that the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for compliance with the Hillside Property Development Standards and design criteria in Chapter 25 to ensure that the design would be compatible with the neighborhood and hillside design criteria, as required by the General Plan. Although the proposed home would not be consistent with all the Hillside Property Development Standards, requests for exceptions were made and findings to approve the exceptions are provided below. 3. The project design would be consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located given that the site development complies with Single -Family Residential (RIA -H) District requirements and has been reviewed by the City's Design Review Board. 4. As conditioned, the project design would minimize adverse environmental impacts by . limiting grading and preserving existing vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. 5. The project design would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity given that the project has been reviewed by the appropriate agencies and conditioned accordingly. Hillside Overlay District Exception Findings: 6. Pursuent to San Rafael Municipal Code Section (SRMC) 14.12.030-E (Ridgeline Development), the following findings are made to allow development within 100 verticle feet of a visually significant ridgeline: a) There is no development alternative which would avoid ridgeline development because a majority of the buildable area of the project site is steep and would 2 require additional site disturbance. In addition existing ridgeline development exists to the south of the project site. b) The project would result in a maximum of one unit, the minimum residential density allowed by the General Plan. c) The location of the proposed building would be consistent with the original subdivision approval. d) No new subdivision lots would be created through the proposed project. e) The proposed development would not have a significant adverse visual impact due to modifications made to the height, bulk, design, size, location, siting and landscaping as viewed from all public areas because the project has been designed utilizing a majority of the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines, the proposed home would not encroach into the ridgeline silouette and was recommended for approval by the Design Review Board. 7. Under Zoning Ordinance Section 14.12.040 (Exceptions), findings to grant an exception can be made to allow the downslope wall elevations to exceed 20 feet in height given that: a) The proposed project design would be in keeping with the surrounding development because existing adjecent houses have been constructed with similar designs. b) The project would retain a majority of the natural state of the property by limiting grading to the upper portion of the parcel. c) The project wend not require removal of any existing trees. d) The proposed exterior color and materials would not be highly visable because they would be earth -tone and would blend into the hillside. e) The project's design would meet the stated objectives of the Hillside Guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and would maintain a strong relationship to the natural setting by minimizing grading and retaining existing on-site trees. I) The project's design minimizes grading, retains a majority of the project site in its natural state, minimizes visual impacts, protects significant trees and natural resources, and the City's Design Review Board has reccomended that the project would result in a demonstrably superior project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatibility with and sensitivity to nearby structures. The Board determined that the project was well designed and the elevated pillar design minimized grading. Conditions of Approval: Police Department 1. The street number shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of the property in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The number shall be no less than four inches (4") in height and shall be of contrasting color to the 3 background to which it is attached. The address number shall be illuminated during darkness. 2. All exterior doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of one and three fourths inches (1-3/4") or with panels not less than nine sixteenth inches (9/16") thick. Side garage doors and doors leading from these garage areas to private residences or multiple dwelling residences are included in this requirement. 3. Exterior jambs for doors shall be so constructed or protected to prevent violation of the function of the strike plate from the outside. The strike plate shall be secured to the jamb by a minimum of two screws which must penetrate at least two inches into the solid backing beyond the jamb. 4. Exterior doors that swing outward shall have non -removal hinge pins. 5. In -swinging exterior doors shall have rabbeted jambs. 6. All windows within 12 feet of the ground level shall have a secondary lock mounted to the frame of the window. The secondary lock shall be a bolt lock and shall be no less than 1/8 inch in thickness. The lock shall have a hardened steel throw of 1/2 inch minimum length. 7. Any window within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be stationary and non -removable. 8. Any alternate materials or methods of construction shall be reviewed with the Crime Prevention Officer before installation. 9. The new construction shall be pre -wired for the installation of an intrusion alarm system. Fire Department 10. The address shall be posted conforming to Fire Prevention Standard 205. 11. Based on Uniform Fire Code (UFC) requirements, an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout conforming to NFPA Std. I3D. 12. Fire retardant roof covering shall be required with a minimum Class "A" listing. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a vegetation management plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department to determine the clearance distance required from the residential structure. 14. Spark arrestors shall be installed conforming to the California Building Code (CBC). 15. Due to the topography of the project site and the inability to ladder the building, approved emergency escape ladders may need to be installed as required by the Fire Department at the time of the issuance of the building permit. 16. UL/SFM smoke detectors and openable bedroom windows shall be installed conforming to the CBC. Building Division 17. An engineered site plan showing existing and proposed site conditions shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. 18. A level `B" soils report shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. 19. The project soils engineer shall review the project plans for compliance with the recommendations of the project soils report. 20. An erosion control plan shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. 4 Planning Division 21. The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans prepared by Brent Dickens, Architecture and Planning, dated received January 23, 2003, shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body. 22. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED02-165) shall be valid for two years from approval or until August 4, 2005, and shall be null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension granted prior to the expiration date. 23. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection. The inspection shall require a minimum 48-hour advance notice. 24. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances shall be enclosed and screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 25. The developer shall pay a traffic mitigation fee of $3,245.00, adjusted according to the Lee Saylor Construction Index to take into account changes in construction costs, at issuance of a building permit. This is based on a fee of $3,245.00 (Northgate Area) times one 1 PM peak hour trip. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a lot line adjustment, as shown on "Sheet 3" of the project plans between Assessor's Parcel number 010-360-01 and 010-360-02, shall be approved by the City of San Rafael and recorded with the Marin County Recorder's Office. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, details on the landscaping to be installed to mitigate privacy impacts on 160 Oak View shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 28. A construction management plan (CMP) shall be prepared for the proposed project. The CMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. 29. If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The City of San Rafael Planning Division and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, the project planner and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery. 30. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. As an alternative, the conditions of approval shall be attached as a separate document to each set of plans. 5 I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, the 4th day of August, 2003 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk 200 Oakview Avenue - Requests for amendment of approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow the maximum building height to exceed 390 feet and the down slope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet for a single family residence under construction; APN: 010-360-02; Single Family Residential (RIa-H) District; Patsy Dickens, owner/applicant; File Nos.: ED08- 051 and EX08-014. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Sarjit Dhaliwal, Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council conditionally approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception. Ann -Laird Blanton, architect, indicated that she is honored that Brent and Patsy have asked her to come before the Commission to explain a project that is incredibly complex, intricately designed and conscientiously detailed. I did not know Brent on a personal basis; however, I served with him on the Design Review Board for 5 years. I have great respect for him as a professional and great admiration of his talent. One of his last projects, 200 Oak View, is also perhaps one of his finest. It is perched carefully on a steep hillside, nestled in a wooded area that Brent was passionate about preserving. When completed, it will serve as a lasting testament to his genius. As stated in the staff report, there are only two issues that we are here to address: 1. Does the project still meet the intent of the Hillside Design Guidelines; and 2. Does the project create additional visual impacts beyond what was originally approved in 2003. It is our contention that the entirety of the DRB, Planning Commission and City Council findings previously made are still applicable to this project. The meaningful threshold for those findings was location and the actual height of the building. There are no changes to the design of the building from what was originally approved. Neither the mass of the house nor its location on the site has changed. The only discrepancy between the approved plans and the actual construction is the grades at the back of the house are not as shown on the original drawings. This is due to an inaccurate survey in which topography lines were extrapolated from 20' contours and normal conditions one would run into when building on a hillside lot. The grades vary across the lot with dips and ridges and at one location are as much as 12'6" lower than indicated on the approved plans. In addition, an unqualified amount of loose soil, years of leaf fall and dumping had to be removed to provide a stable base for the foundations. However, the building was built using mean -sea -level datum points and the floors and roof are actually 5 ''/Z" lower than indicated on the approved elevations. Simply put, the issue is, does the extra height adversely affect the project and the answer is, "no." The portion of the lower wall that has turned out to be taller than approved cannot be seen from downhill lots and public streets. The fact that there is less soil below the building does not make the house any further out of the trees than it would have been Attachment 4 with more dirt below it. No views are being impacted and the house is very much in keeping with the other houses in the original subdivision. The original 2003 permit included exceptions to the Hillside Design Guidelines Development Standards to allow the down slope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20' and to allow development within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline. They are now requesting that the maximum building height be allowed to exceed 30'. The originally approved vertical elevations above sea level have not been increased and the design has not been changed. By amending the approved application, the Commission will be making it very clear that even with 42'6" height there are still no findings of adverse impacts and the project should be allowed to be completed. Finally, the original findings indicated that the building height had no impact and this is still true. The findings are unchanged because the conditions are unchanged. The overall project and scope are as approved. Granting of this exception will reaffirm the findings that were made in 2003: • That the project design is in keeping with surrounding development; • That the project design meets the stated objectives of the Hillside Design Guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of the hillside site; and • That there are no adverse impacts to the surrounding community. Architect Blanton requested that the Commission approve the resolution recommending that the City Council approve this requested amendment. Chair Kirchmann opened the public comment on this item. Hugo Landecker, San Rafael Ave. resident, stated that this project is a great example of where everything has gone wrong and the Commission is expected to fix it. The staff report and the applicant indicated that the licensed land surveyor, architect, soils engineer, contractor and the building inspector were all at fault. Construction should have been stopped earlier and this matter resolved. All these professional experts that the City relies on, got the community into this mess. The project would have been denied if the applicant originally asked to build the house as it stands today. The San Rafael Municipal Code must be reviewed in regard to exceptions, which are used to address only minor adjustment. A variance is a more appropriate tool to address this problem. However, a variance would have a neighborhood altering result. A variance could not be approved because it would grant the applicant a special privilege. In regard to the project's compliance with development standards for hillsides, he did not see any language that would allow exceptions for height. Approval of this application could result in a legal challenge and wished the City Attorney was present tonight to help guide the Commission. Lorene Jackson, Oakview Drive resident, does not understand how the Commission can approve a house that is 52 feet high and 130 feet wide on a hillside within 100 feet of a visually significant ridgeline. She then provided architectural drawings showing the profile of a house with a 30 -foot maximum height allowed. Most places in Marin would include a substantial clearstory as part of the allowable 30 feet, so the applicant received a freebee on that one and she asked the Commission not to allow a freebee on the lower 12 feet. She recommended removing the clearstory. She disagreed with the staff report because the project does not meet the stated objectives of the Hillside Design Guidelines. It is not in keeping with the design of other homes in the development. This house will not be hidden by trees. It spans the hillside more than others and is more obtrusive with the windows. This project is not compatible with the neighborhood and it does not minimize the visual impacts. The 12 -foot clearstory will always stand prominent above their homes. This project should have been denied in the first place and now they must deal with an amendment that exacerbates the problem. She submitted a letter for the Commission's review to better outline her issues. The Hillside Design Guidelines discourage large areas of glass. Homes on the hillside should avoid excessive cantilevered overhangs on downhill elevations. This building is 52 feet high, which is as tall as the Macy's building in Terra Linda. The effective visual height of the hillside residential home should be reduced, so the structure does not stand out prominently. It does not matter that the elevation approved is the same. It is a flawed argument and that is the reason why there is a maximum height limit. They never approve plans to the top elevation. In terms of the flawed survey, before a pier is poured soil borings are done. Surveyors are out in the field and sign their name because the survey is accurate. She then recommended lowering the house closer to the approved height by removing the clearstories to mitigate some of the visual impacts, restore the view of the ridge, reduce light pollution at night and reduce the glare by day. There are many letters in support from neighbors living on the ridge or from homes in the development that do not view this house. In terms of the merits of this project, it does not meet the City's Hillside Design Guidelines. Yoshi Tomi, Oakview Drive resident, admired Brent's design and how he worked so well with nature. He believes his property values will increase due to this project. Mr. Dickens was a brilliant, honest and wonderful gentleman who will be greatly missed. He further asked the Commission to approve the project. Jerry Kramer, Oakridge Road resident, watched Brent develop the project and was concerned when the story poles were erected at 30 feet, which is not the case. There is no reason for the Commission to approve the addition to the building. This project is wrong and should not be approved. He requested that the applicant remove the clearstory. There are so many items that exceed the original proposal that it should not be approved. Leyla Hill, Indian Road resident, stated that the house is mostly hidden by trees and it will fade into the hillside. She has no objection to the project. There will never be a third story because it is not possible. It is very spacious inside, but nothing will ever be built on top. It is an architectural home. It certainly is a far better quality home than most of the houses in Los Ranchitos. All trees will remain and there is plenty of room for them to thrive. Considering the quality of work Brent has done, it would be a real shame to alter the property in anyway. She further requested that the Commission allow the project to stand as it is. Paul Herman, Oakview Ave. resident, stated that Brent was a visionary and greatly respected the topography. The houses he built here are very hidden into the hillside and surrounded by trees. He has no doubt that this project will disappear into the hillside. Brent's character and integrity have been criticized incorrectly. Brent was an artistic individual who had an ability to create beautiful projects. This house when completed will be a beautiful house. The house will be very light inside due to the use of windows in such a way. He further supported the project as presented. Jeremy Lent, Oakview resident, believed if anyone has a concern it should be him since he lives right next to the construction. Brent was a visionary architect who created a real asset to San Rafael. Brent had an incredible ability to construct buildings within the topography. As a homeowner, Brent took great efforts to maintain the environment. Brent has always been extremely courteous in relation to any of their concerns. Brent was always sensitive about timing of construction work. He strongly urged the Commission to allow the house to be built as planned. He further supported having the house completed as Brent envisioned. Richard McDonald, Oakview Drive resident, very disappointed how viciously local contractors attacked Brent at a previous meeting a few weeks ago. They are simply jealous of Brent's architectural success. He lives 300 yards from this project and has no objections. He loves the buildings. They had some discussions about easements on their property, but the matter was resolved. In terms of visual mass, homes built on Ridgewood are the real eyesore in the community. They were approved and built 40 years ago, which are massive visually speaking. Two to four stories sticking out over nothing. They are ugly, obtrusive and he hates them, but they were all approved. In terms of the extra story, it is an extra window, an architectural feature, not an extra story. In regard to light, this house faces north as his house and there is not a lot of light from the north. More windows on the north side are needed to provide light. He requested that the Commission approve this project. This is an outstanding house. He further asked that Brent be respected to design a wonderful house. Bruce Frankel, Ridgewood Dr. resident, indicated that this project has become very emotional. He has done projects before where a surveyor missed a line and topography. As one starts construction, issues occur and the design must be revised and amendments or revisions are requested. Items come up that must be addressed. They cannot address what has already been approved. They are talking about going down. People are concerned that the Dickens Family will prevent individuals from hiking on the trail. They feel they have an entitlement to go through private property to hike on the trail. There is no entitlement to hike through private property. Brent has allowed that to occur, but if people feel they are entitled to do so they are making a big mistake. Suzie Buchholz, Oakridge Road resident, stated that neighbors that look directly out across the valley and view this project had no objections and believed the project will blend in with the surroundings. She personally watched the new houses disappear into the hillside and is sure this project will continue to disappear. She urged the Commission to approve the project. Matt Guthrie, San Rafael resident, stated that the house is constructed as approved in everyway, except for one, there is an amendment to one dimension of the rear wall of the building. Plans showed at one point that the dimension was 30 feet. The existing grade shown on those plans would result in the building being higher than 30 feet at a few points. As construction occurred, there was some discrepancy with the topographic survey. There were also recommendations from a soils engineer to remove fill to provide a stable foundation. It was required to grade behind that building to provide a stable place for scaffolding and construction equipment. The grading and removal of fill had nothing to do with complying with the 30 -foot height requirement. And there is a discrepancy in the survey. It could be 3, 4 or 5 feet. The threshold established in approval of this project was the height of the building, its elevation and whether it had a significant adverse impact. All other aspects are unchanged. The building is being built as was approved. Architectural features were as approved. The exception to the ridgeline policies was as approved. This five -lot subdivision was approved prior to imposition of the 30 -foot height limit and the Hillside District standards. Four houses were approved and constructed and not subject to the provision and vary from 36 feet to 43 feet. Exceptions included height of rear wall and in approving that exception the City's findings made reference to the fact that this design would be in keeping with the surrounding development. The design architect fashioned this entire neighborhood in a cohesive design. The City in making previous findings for this project found it fit to consider the design aesthetic and spatial parameters already established in the previous homes as being responsive to the site and in compliance with the objectives of the General Plan and Hillside Design Guidelines. They are talking about one dimension. They are talking about a building that does not exceed the height and in no other way is this amendment dealing with any other issue because the house is being built exactly as was approved, except for this one dimension. Diane Lammer, President of Los Ranchitos Improvement Association, noted that earlier in the year the Board voted to send a letter in opposition of the amendment, but due the lapse in correspondence it was not submitted and is present to inform the Commission how the Board voted. Bill Minahen, San Rafael resident/General Contractor, understands that many support this project, but as a general contractor, builder and developer they must follow the San Rafael Hillside Design Guidelines, which received a national award. There is a 30 -foot height limit and a stepback situation on the side of hills to avoid viewing a flat wall. There is a lot of language in regard to bulk. At the DRB meeting, a question was asked of the Architect Blanton as to whether adding 12.5 feet would change the bulk of the project and the answer was "no." He asked how could 12.5 feet be added to any structure and not make it bigger and more massive. There is never a problem with the topography. Story poles are erected at 30 feet and the height is known. They were 30 -foot high off of the existing grade. The planning division found the problem of this building being 12.5 feet higher. The planners found the discrepancy. Now, they are at 42.5 feet, plus there is another roof that is an architectural element, so the total is 55 feet. Hotels and commercial buildings are 55 feet. They now have a commercial building sitting on a hillside. Also, motels are not allowed to be built over 54 feet tall in San Rafael. Brent pulled one over on the City in his view. Brent knew what was going on with the grade and he raised the grade on his plans, so the entire building is being raised. It never would have been approved at that elevation, but at 12.5 feet lower. He further noted that the ordinance must be followed. Tom Cooney, San Rafael resident, agreed it is a beautiful project, but when this project started it was part of the County and then annexed over to San Rafael. This property avoided a lot of sewer fees. By allowing a property to be annexed over to the City of San Rafael it allows contractors and developers to build more houses on the ridge. This project will set a precedent in terms of height. He opposed a huge City growing on the hill. He appreciated the efforts, but this project is too massive. He believed it sets a precedent for the next house being built on the ridge. Commissioner Paul clarified with staff that the height from existing grade as shown on the original survey was correct, but during the construction process the contractor removed 12.5 feet of soil for various construction operations. Planner Dhaliwal responded in the affirmative and explained that additionally, the original topo map was also wrong. It was copied from the GIS map. Principal Planner Boloyan noted that there is about 12.5 -foot difference, which is from an inaccurate survey, soils operation and construction activity. Commissioner Colin clarified with staff that the building height in relationship to the ridge has been unchanged. Planner Dhaliwal responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Colin asked staff if the original plans included the clearstory. Planner Dhaliwal responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sonnet asked staff if it is typical of the story poles to reflect the clearstory or just the roofline. Principal Planner Boloyan noted that typically it would show the mass and high points and clearstory features would not be shown in story poles. Commissioner Pick desired to review the story -pole photographs from the applicant. Also, the roofline is as originally anticipated, but the grade dropped, so he asked staff if the story poles accurately represented the location of the roofline as built. Principal Planner Boloyan believed the photographs would show the structure as it appeared with story poles and the story as it looks under construction and from that the Commission might be able to make that relation. In terms of story poles, staff cannot confirm or deny since they were not present. Story poles were.reviewed at various meetings and staff assumed they were correctly placed. Commissioner Pick believed the survey was a property line shot and the topo information was added from the GIS map or did the survey included the topo information. Architect Blanton explained that a surveyor went out to verify and there was some question in terms of the original document. They indicated a 160 -foot elevation above sea level as the datum point in relationship to which all the other elevations for the building were established. On the working drawing documents it indicated a 159 -foot datum point as being used and they could not determine which was which, so they worked off the 160 since that was higher for the worse case scenario. The surveyor stated that basically the topos were off by more than 10 feet. In terms of the general contours, the rear elevation and the only place where the topo is substantially different from the original drawings is in this one major dip and then it comes back up. Part of it is the uneven nature of the hillside and how difficult that is to do in any topography like this one. She further believed Brent did an admirable job in working with this site. Commissioner Pick asked staff if there was some sort of citation or red tag for this project. Because if the original grade came close to meeting the standard then what triggered this chain of events. Planner Dhaliwal responded that there was a compliant about excessive height of the building. Staff reviewed the plans, visited the site and discovered the discrepancy in height. Commissioner Lang summarized the facts that they do not know how far off this is from the pre-existing grade. Principal Planner Boloyan agreed. Commissioner Lang stated similar circumstances occurred behind Gerstle Park where there was a basement level deeper or taller than originally anticipated and she believed they granted a variance. Principal Planner Boloyan noted that Baywood Terrace, the Gerstle Park project exceeded gross building square -footage and requested an exception to the hillside standards. Also, one point was made during the public hearing in terms of the purpose of exceptions of minor deviations from the zoning ordinance and the exception being processed in this case is not that exception. This is an exception contained within the Hillside Overlay ordinance. This is not the minor exception to allow deviations. The process that is prescribed by Chapter 12 of the zoning ordinance states that if the development standards are not met for gross building square -footage, height for hillside properties and natural state an exception can be requested. Findings must be made as identified in the staff report, which must go before City Council. This is an exception of the Hillside standards. Staff added that exceptions to property development standards were intended for an original project proposal. When this project first came in, the City would have evaluated a project that could meet the hillside standards and one that did not. If the Commission found that the project design alternative met the stated objectives of the hillside guidelines and that this alternative design solution would minimize grading, retain more of the project in its natural site, minimize visual impacts, protect significant trees and protect natural resources and resulted in a superior project and compatibility with and sensitivity to nearby structures. The Exception was intended for the original development and this is a modification to the original granting of that exception, so they can still make the same findings. Chair Kirchmann stated that City Council did grant an exception to the stepback requirements. Principal Planner Boloyan responded in the affirmative. Two exceptions were granted to the property development standards. One was for the stepback height of the rear wall and the other was for building within 100 feet of the ridgeline. The original approval also granted deviations from the hillside guidelines such as massing and other concepts where this design would not meet the exact language in the guidelines contained in the hillside ordinance. The City found, in granting this project, still meets the character due to unique circumstances. Commissioner Lang noted that Council applied these standards prospectively in the original approval and now the Commission is being called upon to use the same standards retrospectively looking at what has occurred since it is a modification. Principal Planner Boloyan agreed. Commissioner Lang noted a similar situation in the exterior appearance of the building at Bayside Terrace where the Commission applied the rules in the same way and approved retrospectively. As she recalls, one of the prominent point was that the exterior was not affected by this change. The view and primary purpose of the hillside guidelines remained undisturbed by this modification. Principal Planner Boloyan agreed. Commissioner Sonnet asked staff if they preformed a thought experiment and they had the soil back at 12.5 feet higher than it is currently, the constructed grade is now magically restored to existing grade prior to construction, what would be obscured on that back wall of the building. Planner Dhaliwal noted that the bottom of the skirt wall. Principal Planner Boloyan explained that it is under floor space, not living space. It is the skirting underneath the building. Basically the bottom of the building became longer. Commissioner Paul pointed out that it really is not skirting, it is just exposed piers, so even though the top of the roof is 42.5 feet above current grade it is not really a 42.5 -foot high rear wall, just a two-story wall floating above undisturbed native grade, except where the native grade was disturbed due to construction around the piers. Planner Dhaliwal agreed. Commissioner Mills assumed the applicant knew as soon as the foundation started that the plan was out of compliance in 2003. Principal Planner Boloyan indicated that a foundation permit was issued, work on the foundation began and subsequently a building permit submittal was submitted to the City in 2007, which showed the plans as approved by Council. Staff explained that the permit was issued and then staff discovered the discrepancy during construction. Commissioner Mills clarified that the 2007 building permit plans did not show the discrepancy of the topo map and survey. Planner Dhaliwal responded in the affirmative. There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Sonnet explained that the DRB was quick to pull it back to the issues and they did not focus on whether or not the building should have been approved or whether exceptions should have been granted, but were unanimous in the discussion of what to do with the 12.5 -foot discrepancy. It was a quick discussion not thinking it was a major issue, so it was not a very controversial decision. He believed if they really look at the issue at hand, a lot of the testimony opposing the applicant seems to be a residual dislike for the original approval that many individuals are not comfortable with what was approved, but Council approved it and the Commission is not present to revisit that case. The real issue is the grading. Looking for precedent, he does not take particular comfort. Finding precedent is a double-edged sword that he is not comfortable with. If the clearstory was removed it would bring it down, but that is not the issue because the clearstory was approved. The only logical remedy for this situation would be to build back up the bottom, but he is not sure of the value because the physical aspects of the building would not change. He further felt it would be hard to get this far along on a project without realizing an error occurred and noted that it is an unfortunate situation. Commissioner Pick agreed they are not present to revisit the old approval. In terms of process, approval occurred in regard to mass, bulk and clearstory. The process of the Commission is to review the discrepancy of the present location of the grade to the fixed space. There is a limited amount of remedies for the problem. Most obvious is to simply approve the discrepancy between the original grade and the situation that exists at the site. He did not think this process should include considerations of personality, just the issue before the Commission. He studied the hillside guidelines and there should be consistency and when this project was originally approved, it seems that there was a desire to approve a difference, and meet the intent and purpose. They must either demand a filling operation at the footing or approve staff s recommendation. The ordinance is based on existing topography at the time of project approval. It is clear from the photographs that the structure is located in roughly the same place the story poles depict. He is very comfortable that there was not an attempt to pull the wool over their eyes. Commissioner Paul agreed with Commissioner Pick and Commissioner Sonnet's comments. It is a very unfortunate issue. He did not think there was any intent to circumvent the process. They could ask the applicant to import soil, compact it to bring grade where shown and then all would be exactly as planned, but not much good is served by that. A reason for an exception is that this is a rare example; it is an extraordinary design they never see. The guidelines were formulated for the standard design, not this project. This design is going to blend in with the landscape. It will not be easily seen due to use of materials, glass and trees. It is almost like a tree house. This design meets the reason for the exception. He further noted that this preserves the hillside and would vote in favor of the exception. Commissioner Mills visited the site today and it is an amazing view. She believed it was quite massive and the windows made it more so because it reflected the light, but that is not the topic of discussion tonight. It is three quarters built, but out of compliance since the foundation, which she assumed Brent knew because he is the expert. An amendment was filed in 2008, only after Brent received a letter from the City Attorney. In her view, she believed in 2003 Brent knew there was a violation. She is almost forced to see this as a knowing violation of the rules and to allow it to be approved without serious review would be harmful to the City's reputation. It is a huge and unique project. She suggested continuing this project in order for staff to work with the community to resolve the issue. She is at a loss on how to resolve this matter, so she cannot approve the amendment tonight. Commissioner Lang felt DRB was correct in that this amendment would not change the project. The big picture is compliance. 12.5 feet of exposed pier is what they are talking about. The fact is that mistakes happen that must be addressed and they must reasonably take into account all parties involved. Focusing on exposed piers, they have a better justification for granting the expectation than at Bayside Terrace. At Bayside Terrace, which she voted against because the mistake that occurred allowed additional usable space to exist such that the developer gained financially from that mistake because they were setting a precedent. In this case, they just have exposed piers and there is no financial incentive. It is just an unfortunate consequence of a topographical mistake. The alternative, taking into account is to import fill, which no one believes is a good idea. She can make findings that granting the exception is the superior alternative in this case, so she would vote in favor of the resolution. Commissioner Colin agreed with Commissioner Lang's precedent setting comments. Also, they are not present to revisit the original approval. She was amazed during her visit how much the building nestled into the hillside. The issue is in terms of the height, but the height and space is as approved. She is not comfortable making an assumption because none of them know, so that is not relative to this matter. There is no way to mitigate the problem superior to granting the exception. DRB was unanimous in their discussion. When approved in 2003, the house relationship to the ridgeline has not changed. She believed it still meets the intent of the hillside guidelines. Chair Kirchmann stated that it is distressing that the extra height was not noticed earlier, especially by building staff. The difference between the constructed and planned piers is such an order of magnitude that it should have been obvious. He urged the department to think about how best to coordinate between planning and building divisions to recognize such a problem at an earlier stage. It is hard for him to believe that the architect, builder and contractor were not aware of that discrepancy. It seems a lot of the underpinning of the Commission's recommendation and Council's decision to grant approval was the very thick existing oak vegetation. In terms of a violation of the Hillside Design Guidelines, if the project were on an exposed hillside both the Commission and Council would not find this acceptable. In this context, they have a thick existing oak forest that conceals the understory condition and the objectionable height. One possibility is to add a condition to require the applicant to reforest if the trees were removed for any reason in order to restore that visual screen. Reforesting with mature plants rather than 24 -inch boxes. Another possible solution has been suggested to remove the clearstory, but that is not an attractive solution. That would destroy the architectural character of the structure, which is part of the reason Council granted the exception. Also, building back the grade does not solve the problem because disturbing the natural state would further violate the guidelines. Also, they have no effective way to build back the grade to the assumed existing grade, so that solution does not work. Aside from being genuinely distressed at not recognizing the discrepancy, the real answer is that this project, as constructed meets the intent of the Council approval, still meets the objectives of the Hillside Design Guidelines. Highest point on the structure was at or below what was approved. On balance, he did not have a problem recommending to Council approval of the exception. Commissioner Pick believed it is important to review the process of creating a foundation. He would not make the same assumption of knowledge on just how big this problem was. With a building like this, they set the top of the pier and then work down. It is in relation to the bedrock, so they start at the top and work down. If the construction of the pier goes through one foot of top soil or leafs or 10 feet it does not matter, it is all about how deep it goes into the bedrock. If there was an earthquake or fire and there was movement of the topsoil and in fact disappeared it would not affect the foundation. It is irrelevant to the structure. If there was 5 feet of material sitting on the bedrock, no one on the engineering or design team would have any concern because it does not matter as far as the project goes. Structurally it does not matter, and they may not have been paying much attention. Chair Kirchmann stated that with approved plans they expect to see exposed 30 feet of pier from grade to top of the roof. Allowing a few feet he understands, but 42.5 feet instead of 30 is a noticeable difference in his mind. The particular pier in question is one at the northeasterly corner, and may not have stood out. The discrepancy on the other was much closer. Commissioner Pick pointed out that who knows what happened because possibly a solid four or five feet could have disappeared after construction. Commissioner Mills asked why does the planning and approval process go with the grade if it is all about bedrock. Commissioner Pick is talking about the way something is constructed. They are talking about zoning and design guidelines. He would suspect that the reason the guideline is based on the grade at pre -construction before the project starts is because that is the only way to pin it down. Commissioner Mills believed the focus of the discussion is the difference. Chair Kirchmann agreed there is a concern for manipulation of the grade. If this project had been presented with the actual contours and there was a 42.5 -foot height at one column would the same decision been made in terms of findings for exceptions to the height to foster other beneficial aspects of this design, he did not know. Council has the final authority and will be faced with making that decision. From his own perspective, he cannot say categorically that they would never grant an exception for a column that is 42.5 feet high for a design like this. It is a matter of balancing benefits and disadvantages and looking to see if objectives are being fulfilled and whether requirements of the ordinance are being satisfied. Commissioner Pick stated that in a case like this on the hillside where the structure proposed for the original approval is challenging the boundaries of the guidelines, the submittal requirement includes a plus or minus topo survey to a certain methodology. Commissioner Mills agreed with the condition to reforest as suggested by Chair Kirchmann. Also, she suggested removing the clearstory, which in her opinion would still retain the design features. Chair Kirchmann noted that there is a certain function in regard to the clearstory. Chair Kirchmann asked for a motion. Commissioner Lang moved and Commissioner Colin seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve the Resolution conditionally approving amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception, adding a condition of approval to reforest the area should the dense growth be removed for any reason. Motion carried 6- 1, Mills opposed. AYES: Commissioners: Lang, Colin, Chair Kirchmann, Paul, Pick, Sonnet NOES: Commissioners: Mills ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners None NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL \ U You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 200 Oakview Avenue — Request for Amendment of approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow the maximum building height to exceed 30 feet and the downslope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet for a single family residence under construction. The overall building height remains unchanged. The Exception is required since the downhill slope grade is steeper than initially identified, thus resulting in 42.5 -ft. height for portions of the downhill facing wall elevation. The City Council Wll consider the Design Review Board and Planning Commission recommendations and make a final decision; APN: 010-360-02; Single Family Residential (R1a-H) District; Patsy Dickens, owner/applicant; File No(s).: ED08-051 and EX08-014. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section15303 (New Construction). If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required MEETING DATE/TIMEILOCATION: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/planningeommission WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only. those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 901" day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistiestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting1hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. Attachment 5 PROP ID NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP4 010-360-01 DICKENS BRENT /TR/ & 175 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-360-0: LENT JEREMY R TR 160 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 179-243-1 '� KATZ SANFORD N /TR/ 75 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 010-021-Oi FARRER LISA & 102 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-021-17PITTMAN ROBERT/TR/ 6 VISTAWOOD WAY SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-011-4£ MAC DONALD RICHARD D TR ET, 129 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 010-360-0�ANGEL CLAY/TR/ 150 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 010-021-Of SUNDBERG MONIQUE L /TR/ 2 VISTAWOOD WAY SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-360-0`. HERRMANN PAUL W TR & 140 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 179-242-31BRIDEWELL BRITTON & 16 MADRONE WAY KENTFIELICA 94904 179-242-5£PYLE ELANA K 14OAKVIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 010-011-41SAN RAFAEL CITY OF SAN RAFA CA 94901 179-242-7E WESTERN SALES & MANAGEMEI19 INDIAN RD SAN RAFA CA 94903 179-242-5f COBLENTZ WILLIAM K TR & 10 FIFTH AVE SAN FRAK CA 94118 179-242-3" BARTERA LINDA 100 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 010-321-0(WAITE JAMES S & 142 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-021-0:RAPOZO GERALDINE J TR 118 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-021-01 RODGERS R JORDAN & 126 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 179-242-5(COONEYTHOMAS M & 9 INDIAN RD SAN RAFA CA 94903 010-360-0'z DICKENS W BRENT TR & 277 N SAN PEDRO RD SAN RAFA CA 94903 179-242-57 HORNSTEIN VAL D & PO BOX 151602 SAN RAFA CA 94915 010-321-OEJOBE ROBERT S & 130 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-321 -1 (ATKINSON DAWN 150 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-021-0�STERLING JAMES R & 114 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-021-0, YOUTZ PETER & PO BOX 322 SEA RANC CA 95497 010-021-O(SAMBRANO GILBERTO R & 106 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-321-0f DAVIES BRYAN T & MARADEE M 134 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-321-0I SHEARS RICHARD PO BOX 475 SAN GER(CA 94963 010-021-0'LUCQ LOUIS J & 110 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-321-0(James Waite, CPA 142 Ridgewood Dr San Rafael CA 94901 010-360-0: Paul W. Herrmann, MID, Inc 140 Oak View Dr - San Rafael CA 94903 010-021-02 Sterling Consulting Services, Inc. 114 Ridgewood Dr San Rafael CA 94901 010-021 -O� Inner Genius Communications, Inc 122 Ridgewood Dr San Rafael CA 94901 010-321-1(Dawn Atkinson 150 Ridgewood Dr San Rafael CA 94901 179-242-5E Occupant 14 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 179-242-5f Occupant 20 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 179-242-31 Occupant 130 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 179-242-51 Occupant 15 INDIAN RD SAN RAFA CA 94903 010-321-O1Occupant 138 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 010-021 -0" Occupant 122 RIDGEWOOD DR SAN RAFA CA 94901 01 0-360-Oz Occupant 200 OAK VIEW DR SAN RAFA CA 94903 Matthew Guthrie, Forsher+Guthrie 10 H Street SAN RAFA CA 94901 Anne Laird-Blanton, AIA 10 G Street SAN RAFA CA 94901 Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, (PO Box 151560 SAN RAFA CA 94915-1561 Rafael Highlands Assn c/o Noel Per 214 Ridgewood Drive SAN RAFA CA 94901 Los Ranchitos Improvement Assn J PO Box 4146 SAN RAFA CA 94913-014( Dennis and/or Ellie McCue Four Indian Road SAN RAFA CA 94903 Lorene Jackson 25 Oak View Drive SAN RAFA CA 94903 Judy Schriebman 3 Poco Paso SAN RAFA CA 94903 Suzie Buchholz Tome 65 Oak Ridge Road SAN RAFA CA 94903 Yoshi Tome 107 Caledonia Street Sausalito CA 94965 Catherine MacDonald 129 Oak View Drive Paul and Roberta Downey 19 Indian Road Jeff Klein 4 Canada Court Doug Lee 58 Circle Road STEPHE & LEYLA HILL 30 INDIAN ROAD CLAY ANGEL, M.D. 150 OAK VIEW DR HUGO LANDECKER 127 SAN RAFAEL AVE JERRY KRAMER 80 OAK RIDGE ROAD BRUCE FRANKEL 60 RIDGEWOOD DRIVE CITY CLERK, CITY OF SAN RAFAI P.O. BOX 151560 SAN RAFA CA 94903 SAN RAFA CA 94903 SAN RAFA CA 94903 SAN RAFA CA 94903 SAN RAFA CA 94903 SAN RAFA CA 94903 SAN RAFA CA 94901 SAN RAFA CA 94903 SAN RAFA CA 94903 SAN RAFA CA 94901-156( Los Ranchitos Improvement Association P.O. Box 4146 San Rafael, CA 94903 January 7, 2009 Mayor AI Boro and City Council Members City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901-1943 RE: 200 Oak View Drive, San Rafael Dear Mayor Al Boro and City Council Members, We are opposed to the excessive height of the single-family residence at 200 Oak View Drive and urge you to deny the request for amendment that would allow a further increase in the home's height. JAN 0 9 2009 As built, this house does not reflect what the story poles presented. The visually prominent home is too tall to disappear behind the existing mature oak woodland. The clearstory blocks the view of the ridge, which the City itself has designated as visually significant. Many neighbors will lose their privacy. In addition, this project will set a poor precedence for future construction on the hills above Los Ranchitos; we are concerned that it will encourage other contractors to submit erroneous plans. We urge you to work with our neighborhood to come up with ways to make this project work. Some suggestions include removing the clearstory and requiring that trees in front of the house remain in their natural state. Thank you for considering our concerns. Sincerely, Diana Lammer President Los Ranchitos Improvement Association Los Ranchitos Improvement Association Mission Statement The mission of this Board is to preserve the spirit of the Los Ranchitos neighborhood and to help its residents preserve a very special way of life. Attachment 6 Page 1 of 3 Sarjit Dhaliwal From: Sarjit Dhaliwal Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 9:01 AM To: 'lorene94903@yahoo.com' Cc: 'kam@saber.net'; 'EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com'; Bob Brown; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan Subject: RE: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing Dear Lorene, Your letter to the Planning Commission will be distributed to them tomorrow along with their fortnightly packets. I do not believe the Planning Commission decision hinged only on the presentation of the pictures by the applicant. At least one of the Commissioners asked if story poles were erected for the original approval and the applicant presented a photo of the story poles. Although this happened during a time when the public hearing was closed, the applicant just answered a question that was asked. Furthermore, the information that the applicant had was part of the application materials, has been part of the record in the project file and has been available for public review all this time. Staff believes that there is no procedural issue here, particularly given: a) the Council's review is de novo; and b) this'new' information would be available for the Council to review and consider. As presented to both the DRB and PC, staff does not have any evidence indicating whether the applicant knowingly presented incorrect information. Therefore, as you know, it would be inappropriate for City staff to make this accusation without any proof and base decisions on unfounded allegations. Therefore, staff cannot note this point in the staff report. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions. Sincerely, 5arjit From: lorene jackson [mailto:lorene94903@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:33 AM To: Sarjit Dhaliwal Cc: kam@saber.net; EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com; Bob Brown; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan Subject: RE: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing Dear Sarjist, Thanks for the reply. Was our letter sent to the Planning Commission as requested? If not, please given me their correct email address. Regardless of the CIty Council's ulitmate decision, it would be highly appropriate to have a re -hearing 12/18/2008 Page 2 of 3 since the Planning Commission violated due process in accepting information during their deliberation that was not offered to the public. In order to accept new information, the hearing needed to be reopenend, both side given a chance to comment, and then the hearing closed again. As you know, the City Council will weigh the decision of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. Will your staff report be corrected to note that the applicant knowingly presented incorrect information? Regards, Lorene --- On Wed, 12/17/08, Sarjit Dhaliwal<Sarjit.Dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote From: Sarjit Dhaliwal <Sarjit.Dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: RE: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing To: "lorene Jackson" <lorene94903@yahoo.com> Cc: kam@saber.net, EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com, 'Bob Brown" <Bob.Brown@cityofsanrafael.org>, "Paul Jensen" <Paul.Jensen@ci.san-rafael.ca.us>, "Raffi Boloyan" <Raffi.Boloyan@ci.san-rafael.ca.us> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 11:09 AM Lorene, It will be neither necessary nor appropriate to schedule this project for a Planning Commission re -hearing. The Exception request requires automatic processing at the City Council level. The City Council review will be a "de -novo" hearing. Your letter will be addressed in the City Council staff report. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, 5arjit Dhaliwal From: lorene jackson [mailto: Iorene94903@yahoo.com ] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:51 PM To: Bob Brown ; Bob Brown Cc: kam@saber.net; EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com; Sarjit Dhaliwal Subject: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing Dear Bob Brown and Planning Commissioners, Please see the attached letter requesting corrections in the staff report and a rehearing by the Planning Commission. Thank you, Lorene Jackson Bill Minahen Kim Martens Thomas Cooney 12/18/2008 December 16, 2008 Bob Brown and Planning Commission City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 200 Oak View Drive, San Rafael Dear Bob Brown and Planning Commissioners, We respectfully request that the City Planning Department revise its staff report to include the following corrections and that the Planning Commission re -hear the Dickens request for amendment: Incorrect Public Notice The project description transmitted in the Public Hearing Notice presented an incorrect project description. As pointed out to the staff prior to the December 9 meeting, the notice misstated that, "The overall height remains unchanged." This is simply not true and is very confusing to anyone trying to understand the difference between approved height and elevation (which is not approved.) The amendment before the Planning Commission was in fact to increase the allowable height on the approved project. Story Poles Did Not Reflect the Full Height and Width of the As -Built House During the Planning Commission's discussion, the representative of the applicant presented photos that were not shown to the public during the hearing, which would have given the neighbors a chance to comment. (This was out of order and violated meeting rules against accepting new information after a hearing is closed.) A quick look at these photos played a key part in the Planning Commission's decision to approve the amendment. However, a closer look at the photos of the story poles and the pier placement (both on page 17 of the Tree Report) and the house further along in construction (page 19), do not reflect the same approved height or width: 1. The northeasterly story pole (in the photos, the left lower-most story pole appears is dramatically lower (probably about 12 feet lower), indicating that the house would be stepped down in front (north side.) 2. The westerly most story poles do not reflect the full 150 feet width of the house. 3. As pointed out before, the story poles did not indicate the full height of the house with the clearstory, which adds another floor of visual mass to the proj cet. The Applicant Knowingly Misrepresented.the Grade to Achieve a Higher House Commissioner Wittenmeier-Mills alluded to this at the end at the Dec 9 meeting and because of the late hour and other items on the agenda, the Commissioners missed an opportunity for clarification. It is clear now that the City Planning staff knew this was not a simple mistake on the part of the applicant, yet staff continued to present the applicant's position that this was an unwitting error. Giving the applicant the "benefit of the doubt" seemed to play a role in the decision of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. What is apparent now is that the lower "finished" grade that resulted in the higher than approved house was actually the existing grade, and was misrepresented from the start. It just didn't make sense why anyone would grade soil to pour a pier. Piers are poured deep through whatever soil you have, you simply pour them deeper through loose soil: It is clear that the applicant knew before he submitted the original plans for design review that the existing grade was lower. When looking at the house today and the soil around the lowest pier that created the increased height of the house, there are mature trees that were not graded. Had the soil been removed, as the applicant suggested, these trees would have been removed or you would see a 12 - foot uncovering of roots. In fact, there is some build up of soil around these trees, indicating that soil was actually added in an attempt to minimize the natural grade. This implies that there may have been a discrepancy of more than 12 feet in what was submitted as existing natural grade. 2. Brent Dickens knew when the 30 -foot story poles went up that the grade was lower than presented. When looking at photos of the story poles presented by the applicant at the Dec 9 meeting, the lower 30 -foot story poles on the front northeasterly corner of the house is substantially lower. If the Planning Commission approved this project based on the story poles, THEY DID NOT approve the current elevation of the house. Dickens filed for a permit in 2003 to build the foundation that was completed by 2005. When he poured the foundation and piers, he would have known the discrepancy in the existing grade and what he submitted on the plans. Any contractors that bid on the job for the 30 -foot piers shown on the plans would been told to build a 42 -foot pier, and change orders would have been made. 4. Nonetheless, the plans submitted for a building permit in 2005 were not corrected to reflect the true existing grade and the subsequent increased size of the already constructed piers. It is unconscionable that the City did not issue a stop order on this project immediately upon realizing the illegal increased height in February 2008. Even if the City made errors along the way in the approving and inspecting this project, State law holds the applicant responsible and liable for any inaccuracies or errors. To allow him to continue construction, even at his own risk, gives false hope and a green light to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. Request to Discuss Ways to Make this Project Work 2 We ask you to re -hear this project and work with the neighbors to mitigate the increase height of this house. In addition to removing the clearstory to enable the applicant to more closely achieve the approved height, we would appreciate having a dialogue with the commission to discuss other conditions that could be imposed on the project to minimize visual impacts. The neighbors would like to discuss imposing a conditioned so that trees along the downhill face of the house remain in their natural state (trees could not be topped or thinned) and that a regular inspection and maintenance program be required to ensure the health of the trees. This would include but not be limited to treatments to prevent Sudden Oak Death. These conditions would be recorded on the deed to the house so that all subsequent owners would be required to maintain the trees, and replace trees that may succumb to disease. It would be hoped that over time the main house would disappear into the hillside as presented in the original application. Unfortunately, the steep slope and height limits of an oak tree would prevent the over 50 -foot clearstory from being covered and is but one more reason it should be removed. Sincerely, Lorene Jackson Bill Minahen Kim Martens Thomas Cooney (submitted by email) Page 1 of 6 Sarjit Dhaliwal From: lorenejackson [lorene94903@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:40 PM To: Bob Brown Cc: kam@saber.net; EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com; Sarjit Dhaliwal; Paul Jensen Subject: RE: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing Thanks for your reply Bob. We are not trying to make any implications as to Dickens motives. We are only calling for the City to put the pieces together in the staff report that reveal this was intentional misrepresentation. In their deliberations, the Design Review Board spent a fair amount of time discussing how this could be an understandable mistake. The Planning Commission also said they would have viewed this differently if he knowingly misrepresented the project; several of the Commissioners admitted they gave him the benefit of the doubt. Again, regardless whether or not this is de novo, the City Council will weigh the recommendation of the Planning Commissions, which was based on incomplete information presented by the planning staff. Lorene --- On Thu, 12/18/08, Bob Brown <Bob.Brown@cityofsanrafae1.org> wrote: Lorene: I have been reviewing the e-mail traffic and asked that Sarjit and Paul Jensen , his supervisor, discuss the issues you raised with our City Attorney. Our conclusion is that the item does not require rehearing by the Planning Commission. First, the hearing by the Council is "de novo" — they will reconsider all information from the PC hearing plus all new testimony, both written and oral. Your correspondence will be forwarded to them, and responded to in our staff report. In terms of the "new" information presented after the closure of the public hearing, the photographs were part of the material previously in the public file. The applicant offered to show the photos to the Commissioners as part of her presentation, and did so only when requested by one of the Commissioners during their deliberations. These photographs will be included in the staff report to the City Council, again, since their hearing is "de novo." As to the motivation of the developer related to grade change, that really isn't a basis for our recommendation and doesn't factor into the findings that must be made to approve or deny the application. Our recommendation is not based on how we arrived at the current situation, but what the impacts of the physical change are (although we are considering internally how we can avoid such a discrepancy being identified so late in the construction process). However, this is certainly information that you can present to the Council, which they will get in the letter you have submitted. From: lorene jackson [mailto: Iorene94903@yahoo.com ] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:49 AM To: Bob Brown Cc: kam@saber.net; EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com; Sarjit Dhaliwal Subject: RE: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing 12/18/2008 Page 2 of 6 Dear Bob, I am sorry to be persistent on this, but we are incredible frustrated with the City's position that Brent Dickens didn't know what he was doing. That simply doesn't pass the straight face test. We would like a response from you on how the City can dispute the following evidence: There are mature trees at grade in the area where Dicken's alleged he lowered grade 12 feet. Had the soil been removed, as the applicant suggested, these trees would have been removed or you would see a 12 -foot uncovering of roots. In fact, there is some build up of soil around these trees, indicating that soil was actually added in an attempt to minimize the natural grade. This implies that there may have been a discrepancy of more than 12 feet in what was submitted as existing natural grade. 2. Brent Dickens knew when the 30 -foot story poles went up that the grade was lower than presented m the plans. 3. Dickens filed for a permit in 2003 to build the foundation. When he poured the foundation and piers, he would have known the discrepancy in the existing grade and what he submitted on the plans. Any contractors that bid on the job for the 30 -foot piers shown on the plans would been told to build a 42 -foot pier, and change orders would have been made. 4. When Dickens applied for a building permit in 2005, he didn't correct the plans to show the increased height of the constructed piers. Sincerely, Lorene Jackson Bill Minahen Kim Martens Thomas Cooney --- On Thu, 12/18/08, Sarjit Dhaliwal<Sarjit.Dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote: From: Sarjit Dhaliwal <Sarjit.Dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org> 12/18/2008 Page 3 of 6 Subject: RE: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing To: lorene94903@yahoo.com Cc: kam@saber.net; EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com, " Bob Brown " <Bob.Brown@cityofsanrafael.org>, " Paul Jensen " <Paul.Jensen@ci.san-rafael.ca.us>, " Raffi Boloyan " <Raffi.Boloyan@ci.san-rafael.ca.us> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 9:00 AM Dear Lorene, Your letter to the Planning Commission will be distributed to them tomorrow along with their fortnightly packets. r do not believe the Planning Commission decision hinged only on the presentation of the pictures by the applicant. At least one of the Commissioners asked if story poles were erected for the original approval and the applicant presented a photo of the story poles. Although this happened during a time when the public hearing was closed, the applicant just answered a question that was asked. Furthermore, the information that the applicant had was part of the application materials, has been part of the record in the project file and has been available for public review all this time. Staff believes that there is no procedural issue here, particularly given: a) the Council's review is de novo; and b) this new' information would be available for the Council to review and consider. As presented to both the DRB and PC, staff does not have any evidence indicating whether the applicant knowingly presented incorrect information. Therefore, as you know, it would be inappropriate for City staff to make this accusation without any proof and base decisions on unfounded allegations. Therefore, staff cannot note this point in the staff report. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions. Sincerely, Sarjit 12/18/2008 Page 4 of 6 From: lorene jackson [mailto: Iorene94903@yahoo.com ] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:33 AM To: Sadit Dhaliwal Cc: kam@saber.net; EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com; Bob Brown ; Paul Jensen ; Raffi Boloyan Subject: RE: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing Dear Sarjist, Thanks for the reply. Was our letter sent to the Planning Commission as requested? If not, please given me their correct email address. Regardless of the CIty Council's ulitmate decision, it would be highly appropriate to have a re- hearing since the Planning Commission violated due process in accepting information during their deliberation that was not offered to the public. In order to accept new information, the hearing needed to be reopenend, both side given a chance to comment, and then the hearing closed again. As you know, the City Council will weigh the decision of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. Will your staff report be corrected to note that the applicant knowingly presented incorrect information? Regards, Lorene --- On Wed, 12/17/08, Sarjit Dhaliwal<Sarjit.Dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote: From: Sarjit Dhaliwal <Sar it.Dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: RE: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing To:"lorenejackson"<lorene94903@yahoo.com> Cc: kam@saber.net, EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com, " Bob Brown " <Bob.Brown@cityofsanrafael.org>, " Paul Jensen " <Paul.Jensen@ci.san-rafael.ca.us>, " Raffi Boloyan " <Raffi.Boloyan@ci.san-rafael.ca.us> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 11:09 AM orene, It will be neither necessary nor appropriate to schedule this project for a Planning Commission re -hearing. The Exception request requires automatic processing at the City 12/18/2008 Page 5 of 6 Council level. The City Council review will be a "de -novo" hearing. Your letter will be addressed in the City Council staff report. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, 5arjit Dhaliwal From: lorene jackson [mailto: Iorene94903@yahoo.com ] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:51 PM To: Bob Brown ; Bob Brown Cc: kam@saber.net; EurekaValleyFloor@msn.com; Sadit Dhaliwal Subject: 200 Oak View - Request for Rehearing Dear Bob Brown and Planning Commissioners, Please see the attached letter requesting corrections in the staff report and a rehearing by the Planning Commission. Thank you, Lorene Jackson Bill Minahen Kim Martens Thomas Cooney 12/18/2008 Lorene Jackson 25 Oak View Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 902-5695 January 14, 2009 Bob Brown and Sarjit Dhaliwal City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 200 Oak View Drive Dear Bob Brown and Sarjit Dhaliwal, ,JAN 1 Z20A PLANiNflANG In preparing the staff report and recommendations to the City Council;, please make the following corrections and clarification: Incorrect Public Notice for January 20th Hearing For the third time, the public notices (and preceding staff reports) have incorrectly described the project's height, which is central to the requested amendment. The notice misstates that, "The overall height remains unchanged." This is simply not true. The amendment before the City County is in fact to increase the allowable height on the approved project. Clarify the Approved Building Height in the Project Description Previous project descriptions have failed to call out the actual maximum building height approved in 2003. Through the initial Design Review, the overall approved height of the single- family residence already appears to be approximately 42 feet; the house was approved to the maximum allowable height of 30 feet with 12 feet of extra height for clearstories. The new additional 12 feet in height currently requested to correct for the steep slope will result in a structure with a maximum height of approximately 52 feet. Further, previous staff reports have referenced an "approved elevation." There is simply no approved elevation for this project. Any reference to an approved elevation is erroneous. January 7, 2003 Comments from the Marin County Planning Department As this is a "de novo" hearing, please include the attached comments ioui the County Planning Department on the initial proposed project. In particular, the merit comments on page 2 and 3 provide another professional perspective on the suitability of this project for hillside development. Although this is a different jurisdiction, County residences are the most impacted by this project. I hope you can appreciate the frustration of the Los Ranchitos neighbors having to endure the impacts from construction held to an apparently more relaxed standard. Show 30 -foot Height on Project Elevations Please include the attached color elevations showing the 30 -foot maximum allowable height relative to the proposed project. RECEIVED , f r JAN 0 9 2003 Marin County CITY OFSMWAEL Community Development Agency PLANNING January 7, 2003 Micah Hinkle San Rafael Community Development Department 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 RE: New Single Family Dwelling 200 Oak View Drive, San Rafael Assessor's Parcel 010-360-02 Dear Mr. Hinkle: Thank you for your request to review and comment on the proposed single-family residence at 200 Oak View Drive in San Rafael. It is our understanding that the applicant, Brent Dickens, is proposing to. construct a 30 -foot tali, 6,490 square foot single family dwelling on an approximately 1.17 acre property adjacent to unincorporated San Rafael and open space. The hillside property is currently vacant with a northeasterly facing slope that appears to be heavily wooded except for the proposed building area. As alluded to above, the property is located within the city limits of San Rafael and outside of Marin County's permit jurisdiction. However, if the property were within the County's permit jurisdiction, the project would be subject to the entitlement process (Design Review) and the policies and programs of the Marin Countywide Plan (including the policies regarding Upland Ridge and Greenbelt Areas). The Design Review process works in conjunction with the policies of the Countywide Plan to preserve the natural beauty of the County, minimize adverse visual and physical effects from inappropriate development, and protect the overall health, safety, and welfare of the public. The Planning Division of the Marin County Community Development Agency has provided the following comments regarding the completeness and merits of the project in the hopes that they will be useful to you in your review and analysis of the contemplated project. Completeness Items Site Plan: The site plan (Sheet 3) should clearly depict all property lines, existing and proposed easements, rights-of-way, northerly directional arrow, elevations and grades, drainage systems, and building envelope boundaries on one sheet. Also, it is unclear if the proposed gazebo and guest parking spot depicted on Sheets 3 and 10 are located on the subject property (metes and bounds appear to indicate that they are not). 2. Floor Plans: There appears to be a relatively large area reserved for pool equipment on the lower floor. However, the lower level floor plan (Sheet 5) does not indicate if that area will be enclosed and finished. Roof Plans: Two roof plans are presented with presumably no changes to the floor plans. One roof plan should be presented by the applicant that minimizes the apparent bulk and mass of the structure. 4. Building Elevations: The building elevations do not reflect both roof plans and are ambiguous regarding the pool equipment storage area. All plans should be internally consistent. 3501 Civic Center Drive, #308 - San Rafael, CA 94903-4157 - Telephone (415) 499-6269 - Fax (415) 499-7880 ' 6. Garage: It is unclear how four cars will access the garage — is ample turning radius available? Drainage systems for the garage area should be depicted in greater detail. Drainage: The applicant should provide a detailed drainage plan that indicates the direction, path, and method of water dispersal for existing and proposed drainage channels or facilities. 7• Grading: Accurate figures regarding the amounts of cut and fill should be provided by a registered engineer. It would be useful to have grading information provided for each major element of the project (such as the pool, garage, access driveway, pool equipment storage area, etc.). 8• Story Poles; If it has not already been done, story poles and construction netting should be erected on the site which clearly and accurately demonstrate maximum heights of roof ridges. The construction netting should be installed at the base perimeter and at the ridgeline of the poles to represent height, mass and bulk of the proposed residence to the greatest extent feasible. Story poles and/or staking should also be done to represent the location and extent of other site features including the driveway,.parking area, and swimming pool. 9. Colors and Materials: The proposed siding (Core -ten) may result in visual and community character impacts. Exterior colors and materials should be subdued, non -reflective, and earthtoned in nature to blend m with the natural surrounding environment Examples should be provided of other projects in the area that have incorporated similar materials and colors to assist you in your analysis of the project. 10. Photomontage: The applicant should provide a photomontage of the proposed single-family dwelling to evaluate potential visual impacts of the structure from off site locations. 11. Floor Area Calculations: Clearly call out the floor areas of the various rooms and components of the dwelling on the floor plans to better evaluate the floor area with respect to resultant bulk and mass. 12. Arborist Report: The applicant proposes the removal of several allegedly diseased trees and the structure appears to be located within close proximity to anumber of trees on would be useful in determining the health of the the property. An Arborist's Report exiting trees on site, and how best to preserve the long- term health of trees that are not proposed for removal. 13. Geotechnical Considerations: A "Stability Report," prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer with soils engineering expertise or a Registered Geotechnical Engineer should be submitted by the applicant. The report should attest to the suitability and geological feasibility ofplacing a building on the site and identify any drainage or soils problems which the design of the project roust accommodate. Merits Comments �Iiased on our preliminary review, the project design raises concerns that the dwelling would be incompatible with Ube hillside site due to the overall size, bulk and mass, and may be inconsistent with the prevailing architectural ,character in the surrounding neighborhood. Generally speaking, development proposed on steep hillsides should 'utilize the surrounding natural features to better blend in with the hillside environment, particularly on sites that cware visually prominent. General building forms should include low profiles that are stepped down hillsides to onform to the surrounding natural terrain. Roofs should be pitched and oriented to reflect the slope and direction 'of the surrounding natural terrain, and roof forms and rooflines should be broken into a series of smaller building components. The dwellings, as viewed from downhill locations, should present low -slung horizontal silhouettes by integrating deck and foundation designs into the shape of the building and site topography. Exterior walls and retaining walls should be composed of a series of smaller horizontal and vertical planes to break up the visual bulk and massing of the improvements and reflect the irregular terrain found in hillside settings. All of these design elements should utilize colors and materials that are earth -toned, non -reflective, and subdued in 1 t and blend into the surrounding natural environment to the greatest extent feasible. Page #2 /we would recommend a reduction in overall size of the proposed stricture, lowering the overall height of the structure, stepping the second floor back away from the downhill side of the residence, and incorporation of design ;elements as discussed above that would result in a development that is compatible with the surrounding natural and ilt environments. The reduction in size, along with the incorporation of a design which is sensitive to the natural hillside environment, may minimize the bulk and mass impacts of the proposed structure. k I hope this information is useful to you. If you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 507-2755. Sincerely, Curtis Havel Planner I.-ICURICA Udmin1200OaMewDr.doe cc: Thomas Lai, AICP, Principal Planner n Page #3 D 3 s ; z a B i - DDD hil 1 8948; Project 'S' Lot 2p -x 200 Oak View Drive San Rafael, California 94903 = rar �, •m.. +_ +_+._• _ • +__ �. cITYOFj4,, � �/ 1 Meeting Date: Agenda Item: December 9, 2008 2 Community Development Department— Planning Division Case Numbers: ED08-051,EX08-014 P. 0. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal—(415) 485-3397 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 200 Oakview Avenue — Request for an amendment to an approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow the maximum building height to exceed 30 feet and the down slope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet for a single family residence under construction; APN: 010-360-02; Single Family Residential (R1a- H) District; Patsy Dickens, owner/applicant; Case Numbers: ED08-051, EX08-014 �UI�/tlMltllAt��!, The nearly completed, under -construction single-family residence at 200 Oak View Avenue was approved by the City Council in 2003. The as -built plans do not match the approved plans due to an inaccurate survey map and necessary grading. As a result the project height and stepback height of downhill walls now exceed the approved heights as well as the maximum heights established by Zoning Ordinance and Hillside Residential Guidelines. As a built, both the maximum building height and the stepback wall height' are 42'/2 feet. The main issues are if the project still meets the intent of the Hillside Design Guidelines and if the project creates additional visual impacts beyond what was originally approved in 2003. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council conditionally approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-051) and Exception (EX08-041). PF�OPRTY, F�4'Gi�.: , Address/Location: 200 Oak View Avenue Parcel Number(s): 010-360-02 Property Size: 150,965 sq. ft. Neighborhood: I N/A Site Characteristics General Plan Designation I Zoning Designation I Existing Land -Use Project Site: Hillside Residential R1A-H Single -Family Residential North: Hillside Residential R1A-H Single -Family Residential South: Hillside Residential RIA -H Single -Family Residential East: Hillside Residential R20 -H Sin le-Famil Residential West: Open Space P/OS Open Space Site Description/Setting: The subject property located at 200 Oak View Avenue is approximately 50,965 square feet in size and abuts private and public open space. The site has an approximate slope of 39% and is heavily wooded. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED08-051, EXOB-014 Page 2 In addition, the site is located within 100 -vertical feet of a significant ridgeline. The surrounding development to the north is located within the Marin County jurisdiction. The project site contains a nearly completed, under -construction single family residence. On August 4, 2003, the City Council approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED02-165) to allow the construction of a new 6,490 -sq. -ft, two-level single-family home for the subject property located in a hillside/ridgeline area. The approval included exceptions to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow: 1) the down slope walls to exceed the allowable wall height of 20 feet; and 2) development within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline. An exception to the maximum allowed building height of 30 feet was neither requested nor approved. Construction of the subject residence is almost complete. However, the project as constructed, does not match the approved plans in that the building height' of as much as 421/2 feet exceeds the 30 -ft. maximum allowed height. Additionally, this discrepancy has resulted in increasing the height of the down slope walls from 30 feet to as much as 42'/2 feet. This discrepancy between the as -built and approved plans is due to the following reasons: An inaccurate survey map submitted with the Environmental and Design Review application approved in 2003; Removal of unquantified, unconsolidated material and organic debris in preparing the site for the project construction; and Drilling, forming and construction of the foundation components required some amount of slope removal and grading of the existing surface to provide access and set up areas for construction equipment, shoring and scaffolding. In order to bring the building into compliance, the applicant has applied for an amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception. Following recommendation by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, the City Council will make a final determination on this application. PRO„J C, D S RIPTI4N. . ,...' This project is an amendment of the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards to allow the maximum building height to exceed 30 feet and the down slope walls to exceed the maximum stepback wall height of 20 feet for a single family residence under construction. The overall building height remains unchanged. The Exception is required due to the fact that the downhill slope is steeper than originally identified. The downhill slope varies at different points, but in one location it as much as 12'/2 feet lower than shown in the approved plans. That resulted in 42'/2 -ft. height for portions of the downhill facing wall elevation (plan sheets 17 and 18). No new use, grading or other modification is proposed with this project. ANALYSIS As stated above, an inaccurate survey map, organic material removal and required grading resulted in building height taller than the approved height. Because the project does not propose any new ' For residential lots subject to the hillside residential design guidelines, the height of all structures, fences and walls shall be measured vertically from the existing grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge, wall parapet; mansard or other feature perpendicular to that grade. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED08-051, EX08-014 Page 3 construction, the analysis here will focus only on a review of the increased building height including the building stepback height. Consistency of the project with the Zoning Ordinance/General Plan: According to the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.12.040 (Exceptions to property development standards contained in the Hillside Overlay District), exceptions may be approved by the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, when the applicant has demonstrated that alternative design concepts carry out the objectives of this chapter and are consistent with the General Plan based on the following criteria: A. The project design alternative meets the stated objectives of the hillside design guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of hillside sites, display sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and maintain a strong relationship to the natural setting; and B. Alternative design solutions which minimize grading, retain more of the project site in its natural state, minimize visual impacts, protect significant trees, or protect natural resources result in a demonstrably superior project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatibility with and sensitivity to nearby structures. Additionally, the Hillside Design Guidelines Manual (HDG) provides pertinent review criteria for evaluating this project. Excerpts from the HDG are attached (Exhibit 6). The original project was reviewed and approved by the City Council. The attached City Council resolution approving the project (Exhibit 5) shows that the originally requested Exception to the downslope walls of the project was approved based on the following findings: A. The proposed project design would be in keeping with the surrounding development because existing adjecent houses have been constructed with similar designs. B. The project would retain a majority of the natural state of the property by limiting grading to the upper portion of the parcel. C. The project woud not require removal of any existing trees. D. The proposed exterior color and materials would not be highly visable because they would be earth -tone and would blend into the hillside. E. The project's design would meet the stated objectives of the Hillside Guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and would maintain a strong relationship to the natural setting by minimizing grading and retaining existing on-site trees. F. The project's design minimizes grading, retains a majority of the project site in its natural state, minimizes visual impacts, protects significant trees and natural resources, and the City's Design Review Board has reccomended that the project would result in a demonstrably superior project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatibility with and sensitivity to nearby structures. The Board determined that the project was well designed and the elevated pillar design minimized grading. Staff recommends that the findings A -F above can still be made because: The lowering of the grade at the rear of the house, resulting in a rear wall height of upto 421/2 feet, is the result of the post -approval construction engineering requirements to provide secure foundation connections and stabilize areas for construction equipment, shoring and scaffolding. Existing extensive oak and woodland growth onsite, obscures the view of the downhill building fagade from significant public view points and also helps to avoid creating the appearance of visually excessive building bulk. Further, the portion of the lower wall that has turned out to be taller than approved, cannot REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED08-051, EX08-014 Page 4 be seen from dowhill lots and public streets. Therefore, the additional building height exposed by grading and debris removal at the bottom of the wall does not have any adverse visual impact as it does not increase visible building mass. Except for being a taller building (measured from the existing grade to the top of the building), the project design is the same as the approved design and is in keeping with the surrounding development because adjacent houses have been constructed with similar designs. Although the building height has exceeded the approved height, the rest of the building has the same design as approved and the top of the building is actually at an above -the -mean -sea -level elevation that is 5'/2" lower than the approved elevation. This means that the actual high point of the structure is not above the mean sea level elevation that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The only difference is that the elevation of the existing grade is 12'/ -ft. lower than that shown on the 2003 plans, resulting in a taller under floor space. The project footprint has remained the same as the approved plans, thus maintaing the natural state of the property the same as approved by the project plans. The proposed exterior color and materials are not highly visible because they are earth -tone and blend into the hillside. Further, the project's design meets the stated objectives of the Hillside Guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and maintains a strong relationship to the natural setting by minimizing grading and retaining existing on-site trees. AE O N ' U� IIVBA EtD R QMIN IM4)i�. - ..... . The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project on November 18, 2008. The DRB received testimony from the public, both in support and opposition of the project. The reasons for opposition to the project were the project's disregard for the approved development standards and the project's visual and ridgeline impacts, loss of privacy for neighbors, inadequate story poles, and an inaccurate survey map. The DRB unanimously agreed that although the project height as measured from the existing grade was taller than the approved height, the project did not create any new visual impacts because the top of the project was at an elevation (above the mean sea level) which is 5'/z" lower than the approved elevation. The DRB also agreed that the increased height of the skirt walls that resulted from inconsistencies between the approved and as -built plans would not be visible from public viewing areas and other properties due to the existing vegetation. Based on their discussion, the DRB unanimously recommended approval of the project. EIR6NME:N' AL DETERMIN%l ION The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts construction of new single- family homes on residentially zoned parcels. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site, Rafael Highlands Association and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Public notice was also posted on the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED08-051, EX08-014 Page 5 Copies of all written public correspondence on the proposed project received to date are attached to this report as Exhibit 7. Sheets 7-22 thru 7-25 of Exhibit 7 consist of messages between a neighbor and the applicant which were copied to staff as well. These messages have been included at the request of the neighbor. No phone calls have been received regarding this project. The public comments express both support of, and opposition to the project. Supporters believe the project is consistent with the existing development in the area and does not create any new adverse visual impacts. Opponents contend that the project is massive, creates adverse visual impacts and invades privacy. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Recommend approval of the application as presented 2. Recommend approval of the application with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval 3. Continue the application to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns 4. Recommend denial of the project EXHIBITS 2. Draft Resolution 3. Letter from applicant, dated September 24, 2008 4. Design Review Board Minutes — November 18, 2008 5. City GOURGil Resolution appFeving the project in 2003 6. Hillside Design Guidelines criteria (Section IV.A6 and IV.A7 excerpts) 7. Public Correspondence 8 Riadw:pd Plans PFGjeGt Plans (FO Size and 44417" ReduGtiens fXstributed to the P4anniRg Gommissien eayF) September 24, 2008 Saujit Dhaliwal Associate Plannor City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, California 94901 10 6 Street, Son Rafael, CA 44907 tel 475,457,2545 fax 475.457„2743 RECEIVED OCT 07 12008 LANN[` Re: Design Review and Exception applications ED08-051 & LX08-014 for 200 Oak View Drive; Mr, Dhaliwal, On behalf of Brent and Patsy Dickens, 200 Oak View Drive property owners, we are responding to your July 15, 2008 letter requiring additional information to process the referenced applications. The following information and enclosed exhibits respond to the numbered items in your letter: 1. Piot Plan/Survey created by Jacobs Land Surveying and dated 10-6-08 indicates curreatt contours as well as the location of the existing concrete pions (identified by grid column lines from the original pern7it drawings). Please note that the survey was taken: Rom the stated Datum Point of 160” on the approved drawings rather than the note indicating a Datum Point of 159' also on the approved drawings. {if 159' were lased as the Datum Point, all of the new elevations would be 1' lower.) This gave us a "worse case scenario". We are also enclosing a revised Sheet #3 shoving where the section on Sheet #18 is out as well as revised Sheets #17 and #18 with approved elevations, location of grade at the bottom of the columns per the approved drawings and revised grade locations based upon the Jacobs' survey. 2. The Jacobs Land Survey inforruation establishes that the actual construction elevation of the hoarse is in accord with the approved plans. The plate line of the upper flat roof was.approved at an elevation of 171.91' (seepage l8 of approved plans). The survey and measurement of existing construction indicates that the plate line of the upper flat roof is built at elevation 171-48' (51/4" lower). The plate line of the lower floor was approved at an elevation of 14$:58' (see page 18 of approved plans). The survey and measurement of existing construction indicates that the plate line of the lower floor is built at elevation 14-8,12'(5Y? lower). Therefore, the overall height of the structure from floor to roof retrains exactly the same as indicated on the approved drawings, 23'-41`. Therefore, as can be seen on the rear elevation on Shoot #17, the only discrepancy between approved plans and actual construction is that the resulting grades at the back of the house vary frons as little as 1'-6" to as much as T-8" louver than what was shown on the approved plans. This has occurred for the following reasons: A significant amount of unconsolidated material and organic debris existed prior to construction on the downslope side of the house. The project soils engineer,, John Ho ; EXHIBIT 3-1. 2 required this material to be removed to insure that grade beams would be constructed in stable soils to provide secure connections to the approved drilled pier foundation. (See attached rletter from John, dated May 1, 2008♦) The depth of the material, probably the result of decayed brush, foliage and dumping over many years, varied across the site and the resulting removal cannot be quantified. The initial topography used in the preparationof the approved plans was not accurate. The survey was compromised by interpolated measurements due to tree cover, the presence of unconsolidated material and the use of 14' and 24' contour intervals as compared with the current survey using 2' contours. The drilling, forming and construction of the foundation components required some amount of slope removal and grading of the existing surface to provide access and set up areas for construction equipment, shoring and scaffolding. The depth of the material removed cannot be quantified. 3. Previous approval of the proposed design (Resolution, No. 11398 -- hillside Overlay District Exception Findings) found that the proposed residence "would not have a significant adverse visual impact due to modifications made to the height, bulk, design, size, location, siting and landscaping as viewed from all public areas. -". - As the actual construction maintains thesamebuilding elevation, we would submit that the following findings, similar to those made as part of the previous resolution, would establish that the submitted exceptions for the constructed building overall height and down slope wall would a. The proposed project design would be in keeping with the surrounding development because existing adjacent houses have been constructed with similar designs; b. The project would retain a majority of the natural state of the property by limiting C, fhe project would not require removal ofsay existing trees; d. The proposed exterior color and materials would not be highly visible because they e. The project's design would meet the stated objectives of the Hillside Guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and would maintair a strong relationship to the natural setting by minimizing grading and retaining existing on-site trees; f The project's design minimizes grading, retains a majority of the project site in its natural state, minimizes visual impacts, and g. The view of the downhill building fc by existing, protected trees. Avoidii floors of the downhill wall and mait lower portions of the building cannc h. The lowering of the grade to the real maximum and 35'_2" minimum, is a requirements to provide secure four equipment, shoring and scaffolding. EXHIBIT 3-2 ficant public viewpoints is obscured lding bulk by stepping the upper ight limit is mmaecessary because the lownhill lots and public streets. :silting in a rear wall height of 42'-6" f construction; engineering ms and stabile areas for construction wall height exposed by grading and debris removal at the bottom ofthe :wall will not have a significant adverse visual impact as it cannot be seen from downhill lots and public streets. In conclusion, granting an ex information required; please contact Mott Guthrie since Z will be out of town until October 29. Thank you for your attention to this manner and we look forward to resolving it in a tiniely manner. Sincerely, Anne Laird -Blanton, AIA Enclosures Mathew Gztthrie EXHIBIT 3-3 C. HOM &,AS.-SQUATES, INC,_ >~46� r al!6rnla 94901-2707 (415)25@»9t)27 Fax(41S) 258-9309 01 May t, 2008 Job Number 12661.3 , if ptskdtis. $,�4801h"Son Pedro Road _ tafal, Cbtifotmia 94903 . d as. Grading Recommendations Fill Slope Below House 200 Oak View Drive. San Rafael; Califomfa s?effet presents our recommendation for grading the Idose fill located below the residence at 200 , Yevr (rive in Sqn. Rafael, California. During foundation installation forthe residence we efng e deti'thot the existing loose fill material be removed, The loose fill material, in Ws current %..t �s�s no thre`atto the foundation of the residence. However to ensure the stability of the fill in- ff rec9ristructlan of the slope is recommended. Based upon our observation of the slope �f e hqusa and your desire to return the-surface elevation below the house to the pre- f' t a q`n e]p of an, the terrain could be restored to nearly the same slope prior to any an 1 lormalfy, properly compacted fill would have o finished, slope of no steeper than 2- nl ho 9 -foot verticil. If steeper slope is'neces=_a: f, a reinforced earth slope be could be 1 es{red ve could provide deign criteria for the engineered slope if you decide to'move a � g ptasened taa,hay bale structure used to retain the soil below the foundation. It is our, opinion tha fl�n� ps .long term solution to stabilize the fill. s prouides the information you require at this time. if you have any questions; please �� S'40FES3IpAJ �1tk H �� Yours very truly, P3J31l09o N. 412 JOHN C HOM & ASSOCIATES, INC t c F;( 4J�FOF John C Ham Civil Engineer - 28877 } Geotechnical Engineer- 412 t�5 Certificates Expire 3{31{04 x EXHIBIT 3-4 Y}il D. New Business (4) ED08-051 & EX08-14 UNAPPROVED MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2008. Amendment of Environmental and Design Review and Exception Permit approvals to allow an increase in the 30' maximum building height and height of the down slope walls for a single-family residence under construction. 200 Oak View Drive (Hillside Design Amendment) (Sarjit Dhaliwal) Dhaliwal summarized the staff report and requested the Board's direction as follows: • Whether the project design meets the objectives of the hillside design guidelines; and • Whether the alternative, as -built minimizes grading, maintains natural state, protects significant trees and minimizes visual impacts. Dhaliwal believed although the project as -built, has exceeded the approved building height; the top of the building is actually 5 %2" lower than the approved top of the building. Due to the project site containing numerous trees, the residence does not create any adverse visual impact on the neighboring development. Staff recommends approval of the project. Alternate Mohit asked staff what was the original approved grade point in the drawings. Dhaliwal responded that the maximum approved building height was 30 feet as shown on Elevation 18. Discussed in the staff report is the top elevation of the building, which is 5.5 -inches lower than the approved elevation. Staff added that the grade makes it taller. Chair Huntsberry clarified with staff that the top of the building is at the same elevation above sea level, but the grade down below is different. Dhaliwal responded in the affirmative. Anne Laird -Blanton, AIA, stated that this is a particularly challenging experience to be representing an architect who had such an amazing talent and phenomenal attention to detail, so to try and defend that and present that to the Board is an honor. The issues are very simple. There is no change to the design of the building as it was originally approved. In regard to elevations of the approved building in terms of certain locations, they are either the same or slightly lower than the approved elevations. Because there was only one dimension on the approved set of drawings showing 30 -foot height, they are before the Board. When they took a survey of the property they found that the contours were substantially different than what Brent Dickens was working off of. They identified several reasons. Certainly when the property was purchased in the 80s, Brent was working with older contour maps. There is also a question in terms of the datum height as they took the worse case scenario rather than the 159 that Brent actually built it at. This EXHIBIT 4-1 property also served as a dumping ground in the 50s and 60s when the development on the hill was created, so there is a tremendous amount of fill on this site. It is their perspective that the project meets all the findings and none of that has changed. The overall height of the building has not changed. There is no adverse visual impact. All original findings as listed in her letter still hold true. They understood that the 30 -foot height limit was a guideline and now has been mandated as maximum, so now they are going through this process again to receive approval for the fact that the ground is lower than they thought. Alternate Mohit asked if this increase would block any views. Architect Blanton responded that no views are blocked. Alternate Mohit asked if there has been any increase in building mass. Architect Blanton stated that there is no increase in mass. Chair Huntsberry opened the public hearing on this item. Yoshi Tomi, Ridge Road resident, commended Architect Brent Dickens on being such a wonderful architect and noted his sadness that he is gone. He further noted his support for the project and urged the Board to grant approval. Suzie Buckholz, Oak Road resident, has not met anyone objecting to this project. Those most directly impacted, view -wise, have all supported this project. Residents have been watching the development of other homes and they all blend very nicely into the hillside. She encouraged the Board to approve this project. Rich Macdonald, Oak View resident, was the original Oak View Drive owner and when he moved in 20 years ago it was just a forest. However, Brent purchased the property on both sides of him. They crossed swords because he found out that Brent had an easement across his property. Years have gone by and there is a lot of water under the bridge and since Brent and Patsy came onto the hill they have developed one of the most beautiful parts of Terra Linda and San Rafael. It might be the best development in San Rafael. He is an extremely proud homeowner and each house slides into the hillside and disappears. He believed this project would be a great addition to the neighborhood. He does not understand how anyone could think views are impacted. He was shocked to find out that there were objections to this project. He noted that Brent planted hundreds of trees and it is an extremely green hill. He will miss Brent, but hoped Patsy is able to complete this house. Lorene Jackson, Los Ranchitos HOA member, submitted a letter to the Board for their review along with photographs. She agreed that the Dickens' are great neighbors. She agreed that there is a missed presence in the room and on the Board. Brent was an amazing architect. Her comments are about the appropriateness of the project design. Her concern has to do with visual impacts primarily. The project is extensive in mass and bulk. If the height is increased higher than what was approved it would be an increase in mass in her view. She did not believe this project is compatible with the neighborhood. EXHIBIT 4-2 This place was designed to maximize views in order to have panoramic views. Her understanding is that the extra height does not include the height of the architectural features. She does not believe the trees will screen the house because the trees will not be allowed to obscure the views. Also, when reviewing this project initially, the Board made an exception because it is within 100 feet of the ridgeline. Her photographs show that the architectural features mask the ridgeline. She thought the intent of the 100 -foot buffer was to preserve the ridgeline. There is a loss of privacy. This project looms over her house. The story poles did not reflect what was happening. She expressed concern for the site survey being so inaccurate. Once foundation was being poured, she did not understand why the City did not address this issue at that point. Elevations should be clear and did not understand how they got to this point without that being addressed. Had the site survey been conducted properly, it would not have been approved at this particular height and would have been less obtrusive. It is very important to look at the project as to what would have been approved if there were an accurate survey. Current topography should have been required. She was disappointed that she submitted several pieces of correspondence to Director Brown and staff that were not included in the staff report. She stated that the Dickens proceeded at their own risk and that is a scary precedence for the City to approve as -built projects. She has not seen any compelling reason of special circumstances to approve this amendment in height. The only reason is based on error which is unfortunate, but that should have been addressed earlier. Bill Manahan, Knoll Way resident/Builder, understands the rules and regulations of Marin County and when there is a 30 -foot height limit it must be followed. He believed Brent obviously knew the height of the ground and building, so there was no question. It was a gamble. He did not understand how someone of Brent's talent could allow this to slide. Brent was an experienced architect and he should have known about this issue. Also, it was approved for 30 feet, so Brent cheated by lowering the dirt level. With the clearstory it adds another 12.5 feet, which exceeds the 30 -foot height limit. He further stated that the rules must be followed and asked the Board not to approve this amendment. Matt Guthrie, H Street resident, stated that the City in approving the building design previously made findings to allow this house to be located within 100 feet of a ridgeline and to exceed the 20 -foot down slope wall height. Those findings were in part, based on the fact that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse visual impact, the location of the house would be consistent with the original subdivision approval and the house would blend into the hillside and the project would be demonstrably superior with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatible with the nearby structures. The entirety of those DRB, Planning Commission and City Council findings previously made are still applicable to this project. The meaningful threshold for those findings was location and actual height of the building. The location has not changed, but the actual height of the building and the elevation of the roofline are actually slightly lower than what was approved. The increased height of the rear wall is due to normal conditions one would run into when building on a hillside lot. An EXHIBIT 4-3 unqualified amount of loose soil, years of leaf fall and dumping had to be removed to provide secure connection to beams. Construction requirements and scaffolding require some amount of slope removal. The additional wall height exposed by grading and debris removal at the bottom of the wall will not have a significant adverse visual impact because it cannot be seen. In addition, the resulting building height is still in accord with previous findings. The residence is still compatible with nearby structures. All other considerations the Board has to make for this exception such as grading, sensitivity to the natural hillside setting, and natural state, all those considerations being equal and unchanged demonstrate that this design carries out the objective of the hillside guidelines and the General Plan. He further added that the architecture is exemplary and it is a testimony to the designer. Douglas Lee, Circle Road resident/Builder, was appalled when this project started with the giant concrete foundation. He has been watching the construction and this is a large massive home being built on the hillside. The glare of the glass and the large clerestory impacts the surrounding areas. In terms of the surveying, the bottom exceeds the height limit and mass. It is a big wall of glass and wood. It is seen from the bus stop, so it is a visual impact. It is very massive. Residents are left to deal with this monster of a house on the ridgeline. If this were his home, he would have known the overall height. The top architectural feature stands out and it becomes a large mass with an odd shape. He further asked the Board to carefully review to understand how it impacts those walking around the area. There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion and action. Olmsted stated as to the reasons why this happened; the explanations of the applicant seem reasonable in his view. To fully understand what is going on they must look deeper into the Hillside Design Guidelines and their intent. The intent of the guidelines is to keep buildings from getting overly massive in locations where the buildings might have a significant impact on the community. He looked at this site and did not find this building as -built, has a significant impact on the community. He believes the site is unique and it has such an extensive oak and woodland growth in front of the building that he believes the building does meet the intent of the Hillside Design Guidelines, which is to lessen the impact of overly excessively high structures. He hears testimony tonight that it is overly massive, but he did not agree. They have seen applicants before this Board propose methods of building walls in front of buildings 5 feet or more to artificially raise the grade in order to circumvent height limits. He is referring to the San Pablo Ave. project where that was indeed the technique used to exceed the Zoning Ordinance. That technique could be used in this case, but it would not accomplish anything. He emphasized that the Hillside Design Guidelines are guidelines, they are not ordinances. They are guidelines meant to solve a problem. In his judgment, the problem meant to be resolved has been solved by other means and therefore finds it acceptable as constructed. EXHIBIT 4-4 Kent is a strong believer in adhering to the Hillside Guideline, but in this case they are looking at a house built exactly how it was submitted. There were some problems with the downhill grades, but that did not change the mass of the house or the final elevation of the house. He felt the house is beautifully designed and there is no logical mitigation to be suggested. He further added that due to the materials, distance to neighbors and existing vegetation that will continue to grow, he could support the amendment. Wise noted that the issue before the Board tonight is the amendment and to that end she echoed what her colleagues have stated and does not think the project as -built will have significant adverse visual impacts. She agreed with the staff recommendation and supports this amendment. Alternate Mobit visited the site on Saturday to understand the 12 -foot discrepancy and the height increase. He tried to see where that 42%2 feet was from the deck and noted that no view is being impacted. He further stated that the outcome of the grade at the bottom is a natural process of construction. Summers stated that it is vital to receive an accurate survey when projects begin, but it is not a requirement by the City and strongly supported staff and the City to adopt an ordinance in the future. In this case, as far as mitigation measures, it would be pointless because any lower wall height would not affect anyone except the wild animals. They would not solve visual impacts. The findings as Mr. Guthrie pointed out were made with the home at that elevation having no significant impact, so he can support the project as amended. Chair Huntsberry explained that the Board reviews projects very carefully. The Hillside Design Guidelines are a guide and the Board must use their better judgment and many times they look at setbacks from roads and they grant exceptions to the setbacks so the house can be near the street and less vertical in height as it steps down the hill. All is meant to make a better project. They must go far and wide to find better architecture in this community. Brent could have possibly brought dirt back in and filled it back up to the 30 -foot level to avoid this meeting, but he dealt with the situation and moved forward knowing that the house would not be any further out of the trees than it is with the dirt below it or without. He further noted support for the project. Tambornini summarized the Board's comments, and noted the Board identified their review is narrowly focused to evaluation of the impact of the additional lower wall height created by the difference in grade elevation. The additional overall height of the structure has not changed the project, and the as -built conditions are substantially consistent with the original conditions that were reviewed and approved by the Board. Thus, the original findings made for the project appear to remain applicable. Chair Huntsberry asked for a motion. EXHIBIT 4-5 Olmsted moved and Kent seconded, to recommend to the Planning Commission that the project be approved as constructed based on the findings as expressed by the Board and summarized by staff. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Members: Olmsted, Kent, Chair Huntsberry, Summers, Wise NOES: Members: None ABSTAIN: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None EXHIBIT 4-6 9 IVA6. Reduction of Building Bulk on Hillsides The effective visual bulk of hillside residential development should be reduced so that structures do not "stand out" prominently when seen rrom a distance or front downhill properties, Building form should be designed to conform to the site topography, The form, mass, profile and architectural features of the individual buildings should be designed to blend with the natural terrain and preserve the character and profile of the slope, Reduction of building bulk on hillsides can be achieved by the following techniquest a Avoid multi -story buildings on ridgelihe lots. Split pads, stepped footings, pier and grade beam foundations to permit the structure, to; step up the slope. Avoid large single. form strurfura& Cut buildings into hillside to reduce effective visual bulk-. w Cut buildings into the hillside to reduce effective visual bulk. Excavato underground or use below grade rooms to reduce ef , fec-tive bulk and to provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable spaces, The, visual area of �the build r ing can be minimized through a combined use of regrading and landscaping techniques. 49 EXHIBIT 6-1 ar • Roof farms pitched to follow slope. • Forms Broken to reflect irregular forms of hills. • Materials and colors blend iri2o surroundings. * Select materials for fire resistant characteristics. Roof forms and roof lines should be broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding natural features. Long, linear unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Roof forms and rooflines should be broken into a series of smaller building components: 50 EXHIBIT 6-2 Avoid the use of large gable enols on downhill elevations. The slope of the roof should be oriented in the same direction as the natural slope and should not exceed the natural slope :contour by 20`"l0. * Avoid excessive cantilevers or overhangs on downhill elevations. Detach parts of the dwelling such as the garage. Detached garage with rooftop deck. s • Use roofs on lower levels for the deck open space of upper levels. Terraced decks do not increase building bulk when seen from downhill lots. Avoid using overhanging decks or decks elevated on poles that make buildings seem more massive from downhill lots. Avoid large expanses of a wall in.a single plane on downhill elevations. Use horizontal and :vertical building components to effectively reduce the bulk of hillside residential development. • Building materials and color schemes should blend with the natural landscape of earth tones and natural woodland or grassland vegetative growth. Avoid large retaining walls in a uniform, plane. Break retaining walls into smaller components and terraces, I z �p 1. .A7. Hillside Architectural Character San Rafael's hillside Residential Architecture should develop a semi -rural character with a strong relationship to the; natural setting. New buildings should' incorporate the following elements and characteristics; • Simple one and ;two story buildings' in recessive colors with pitched roofs, accented with appropriate architectural features. a Building and roof forms should be "broken" into compositions of smaller components to reflect the irregular forms of the hillside setting. ® Building forms should he "stepped" to conform to the site topography. Extensive use of rooftop terraces at lower stories, -verandas, and other defined outdoor spaces are encouraged. • Strong shade and shadow patterns created by careful variation of planes in building elevations, Large cantilevered projections and large overhangs are discouraged on downhill elevations. Hillside Residential Architecture in Scan Rafael should reflect the character of the city s landscape and climate. While no one architectural "style" is desired, architectural elements that are characteristic of rural buildings are preferred. The use of porches, courtyards, verandap, sloping roof forms and natural materials are encouraged: i 53 EXHIBIT 6-5 1. Building Farm New Hillside Residential Architecture in San Rafael should continue the dominant pattern of one and two story buildings with tree canopied spaces around them, The visual contrast between areas of light and shadow gives buildings depth and substance. 1111 buildings should have shadow relief created by modest overhangs, minor projections (greater on uphill elevations), recesses and plan offsets. Large unbroken expanses of wall should be avoided. 2, Roof Forms and Plan offsets Give careful considerations to views of rooftops from other hillside areas, adjacent roads and uphill properties, r Gabled, hip and shed roof forms at a low to moderate pitch are encouraged, Moderate overhangs on downhill elevations to create strong shadow lines are desirable. For sloped roofs, long unbroken roof lines should be avoided. Changes in roof pitch orientation should be accompanied by plan offsets on primary elevations. NOT ACCEPTABLE I'M r t v! r •'m !( f r ACCEPTABL.8 A large building's bulk may be reduced by breaking the roof form into smaller parts, reflecting the irregular forms of the surroundings. There should be a consistency of roof pitch and design among separate roof components. Abrupt changes in eave heights require plan ofl ets to make transitions between building components. Flat roofs that require membrane or built up roofing materials are discouraged except in small and non-visible areas or when approved by the Design Review Hoard, Allow small areas of flat roofs only in small less visible areas, 55 EXHIBIT 6-7 3. Multi -Building Projects M t sloping sites large enough for multi -building projects are highly visit From distant locat ns. Views from the site from the neighborhood and other off site ocations should be give strong design consideration. Multi-buil developments should be designed with vist'hle diff enoes. This may be achieved thr, gh materials, colors, forms and facade variation Other techniques for i; reducing the vi al impact of multi -building projects are: l.' Site buildings wi different floor elevations to achieve' fight variation. I! /Facsbould units or buildings with different floor el" ions to levo height variation. • oc 8 ttear hillside rims have higher Visibility, I hese ]dings should be sitedr rarrangemcnt and screened with planting to minim e a "wall" effect. r+g, continuous building masses that create a "wall" effect a inhibit views.hould be articulated to produce shadows through wall setb ks, recessed porches, verandas, moderate overhangs, projecting windows.should avoid extended horizontal lines. Pitched, gabled and hipped r fs areopriate for hillside sites. 56 EXHIBIT 6-8 4. Building Materials, Texture and Color Color selection should show evidence of coordination With the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape, This is to minimize contrast of the structure with its background when viewed from the surrounding community. Roof colors should tend toward darker earthtones. Barker colors are less conspicuous when viewed from a distance. a. The following building materials are encouraged: • Exterior Walls' - Wood siding (fire resistance is an important consideration here): - Exposed wood structural members. - Natural colored brick or stone masonry. r' - Natural colored cement plaster. s , - Fire resistant wood shakes with thick butts, with Fire Department approval. - Flat Concrete Shingles of earthtone color. - Flat Clay "rile of earthtone color. - Composition shingles (with thick butts) of earthtone color. b. The following materials are discouraged: Exterior Walls 3 - Large areas of glass. - Reflective glass. - Plastic materials made to resemble masonry or stone. - Wood shingles and shakes. Roofs - High contrast or bright colors; -wilt up roofing, if seen from above, except in small areas: - Highly reflective or shiny materials. - Non -fire resistant materials: 5.Walls, Fences` i Fe ccs, walls attd\\ buil 'ngs. Patio c be Joe ed and di Accessory respect views 57 EXHIBIT 6-9 adjacent :s should Y visible Lorene Jackson 25 Oak View Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 (415)902-5695 Judy Schriebman 3 Poco Paso San Rafael, CA 94903 (415)472-5390 December 4, 2008 Planning Commission City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 200 Oak View Drive, San Rafael Dear Planning Commissioners, With all due respect for our neighbor Patsy Dickens and her late husband Brent, we urge you to deny the request to allow the construction of a nearly 50 -foot high hillside home within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline. As Lorene discussed in her November 17, 2008 letter to the Design Review Board, the proposed amendment is not appropriate for the project site. Instead, the clearstory architectural features that exceed the approved height should be removed. While most of the previous homes built in the same subdivision have blended well into the trees and contours of the hill, this house is much larger and towers over the neighborhood. Our concerns are summarized below: Background In August 2003, the City issued a permit allowing a 42 -foot high home, despite the City standards restricting home heights to 30 feet. The extra height at 200 Oak View was approved to accommodate a third floor clearstory, even though the home is situated within 100 feet of the ridgeline. This was initially approved while the applicant and owner, Brent Dickens, was on the City's Design Review Board. On November 18, 2008, the Design Review Board approved the proposed amendments. During their discussion of the project, Board Members kept referring to the Hillside Design Guidelines as merely "guidelines" and not standards. While the Guidelines are not codified, the City adopted them as a basis for findings and merits related to land use permits. We hope the Planning Commission is not swayed by Brent's colleagues disregard for the City's Hillside Guidelines and their flawed support for the requested amendments. 1 EXHIBIT 7-1 a Flawed Aruument that As -built Elevation of the House is What was Approved There is nothing sacred about the elevation for which this project was originally approved. It was approved at that elevation because that was the highest allowable height Dickens could attain. Moreover, the applicant received a bonus 12 feet of height for architectural features. To approve the requested amendment would add an additional 12 feet from the erroneous site survey and create a nearly 50 -foot house. [The 12 -foot clearstory bonus and 12 -foot amendment don't add up to a height of 54 ft because of the contour of the hill.] The proposed additional height increases the mass and bulk of this structure and raises it above the tree line. While the following flaws in the approved project cannot be fixed now, the Planning Commission should consider them with this amendment and avoid compounding the visual impacts to the community: 1. Inconsistent with Hillside Design Guidelines (Parts of Sections IV.A6 and A7 in bold below): The goal of these guidelines is to reduce the mass and bulk of homes. The proposed project tests the allowable limits on size. While the house technically measures 6,490 square feet, with the clearstory, it visually exceeds the maximum allowable size of 6,500 square feet. • The effective visual bulk of hillside residential development should be reduced so that the structure does not "stand out" predominantly when seen from a distance of from downhill properties. — This house towers over downhill homes and over the neighborhood. It was built to maximize a panoramic view that will be maintained above the trees, as does the applicant's current home at 175 Oak View Drive. However, in this case, the clearstories on top of the main level view will also remain entirely visible. Several neighbors, including Lorene, will lose a sense of privacy in their home. • Avoid multi -story buildings on ridgeline lots. Simple one and two story buildings preferred — With the clearstory, this is effectively a three level home on piers! • Cut buildings into the hillside to reduce effective visual bulk —This house is built on piers to maximize the view above the trees. Dickens had ample time before construction to modify the plans and lower the height of the house. • Roof forms should be pitched to follow slope — The pitch of the clearstory is completely opposite to the hillside slope. • Long, linear unbroken rooflines are discouraged. Flat roofs that require membrane or built up roofing materials are discouraged — It is counter productive to add extra height and mass of the clearstory to break up long lines of the flat roof. 2 EXHIBIT 7-1-b • Avoid excessive cantilevers or overhangs on downhill elevations — The house is on 21 -foot piers hanging over the hillside. • Avoid large expanses of a wall in a single plane on downhill elevations — The house has a visual width of 129 feet. • Large areas of glass are discouraged from exterior walls — Nearly the entire side of the house is glass, and the clearstories add another layer of glass. In addition to daytime reflection, the light pollution from this house will be significant at night. 2. Blocks View of the Ridge — The clearstories block the view of the ridge from downhill homes below the subject property, along Oak View Drive, and for those taking a popular walk along Circle Road. 3. Inadequate Story Poles — The story poles erected for the project did not include the additional 12 feet of clearstory height. As Dickens described in a May 11, 2008 letter to us, the story poles erected for this project showed the height of the flat roof fascia and did not include the "high popup roof elements" (emphasis ours.) Had the City cautiously notified residence within 600 feet of this project and required netting to show the full height of the roof's pitch and corners, there would have been timely comment from the Los Ranchitos neighborhood. 4. Erroneous Site Survey - Before structural plans are finalized for any hillside home, soil borings are made to determine the soil profile and depth of piers. This would have revealed any errors in proposed finished grade; the project plans should have been adjusted accordingly at that time. Despite a clear knowledge of the change in grade, Dickens proceeded with construction. Even after the City notified Dickens of the violation in February 2008, he continued with construction at his own risk. To approve a project on this basis, sets a dangerous precedence for the City. Recommendation We urge the Planning Commission to deny the amendment and require the removal of the clearstory. Removal of the clearstory would lower the house closer to the approved height, mitigate some of the visual mass and bulk, restore views of the ridge, reduce light pollution at night, and minimize the amount of energy to heat and cool the house. Respectfully, Lorene Jackson Current Board Member, Los Ranchitos Improvement Association Judy Schriebman Past President, Los Ranchitos Improvement Association (submitted by email) 3 EXHIBIT 7-1-c Sarjit Dhaliwal From: Peter Youtz [peter@youtz.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:34 AM To: Sarjit Dhaliwal Subject: Re: Project: 200 Oakview Question Thank you for providing the information. I think I understand the situation and I have no problem with Ms Dickens' application for a variance. In fact, the Dickens' have always been good neighbors and I fully support Ms Dickens' request. Best, Peter Youtz On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Sarjit Dhaliwal wrote: > Dear Mr. Youtz, > Thank you for your interest in this project. > Please find attached a map of the area. I have bolded the property > lines for your property and the 200 Oakview. GIS maps show that the > top of the parcel at 200 Oakview is located approximately 60 feet > below your property. > The house in question is almost complete. The requested Exception > would not change the top of the house as it appears now. However, it > would allow the 'skirt walls' to be taller than approved. Due to the > onsite vegetation, the skirt walls are not visible from any public > viewing areas. > > I hope it answers your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me > if you have questions. > > Sincerely, > Sarjit S. Dhaliwal, Ph.D, AICP > Associate Planner > City of San Rafael > Community Development Department > Planning Division > 1400 Fifth Avenue > P.O. Box 151560 > San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 > Phone: (415) 485-3397 Fax: (415) 485-3184 1 EXHIBIT 7-1 > E mail: sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Youtz [moi Ito: peter@youtz.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 5:18 PM > To: Sarjit bhaliwal > Subject: Project: 200 Oakview Question > Hello, > I own a residence at 122 Ridgewood Drive on the hilltop overlooking > the Brent Dickens development area. I'm not clear which lot is > requesting the variance in your announcement. (ie I'm not sure which > lot is #200 Oakview and it doesn't show on GoogleMaps). I'm currently > living at The Sea Ranch about 2 hours North of San Rafael, so it'd be > difficult for me to attend the meeting, but I am interested in the > outcome. > Could you email me a copy of the lot/plat map of that area showing which lot is 200 Oakview? Can you advise me what the altitude > difference will be between the top of the planned house and the top of > the hill? > Thanks for your help. > Peter Youtz > <200 OAKVIEW.pdf> 2 EXHIBIT 7-2 Lorene Jackson 25 Oak View Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 (415)902-5695 November 17, 2008 .San Rafael Design Review Board Planning Department City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 200 Oak View Drive Dear Members of the Design Review Board, I urge you to deny the request for an amendment to the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit for the new single-family residence at 200 Oak View Drive. The staff report includes inaccuracies, which upon correction, reveal that the project is not consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The merits of the project do not support the requested amendment. My concerns are summarized below and include corrections to the staff report: 1. Visual Impacts Excessive and visible mass and bulk The staff report incorrect asserts there are no visual impact from this project. As constructed, the subject project is not compatible with nearby hillside neighborhood of Los Ranchitos. Existing trees do not and will not in the future mask the excessive mass and bulk of this project. The subject house is much larger and more obtrusive than the other homes in the Dickens development, even during their construction phase. Unlike the other homes in the development, this house is not quietly tucked away. With the exception of 175 Oak View Drive, none of the other homes in the development has the same orientation for a panoramic view of the valley and the Bay. Because of the opportunity for a better view, the house at 200 Oak View is being constructed above the tree line to maximize that view. As the view will be retained, trees will not obstruct the prominence of the house on the hillside. Approval of 12 feet of additional height, largely architectural features, will only make this worse. Additionally, new statewide standards for fire protection will require the maintenance of this separation between the house and the trees. To minimize visual impacts, the amendment should not be approved. Again unlike other homes in the Dickens development, the excessive mass and bulk of this nearly 6,500 square foot home towers over Los Ranchitos. It looks like a restaurant or clubhouse from the Highway 101. One neighbor aptly referred to this house as "La Casa Grande," underscoring the inconsistencies of the project design with the City's EXHIBIT 7-3 Hillside Guidelines. The massive facade looms above Circle Road and Oak View Drive. The structure is the monument to what Sustainable San Rafael is trying to avoid. Impacts on View of Rid eg land These visual impacts are compounded by the projects approved location within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline. From my property, along Oak View Drive, and from others below the subject project, the excessive as -built height obscures the view of the ridgeline. The intent of the City's Hillside Guidelines is to protect the views of prominent ridgelines; again, approval of this amendment would not comply with these guidelines. Loss ofrip vacv Because the project is not obscured by trees, the house has a looming presence to my home from the driveway and front entry. The span of full-length glass across the downhill side of the house looks directly into my bedroom and master bathroom. (See attached photos.) Just like the home at 175 Oak View, the subject project is designed to maximize view from within the house and will not be shrouded by trees like the other homes in the Dickens development. Inadequate storyDoles While some story poles were erected for the initial approval for this project, they did not reflect the full visual impacts of this project. It is unclear whether the story poles showed the height of the house with or without the architectural features. Nonetheless, they were not erected to show the full height of the roof s pitch and corners. There was no orange netting along the top corners to indicate fully the scale of the project, a requirement for projects in the County, for which the impacted neighborhood is accustomed. This would have been particularly important for assessing the impact of this project on views of the ridge. 2. Inaccurate Site Survey It is not relevant that, as constructed, the project will not exceed the elevation of the approved project. The excessive top elevation of the project should not, and presumable would not, have been approved with a correct survey. When the applicant purchased the project site over 20 years ago, the site was undeveloped and in a pristine state. Through the years, excess fill from the other projects appears to have been dumped from time to time, (as is occurring on the last undeveloped parcel in Project S.) Evidently, when a site survey was conducted, the "modified elevation" was shown as "existing grade" on the plans. The height of the house was approved for the new grade. As stated in the staff report, once construction began, the unconsolidated fill necessitated further drilling. Since height is measured from natural grade or existing, whichever is more restrictive, the height of the approved project should have been modified to meet the conditions of approval. It appears that the removal of architectural features such as the clearstory would bring the house closer to compliance. EXHIBIT 7-4 2 I am farther concerned that the initial topography map for the site was not accurate. Licensed surveyors are hired to land truth, survey, and verify the contours of the land and are not limited in their analysis by heavy tree cover. 3. Neighborhood Correspondence The staff report understates the comments received from the neighbors. This request for an amendment is a result of neighbor complaints. Many neighbors throughout Los Ranchitos are extremely upset with the height and size of this project. The realization that height limits had been exceeded were largely a result of neighbors' complaints expressed almost immediately after construction began. In February 2008, at least three neighbors complained to the City: Bill Minahen, Judy Schriebman, and myself. As a Board Member of the Los Ranchitos Improvement Association, I also received numerous complaints from the neighborhood. While I wrote several emails to Brent Dickens and Bob Brown regarding the neighborhood concerns, they are not included in the attachments to the staff report. Instead, the letters included with the staff report make disparaging reference to my comments and tangential reference to another parcel. The concerns expressed in those emails are summarized in this letter. While neighbors/friends of the applicant have submitted comments that the applicant "builds nice houses" and is improving property values in the neighborhood, these are not arguments for approval. An architect's brilliant talents and design are not grounds for approving any project. Each project is approved on its own merits, suitability to a specific location, and compliance with local ordinances and plans. 4. As -built Project Status The fact that construction on the project has proceeded is not a compelling reason to accept the discrepancies from the approved project. As early as February 2008, when Brent Dickens was on the Design Review Board, it came to the City's attention that the project exceeded the approved height limits. The applicant knowingly proceeded at his own risk, gambling on a hope that it would be easier to receive forgiveness than permission. However difficult, this is a dangerous precedence for the City to allow. 5. No findings Can Be Made to Support the Approval of this Amendment The staff report offers no compelling reason why the approved height and setback should be exceeded: a. Special Privilege - The approval of this amendment would constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the neighborhood in which the subject property is situated. b. Detrimental to public welfare and injurious to other property in the neighborhood - The granting of this amendment would be detrimental to the community character of the surrounding area because of its visual impacts and by establishing an excessive height and step'back wall height that could lead to other massive and obtrusive homes in the neighborhood. EXHIBIT 7-5 c. No Special Circumstance - There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification that warrant approval of these amendments. Conclusion The staff's project analysis is incorrect. To allow the height and stepback requirements approved for this project to be exceeded would: 1) exacerbate the excessive mass and bulk of the subject project, 2) compound the negative visual impacts to the neighborhood, particularly given the proximity the ridgeline, 3) reward the submittal of incorrect site survey data, and 4) set a precedence for other as -built construction. I therefore urge the Design Review Board in good conscience to deny the amendment. Respectfully, Lorene Jackson Board Member, Los Ranchitos Improvement Association (submitted by email) EXHIBIT 7-6 rage I of I Sarjit Dhal[wal From: Thomas Cooney [EurekaVaileyFloor@msn.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:31 PM To: Sarjit Dhaliwal Cc: dorothy cooney Subject: 200 Oakview Ave Sarjit, I have spoken with several of my neighbors about this meeting for 200 Oak -view which is located in San Rafael but accessed through county neighborhood streets. I understand that only the neighbors that are in the vicinity of this residence have been notified. Since this property faces all of my neighbors and all have put up with the work trucks, I feel that our neighborhood should be notified for this meeting. I am a contractor and built my home for my family. My wife and myself removed a home that had settled poorly. We hired an architect, and engineer and submitted our drawings to the county. We had to make some changes, received a permit and built our home. This is how the process needs to work. We don't need more people moving into the neighborhood and thinking that they are above us all and don't play by the same rules. Your office should be able to take care of this matter and not involve us. The owner is a design build contractor and understood going into this project of set backs and height limits. The city should make this design build contractor abide by its plans and approvals Regards, Thomas M. Cooney EXHIBIT 7-7 Page 1 of 1 Sarjit Dhaliwal From: Dennis and/or Ellie McCue [grandop@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:48 AM To: Bob Brown; Sarjit Dhaliwal; Raffi Boloyan Cc: suzie@barkingdogcreative.com; auntpets@comcast.net; brent950@aol.com; leyla.hill@hos.com Subject: 200 Oak View Drive From: "Dennis and/or Ellie McCue" <grandop@comcast.net> Subject: Date: Friday, August 01, 2008 4:18 Dennis As I sit at my computer writing this email, I can look out my window at one of the most beautiful, yet incomplete structures I have seen in a long, long time. It is located at 200 Oak View Drive (in Project S). I am a retired California Licensed Engineer (Elevators) who has worked 40 years in the construction industry and who has lived in Los Ranchitos for 38 years. Since the beginning of construction of 200 Oak View, I have admired the method in which it was built. I remember thinking, "That house will be there long after mine has turned to dust". Since I do not know the Dickens' personally, I was unaware of the problems they are having with Marin County regarding completion of their home until recently. I do know, however, that I have yet to find a neighbor who objects to either the appearance or location of the home. My wife and I were disappointed when we noticed that construction had ceased some months ago. When it is completed, and it will be completed some day, it will be a beautiful overlook landmark for Los Ranchitos. I was told it will be finished in such a way that it will simply blend into the hill on which it is built. I, personally, wish it would stand out. Whatever the problems may be with the permitting process, I sincerely hope that Marin County will bring an end to them so the Dickens can continue building their dream home. When the ten concrete columns appeared at the beginning of the project, I new this was going to be something to remember. I then christened it in my mind, "La Casa Grande". Sincerely, Dennis J. McCue, P.E. Ellie McCue Four Indian Road San Rafael, CA 94903 415.479.6339 EXHIBIT 7-8 8/26/2008 TELEPHONE : 415-492-0928 CELL PHONE : 415-971-9098 FAX : 415-492-1519 PAUL W. HERRMANN, M.D. FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST AND MEDICAL -LEGAL CONSULTANT 140 OAK VIEW DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 August 6, 2008 Mr. Bob Brown Director, City of San Rafael Community Development 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Mr. Brown: DIPLOMATE: AMERICAN BOARD OF PATHOLOGY ANATOMIC/CLINICAUFORENSIC PATHOLOGY RECEIVED AUG 1 1 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAN RAFAEL We arp waiting this letter in support of the application by Brent Dickens, architect, for an exception regarding the home he is building at 200 Oak View Drive in San Rafael. We live in the first home Mr. Dickens built on Oak View Drive about twenty five years ago, a home that pgiltipµes to this day to be architecturally inspiring. This home, like the other homes A1104k Vidw, wli§ built with sensitive consideration for the site upon which it was built with the purpose of blending in with the contours of the land, the trees and the neighboring homes so that within a short time after completion it virtually disappeared from view. This is what 200 Oak View is designed to do and has actually begun to do during the time it has been under construction. Mr. Dickens' homes are designed imaginatively but practically with materials that ensure longevity and beauty. From a practical point of view, the use of intelligently considered siting with regard to sunlight, land contour, and vegetation and the use of extra insulating materials results in a home which is comfortable in extremes of weather with a minimum of energy use. All of Mr. Dickens homes on Oak View are works of architectural art and are just as beautiful on the inside as the outside. His projects have enhanced the beauty of the entire neighborhood and enhanced property values for all of us. It is apparent, even in its unfinished state that 200 Oak View will continue in that tradition. EXHIBIT 7-9 WV understand that the reason an application for exception is now required is because the height of the house to the ground on one side is excessive by a number of inches. This appears to be the result of sharp downslope of the property and it does not affect the height of the house as we perceive it. Numerous trees around the home already completely obscure the part of the house in question at ground level anyway. We have met many of our neighbors in Los Ranchitos and all of us are shocked that two mean spirited, disgruntled people [one of whom considers herself "politically connected"), who cannot even see 200 Oak View Dr. from where they live, could block the completion of a project that can only bring a little more beauty to the neighborhood. Beyond that, the vituperation of their attack, some of which I strongly suspect is libelous, assaults any degree of decency to be expected of neighbors. Most of us suspect other motives that are entirely separate from this project are behind their behavior and that they seized an opportunity to hold 200 Oak View hostage in an ill conceived and ignorant attempt to gain them. I implore you as a city official to please grant the exception sought by Mr. Dickens in order that this worthy addition to our neighborhood may proceed to completion. Thank you for your consideration. Should you wish to discuss any part of this letter with us we can be reached at 415 492-0928. YY Pau and Susan Herrmann EXHIBIT 7-10 Sarjit Dhaliwal From: Roberta Downey [prdowney@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:32 AM To: Bob Brown; Sarjit Dhaliwal; Raffi Boloyan Subject: 200 Oak View Drive Dear City Officials: It has come to our attention that a charge has been made by a neighbor in Los Ranchitos that the home of Brent Dickens under construction at 200 Oak View is not being built in accordance with the permit. We are not in a position to comment on the validity of the charge, but unless there is a serious violation of the permit, we hope that this matter can be dealt with expeditiously and cleared up. ,Our home is directly across the valley from Project 5 homes, so we have a good view of them and find they blend in well and are in good taste. We will be glad to see this house completed as soon as possible. Sincerely: Paul J. Downey Roberta F. Downey 19 Indian Road San Rafael, CA 94903 415-472-6659 EXHIBIT 7-11 Page 1 of 1 Sarjit Dhaliwal From: Jeff Klein [Jeff@flowidealism.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:40 AM To: Bob Brown; Sarjit Dhaliwal; Raffi Boloyan Subject: 200 Oak View, Los Ranchitos Dear City Officials, We are writing to ask that you grant the exception applied for by Brent Dickens for his home being built at . 200 Oak View. We have lived in Los Ranchitos, visit friends in Ranchitos several times a week, and currently live down the hill from Los Ranchitos . We support this project and know many others in Los Ranchitos who do, and are saddened and shocked that uninformed bystanders have become an obstacle to the speedy completion of this worthwhile prcject. 200 Oak View is designed imaginatively and sensitively, as are all of the buildings designed by Brent Dickens. When it is complete and its materials weather, the home will nearly disappear into its surroundings, as it was meant to do, and as its neighboring houses in Project S already have. Our friends in Los Ranchitos appreciate the homes in Project S and enjoy the people who live in them, and feel strongly that they add value to the neighborhood, as well as to their property values. If you have any questions or would like. further discussion about any of these or related matters, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Jeff Klein 4 Canada Court San Rafael EXHIBIT 7-12 7/30/2008 4EIVED JUL 2 8 2008 From: Leyla Hill deyla.hill@hos.com> - Subject: 200 Oak View COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: July 23, 2008 3:37:35 PM PDT CITY OF SA f� F?,AF,4EL .' ? To: Bob.Brown@ci.san-rafael.ca.us,Sarjit.Dhaliwal@cityofsanmfael.org,Raffi.Boloyan@ci.san-raae.cams, ---'_ Damon@damonronnolly.com Dear City Officials, We are writing to ask that you grant the exception applied for by Brent Dickens for his home being built at 200 Oak View. We live in Los Ranchitos. We and many of our fellow homeowners in Los Ranchitos support this project. Please do not let the uneducated opinions or incorrect assumptions of one or two disgruntled bystanders become an obstacle to the speedy completion of this worthwhile project. 200 Oak View is designed imaginatively and sensitively. When it is complete and its materials weather, the home will nearly disappear into its surroundings, as it was meant to do, and as its neighboring houses in Project S already have. The only thing conspicuous about the building, especially in contrast to many others in Los Ranchitos, is its good taste and high quality. It is a much better building --in design, in construction, and in materials --than many homes in the area. It is a welcome addition to the other fine properties of Project S which Mr. Brent Dickens has developed at the upper end of Oak View Road. All the houses of Project S, including 200 Oak View, enhance property values for all homeowners in Los Ranchitos. They are significant architectural solutions to difficult building sites. They fit well into the environment and are extremely sensitive to it. They have attracted people we enjoy having as neighbors. The final height of 200 Oak View is not an issue from our point of view. We understand that the project, as built, is actually lower than was approved. Any discrepancy due to conditions below the thick foliage on the site is understandable and makes no significant difference to the visual impact of the project. If you have any questions or would like further discussion about any of these or related matters, please feel free to contact us. Aly,n Hill Leyla R. Hill 30 Indian Rd San Rafael, CA 94903 415 479 8737 Tel 415 499 9903 Fax EXHIBIT 7-13 N H 3 May 2008 To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of Los Ranchitos neighborhood. I'm writing to express my support for Brent and Patsy Dickens' construction project at 200 Oak View in San Rafael. I've been an active member of the LosRanchitos homeowners' association since we purchased our house at 65 Oak Ridge Road in 2006, During the past years we have become acquainted with many of the association members. My husband and I know the neighborhood well, as we are avid hikers, and have walked every inch of every road in Los Ranchitos. We came to discover the Dickers' home and the neighborhood they have developed at the top of Oak Viewjust shortly before moving into the neighborhood. Actually, we found the Dickens' house while we were out hiking one day. We came onto the property unannounced. The Dickens weremostwelcoming of us, as total strangers, invited us in, showed us around and willingly answered all our questions about their construction project. An important factor in our decision to purchase our home was the knowledge that very high-end new homes were being developed in the community, clearly enhancing the property values inthe area. It was to our great delight that we learned the Dickens were starting construction on another new home. Having toured some of the other homes they have built on the adjacent lots, we knew this new home would be a real assetto our neighborhood. Not only are the Dickens -designed homes incredibly beautiful, they are substantial, constructed of quality materials and they integrate flawlessly with the terrain. Clearly the homes are designed to respect the unique beauty of the rugged, od< studded terrain. No doubt they have gone to great lengths land great expense) to preserve the natural features of the Ind with the addition of each new home. We feel certain that the investment in our own home is enhanced by the homes the Dickens have built on Oak View. I was surprised to learn that two neighbors oppose the project, and, in fact, have suggested that they represent the interests or opinions of the Los Ranchitos neighborhood. This is simply not true. There has been no discussion of Dickens' projects at homeowners association meetings, no reports, no votes, no positions taken whatsoever. After learning about the controversy, on my own, 1 sought out the opinions of my own neighbors on Oak Ridge Road, some of whom have straight -on views of the Dickens' new house under construction. Everyone with whom 1 have spoken is extremely supportive, and feels that the new home is a great asset to the community. 1 have not heard on single word of opposition. I do hope you will contact me, or my husband, if you have any questions or want further comments. Our contact information is below. Both my husband and I want to encourage you to remove any barriers and allow the Dickens to EXHIBIT 7-14 move ahead with their project. Also, I would encourage you to talkwith other neighbors. I think you will find the EXHIBIT 7-15 Dickens have the support of this neighborhood. 2 o Sincerely, U m Suzie Buchholz Tome F 65 Oak Ridge Road W San Rafael, CA 94903 rc U U O v Contact information: l7 _z W Home phone 415-479-3005 Y = a o ¢ M m W Suzie Buchholz Tome 3 I 3 "' CEO Barking Dog Creative Services 480 Gate 5 Road, Suite 268 O N a M ¢ Sausalito, CA 94965 415-331-2333 v m o ¢ ¢ M N u M — Yoshi Tome O w r a CEO Sushi Ran a $. 107 Caledonia Street N a M M Sausalito, CA 94965 N M 415-332-3620 _ m n O V a O K W LL W Y a <'S 0 M a EXHIBIT 7-15 5/1/2008 From: Clay Angel, M.D. 150 Oak View Drive clavangelaa mac.com To: Mr. Bob Brown Community Development Director City of San Rafael bob. brown@cityofsanrafael.org Dear Mr. Brown, Thank you for accepting my input and observations regarding Mr. Dickens and the development at 200 Oak View Drive. Over the past few days, I have reviewed and re -read the smalls from Ms. Schriebman and Ms. Jackson. I feel that I would be remiss without submitting a written statement with thoughts and observations on this issue. After careful review of the initial correspondence to the City of San Rafael, I was very surprised by the tone and presumptive nature of these comments. During the two years I have lived in this neighborhood, I have been well informed and continuously included in the development near our home. All I had to do was ask and the Dickens kept us informed as to their thoughts and plans on this project and other information effecting our living environment. It seems as though the spark for this entire issue was that of the possible construction of a home at 165 Oak View Drive (above the MacDonald property). This was the assumption of Ms. Schriebman and Ms, Jackson and, as seen in Mr. Dickens reply, has no merit. In my career, assumptions are often dangerous and certainly a waste of time. As a resident of the City of San Rafael I am represented by Councilman Connolly. After review of the false information that he received from the two County residents, I want to assure that he, as a public representative has the correct information, even now an obligation to review this conflict with fairness, objectivity and equanimity. I am confident that as the correct facts emerge, Mr. Connolly's official opinion will not align with the incorrect information first tendered to him. The following information may be useful background information regarding these unique homes in general. Our residence, designed and built by Mr. Dickens in the mid eighties, is quite close to the 200 Oak View project. With a little effort we can see a portion of the new house filtered through the trees. Through careful placement of both homes, there are no negative view impacts. Our home is quite tall at the downhill side of the property, similar to 200 Oak View and the other homes of this limited, 5 home development. We are unable to imagine what possible concern there could be with a few feet of extra vertical distance below the house. This tallness issue is in reality of no visual concern to anyone. Due to terrain steepness all of our homes here are quite tall. The neighboring house to the North at 140 Oak View is nearly 50 feet tall on the down slope side, but like 200 Oak View is not visible due to heavy tree cover which was purposely planned and is well maintained. The heavily tree shrouded sites are what makes our neighborhood so special and wonderful. In closing, I hope this helps to elucidate the thoughts and viewpoints of neighbors in very close proximity to this building site. We truly enjoy living in Los Ranchitos and San Rafael in general and would like for this misunderstanding to be settled quickly. The Dickens have been excellent neighbors and have always been kind and considerate throughout the two years of our residency here at 150 Oak View Drive. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or clarifications. Sincerely, EXHIBIT 7-16 Clay Angel EXHIBIT 7-17 Page I of 2 Bob Brown From: MacDonald, Catherine [catmacdonald@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:33 AM To: Bob Brown; damon@damonconnolly.com Cc: Sarjit Dhaliwal; Raffi Boloyan Subject: 200 Oak View Drive, San Rafael Gentlemen, We live at 129 Oak View Drive, making us very close neighbors of Brent Dickens. We have watched with great interest and admiration the construction of his new home at 200 Oak View Drive. Mr. Dickens is a master architect and this home is being built with the utmost integrity and quality consistent with the other homes he has built in our immediate area. He has carefully preserved all native trees, as well as planted additional trees. His residences are all composed of natural colored materials which blend easily into the wooded, hillside settings. We have had no concerns about the construction activity, building and site'enhancements undertaken by Mr. Dickens. The demonstrated quality of his work has greatly enhanced our properly values over the many years that we have been neighbors. We have become aware that two women in the Los Ranchitos area (Judy Schriebman and Lorene Jackson) have raised some seemingly flawed concerns about Mr. Dickens' current project. It seems to us that truthfully they are not so much concerned about this construction (since they do not live close enough to be affected by it), but rather that they will no longer be able to hike through Mr. Dickens' and our properties to access the nearby open space area. No one who has ever walked up this road to the open space area has ever been denied access. It has also come to our attention that Schriebman and Jackson have complained about the dirt pile which has been placed on the road directly above our house. The dirt pile is spread partially on our property along with some old debris piles (rocks, etc.) that we had placed there many years ago. It should be noted that the majority of this access road to the open space area is on OUR property (Mr. Dickens has an easement), which is in the County, not within San Rafael's city limits. We find it perplexing that Schriebman and Jackson did not address their concerns about this construction and the dirt pile directly to Mr. Dickens. He has always welcomed neighbors to view his projects under construction - even encouraged neighbors to come by and take a tour. We find the attitude of Schriebman and Jackson to be unfair and mean spirited. In one of their complaints they have stated that the community has several concerns regarding this construction. I think they should speak solely for themselves, as all of our immediate neighbors applaud this project. We think it is not fair that the City may force Mr. Dickens to return for more public hearings on a wonderful, beautiful, environmentally constructed home that was started nearly five years ago. Perhaps Jackson should tend to her own property issues which include a run down old barn -type structure which has been a neighborhood eyesore for years, as well as a pile of dead tree limbs which poses a definite fire hazard to the neighborhood. Yours truly, EXHIBIT 7-18 5/5/2008 Richard and Catherine MacDonald EXHIBIT 7=19 5/5/2008 Page 2 of 2 April 27, 2008 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: My wife, Molly, and I have known Brent and Patsy Dickens since 1999 when we purchased the house 16o Oak View Drive from them. Since then, we have been neighbors and Brent has also, from time to time, supervised maintenance work done on our house. We were shocked and outraged to read the accusations that have been leveled against Brent in the recent correspondence from Judy Schriebman and Lorene Jackson. We are not aware of all the specific facts behind the accusations made against Brent in the correspondence, but we do know that these accusations are utterly inconsistent with Brent's character and style. In our experience, Brent has always demonstrated a great deal of courtesy, openness and respect for others in initiating and implementing his projects. When he first developed his plans for 200 Oak View Drive, Brent communicated his intentions to us from the beginning, showing us his drafts and soliciting our feedback. Since our house is right next door to the new project, if there is anyone who might have reason to object, it would presumably be us. We were impressed by the high quality of Brent's plans, and we discussed with him in detail the initial potential concerns about how the new house would affect our view and privacy and the impact of the construction activity. My wife has some health problems and our bedroom is at the side of the house next to the construction, so the impact of any noise was a particular concern. During this interaction, Brent continued to show the great sensitivity to our concerns that we had come to expect from him. We worked together to initiate a planting of new trees to increase the vegetation cover between the two houses to give increased privacy to both of us. On the issue of construction noise, Brent committed to approaching the project with respect for our needs and he has continually stuck to his commitment. Before any particularly noisy periods, Brent has always given us a heads -up and let us know exactly what to expect and for how long. In general, the construction has gone along smoothly and quietly, and the impact on us has been kept to a minimum. The respect for our concerns and diligence in sticking to his commitments is consistent with Brent's character as we've seen it in all our interactions over the past nine years. Brent has always struck us as being conscientious and principled in carrying out his architectural vision. He has always demonstrated the greatest care for the community around him and the highest respect — even reverence — for the natural environment. The claims made against Brent with respect to the oak trees on the land are laughable. We have never seen anyone show such regard for the local vegetation, to the extent that Brent's architectural vision is designed around the major oak trees, framing them and beautifying them further. In summary, over nine years as neighbors, Brent and Patsy Dickens have shown themselves to be courteous, thoughtful and principled. Brent, as an architect, has, in our opinion, always demonstrated respect, openness and sensitivity to us as part of the EXHIBIT 7-20 community in implementing his vision. We believe that Brent's work, developing the land in Project S over the last three decades, has created a unique and special enclave in the area, merging architectural ambition with the natural environment in a way that enhances the beauty of both. As the next-door neighbors to the construction project at zoo Oak View Drive, we wholeheartedly support the work that Brent has done so far and his vision for the house. We have never experienced any of the negative accusations with respect to Brent that have been asserted by Ms. Schriebman and Ms. Jackson. I am prepared to discuss this issue further with anyone interested and can be reached at (415) 971-0011. Respectfully, Jeremy R. Lent Molly Lent EXHIBIT 7-21 Page 1 of 2 Sarjit Dhaliwal From: lorene jackson [lorene94903@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:13 PM To: Sarjit Dhaliwal Subject: Fw: Re: 200 Oak View Drive Hi Sarjit, Thank you for including these emails into your records. As there have been a lot of correspondence regarding 200 Oak View, I am forwarding just a few to demonstrate the neighbors' concern voiced back to February of this year. Lorene - On Mon, 2/11/08, lorene jackson <lorene94903@yahoo.com> wrote From: Lorene jackson <lorene94903@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 200 Oak View Drive To: "Bob Brown" <Bob.Brown@cityofsanrafael.org> Date: Monday, February 11, 2008, 9:51 AM Thanks for checking into this. I am hereby requesting that the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association and I be notified as parties of interest in any further development on Oak View Drive in the city limits of San Rafael. Just curious, when does the 600ft notification kick in? Regardless, I am still surprised that the HomeownerlIs Association was not notified. It appears that most of the homes notified were on the Ridgewood and not directly impacted by the development. Residents on Oak View have endured 20 years of steady construction vehicles driving up and down the road from the DickensO development. I think several neighbors would like to discuss this with you or someone from your staff. Additionally, does Brent have a permit for the grading that is going on his last vacant lot on Oak View? We are concerned he is raising the level of the lot before a permit is applied for, thereby masking the natural grade. Again, thank you for your attention, Lorene Jackson Bob Brown <Bob.Brown@eityofsanrafaeLorg> wrote: Ms. Jackson: I checked on your inquiry re: notification on the planning application for the new home at 200 Oak View Drive. That application was processed in 2003. Public notices were sent out to 27 property owners within 300 feet of the subject property in March, June and August, 2003 for the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council hearings. 9 properties on Oak View were notified, but your property is outside of the required 300 foot radius from 200 Oak View. A quick review of the project file indicates that letters of support were submitted by several neighbors. The file is available for viewing at the Planning Division counter from 8:30am to 5:00pm on weekdays. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail or by phone at 485-3090. Bob Brown, Community Development Director EXHIBIT 7-22 12/4/2008 MA Please consider the environment before printing this email miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. EXHIBIT 7-23 12/4/2008 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of 3 Bob Brown From: lorene jackson [lorene94903@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:45 AM To: Bob Brown Cc: judy schriebman Subject: Re: 200 Oak View Drive and vacant lot Dear Bob, Thanks for looking into this further and for taking the time for a site visit. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you, both Judy and I have been out of town. We are interested in what your building inspector and project planner determined when checking the building height from grade on the current construction. Meanwhile, the community has several concerns. Some of these may have been addressed in the staff report or design review permit for the current project. We would appreciate if you would send us a copy: 1. The Dickens subdivision has a long history of slipping under the radar of the neighborhood. While the city approves this project, the neighbors in the County bear most of the costs. In the current construction, it appears that the initial breakdown in community input came with the public notice. The Los Ranchitos Homeowners' Association misunderstood their ability to weigh in the proposed project. They are not a formal design review board and, to be honest, are more familiar with the County Planning Department's staff and process. We were quite surprised the City did not require story poles and netting during the public review period, particularly for a project of this mass and height. The story poles would certainly have caught the attention of impacted neighbors. As you well know, good community planning brings all affected parties to the table to work out appropriate design and compromise. In the future, we encourage the City to solicit more direct input from the residents on Oak View and in Los Ranchitos. The LRIA Board is working to improve their response to these notices. Similarly, the current project calls for a better interface between City and County planning guidelines. In the County, "hillside structures should not stand out prominently when seen from a distance or downhill properties." The current construction towers over much of the neighborhood, quite unlike the previously complete projects in Dickens' development. It appears that the current project is much larger than the medium square footage of other homes in this development and certainly more than the rest of the neighborhood. 2. Did the project get clearance from the fire department regarding a vegetation management plan? While it is nice to have homes tucked into the woodlands, is there a defensible space? (If not, clearing more trees and "weeds" will make the house even more obtrusive.) Can the fire trucks get up the road to the property? Is there adequate water pressure for fire suppression? During past fires on Oak View Drive, there have been problems with limited pressure from the hydrants on 25 Oak View Drive. 4. Does the city have a policy on the removal of trees? How many were removed for this project? 5. Does the city have a green certification for a house of this size? Again, given the size of the project, was there any checklist of green building practices? How would the project score under the County's green rating system? EXHIBIT 7-24 2/25/2008 Page 2 of 3 6. While the amount of dirt deposited on the vacant lot may be below the amount necessary for a grading permit, we remain concerned about any altering of the natural grade before any plans are submitted for development. These soil deposits have raised the level of the lot five feet in some areas, as evidenced by the abrupt drop to the trail traversing the lot. 7. We understand the value of having local architects on the Design Review Board and expect that they would have a practice and interest in San Rafael. But Bret Dickens is a developer/architect, which is quite different While he is a talented architect, he stands to gain much more than the price of services from his projects on Oak View Drive. So where can we go from here? The community would like to see the top level/architectural feature removed from the project. Short of this, they will want to see some sort of mitigation measures to offset this project. The neighbors on Oak View have endured over 20 years of wear, tear, and traffic from heavy construction equipment and workers driving up and down the street. We will be left living with increased traffic from the new homes. Moreover, the community is paying the price for the enormous environmental footprint of this project. We welcome your help and suggestions. Sincerely, Lorene and Judy A copy of the staff report can be mailed to 25 Oak View Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903 Bob Brown <Bob.Brown@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote: Lorene and Judy: I wanted to provide at least a partial response to some of the issues raised in your e-mail. First, the 5 -lot subdivision was approved in 1981, which preceded our Hillside design guidelines and zoning regulations which were adopted in 1992. The design of the individual homes in the subdivision were approved subsequently, mostly in the 1980s. The home at 200 Oak View was applied for in 2003, and because of the Hillside regulations required review by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council. The Hillside regulations preclude development within 1 00'vertical feet of significant ridgelines and limit the height of downslope walls to 20 feet, after which they must step back. Since the subdivision was approved prior to the Hillside criteria, development of this lot was within 100' of the ridgeline (which is covered with homes) and therefore required an exception to be approved by the Council. The Council also approved an exception to the 20' maximum wall height since the design of this home was to be similar to the others that were approved prior to the Hillside requirements. The design review, with exceptions, for this house did not generate opposition from neighbors during the public hearings in 2003. There are 3 letters of support from nearby homeowners (yes, two were from residents of homes within this subdivision which purchased from Mr. Dickens). Mr. Dickens was appointed to the Design Review Board in 2002. Our board is composed of 5 architects, four of whom have private practices and occasionally have clients in San Rafael. In these cases, the DRB member must recuse themselves and not participate in the hearing process. I want to emphasize that our DRB has NO DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. They only make recommendations re: design critique. The final decisions about design and, in the case of 200 Oak View, the Hillside exceptions are made by the Planning Commission or the City Council. I've checked the soil deposited on the vacant lot. It does appear to be less than 50 cubic yards, which is the cut-off for a grading permit. I've asked Mr. Dickens to incorporate erosion control measures such as straw bales or "waddies" on the downslope edge, although I don't see much erosion. For the new home construction, I'm having our building inspector and project planner take a second look at the building height from grade, and should have the results by Monday. I'll let you know what we find. 2/25/2008 EXHIBIT 7-25 If you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to ask via e-mail or phone (485-3090). Bob Brown, Community Development Director Please consider the environment before printing this entail EXHIBIT 7-26 2/25/2008 Page 3 of 3 Page 1 of 2 Bob Brown From: lorene jackson [lorene94903@yahoo.comj Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:02 PM To: Bob Brown Cc: judy schriebman Subject: Re: 200 Oak View Dear Bob, Thanks for conducting a survey on the project. This is disappointing to say the least. One would not expect a developer of this caliber to make a mistake like'this unwittingly. I wish I could take a closer look at the file on this. project at the Planning Department to answer my previous concerns, but I am unable to get off work to do so. "What now" will be a tough call. As you well know, too often people build and pay the fines for a completed project that would never have been allowed otherwise. Given the price of Marin homes, such fines are really negligible. We also realize that while the color of the final house may not be as obtrusive, the mass and bulk will not be masked. I am not familiar with clerestory windows, but given that the roof is over 30 feet, it raises the questions as to whether or not such a window treatment is appropriate. I'd like to underscore Judy's comment that there is a real disappointment and anger in the neighborhood by the loss of privacy. I would be interested in touring the house if only to see where the project could be scaled down in height. The neighborhood would like to see the top architectural features removed. Otherwise, the size and height of this project and now code violation really speak to the need for Dickens to provide some sort of remediation or offsets. Perhaps the neighbors and homeowners would be willing to discuss options such as a public easement or open space dedication on the final lot. The Board of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association is meeting this coming Tues and will be discussing this project. I really appreciate your attention to this project and welcome an opportunity to discuss this with you. Regards, Lorene Bob Brown <Bob.Brown@cityofsanrafaeLorg> wrote: Judy and Lorene: We met with Mr. Dickens today. Here is the status: A survey has confirmed that the outer edge of the roof is at the correct elevation above sea level as shown on the approved plans. However, the grade of the property is steeper than shown on the approved plans, which results in the roof being about 36 feet to the ground (excluding the clerestory window projections on the roof which are allowed to exceed the permitted roof height). What this means is that the house is not taller or more visible than originally approved, but is technically in violation of the approved drawings due to the grade difference. Bear in mind that the home will not be as visible and noticable once it has its dark exterior material on. I am consulting with the City Attorney about how to deal with the grade difference. It may require a return to the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council to modify (increase) the height exception originally granted (30 feet from roof edge to grade). This would be a process of several months, but I'm not certain what would result since the only options seem to be: 1) tearing the whole house down and starting over, 2) adding soil at the base of the house to decrease the distance from finished grade to the roof edge (which would be pointless) or 3) mitigating the visibility of the home by planting more downslope vegetation (which also seems pointless since there are already mature trees in close proximity that are almost as high as the roof edge). No great solutions so far.... FYI: For the future, we'll start having a surveyor verify building heights on new homes or second story additions at the framing stage so we don't get into this situation with a building 3/4s completed. Mr. Dickens has offered to provide a tour of the partially constructed house if you like. I indicated that 1 would ask if you are interested in doing so, and, if so, would pass along your contact information. Up to you. EXHIBIT 7-27 3/4/2008 Bob Brown A, Please consider the environment before printing this email. for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. EXHIBIT 7-28 3/4/2008 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of 1 Y .77:itirRil From: Bob Brown Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:30 PM To: Judy@leapfrogproductions.com'; 'lorene jackson' Subject: 200 Oak View Judy and Lorene: We met with Mr. Dickens today. Here is the status: A survey has confirmed that the outer edge of the roof is at the correct elevation above sea level as shown on the approved plans. However, the grade of the property is steeper than shown on the approved plans, which results in the roof being about 36 feet to the ground (excluding the clerestory window projections on the roof which are allowed to exceed the permitted roof height). What this means is that the house is not taller or more visible than originally approved, but is technically in violation of the approved drawings due to the grade difference. Bear in mind that the home will not be as visible and noticable once it has its dark exterior material on. I am consulting with the City Attorney about how to deal with the grade difference. It may require a return to the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council to modify (increase) the height exception originally granted (30 feet from roof edge to grade). This would be a process of several months, but I'm not certain what would result since the only options seem to be: 1) tearing the whole house down and starting over, 2) adding soil at the base of the house to decrease the distance from finished grade to the roof edge (which would be pointless) or 3) mitigating the visibility of the home by planting more downslope vegetation (which also seems pointless since there are already mature trees in close proximity that are almost as high as the roof edge). No great solutions so far.... FYI: For the future, we'll start having a surveyor verify building heights on new homes or second story additions at the framing stage so we don't get into this situation with a building 3/4s completed. Mr. Dickens has offered to provide a tour of the partially constructed house if you like. I indicated that I would ask if you are interested in doing so, and, if so, would pass along your contact information. Up to you. Bob Brown �-'-� Please consider the environment before printing this email EXHIBIT 7-29 2/28/2008 SRENT & PATSY DICKENS, 1,:715.Oak ViQw Or.., $aa Ratael,. ca 949Q3 1,4 41,5 492-QQ2Q, 0 415-492-Q44.4 C. 41,5-25,3-4454 bre�t95Q acag8,eem ":FEAR: F®_.FALSE E --EVIDENCE A --APPEARING R®REAL" Veer Sharma March 12, 2008 To: Bob Brown, Community Development Director, City of San Rafael Following is a response to the letters of concern sent to you by two ladies of our neighborhood and forwarded to me. Thanks for your offer to forward this information to them. Please assure that all who received their comments have benefit of my response. Dear Ladies: Your letters about our activities on the hill, including 200 Oak View, have been forwarded to me and have prompted this reply. Your tones, heavily laden with untruths and innuendo, likely a fear of the unknown, show years of pent up concerns and questions regarding our projects; an unfortunate result of a lack of communication and understanding. Though I am sorry for your anguish, it may have been more productive to contact me directly with your concerns. I do now look forward to trying to answer your questions and statements. Following is my attempt to thoroughly respond to your comments with as much civility as I can muster. I have in part re -written your comment, followed by my explanation. "... He paid to have the county line moved many years ago..." (Email from Judy Schriebman to Damon Connolly, dtd. 2/11/08) The total area of land that we owned (7.14 acres) was part of a remnant parcel left from the Rafael Highlands Subdivision, developed in the 50's and 60's. It was within the City of San Rafael boundary when we purchased it in 1979 and likely had been in the City decades before that. It was and is still within the San Rafael Sanitary District. I did not "pay" nor petition to be removed from County lands; I was never in the County. You may have honestly mistaken me for someone else? EXHIBIT 7-30 Our subdivision, which contains a total of 6 lots on 7.14 acres, exceeds the average lot size of the adjacent County lands of one lot per acre and is therefore very compatible with neighboring, County densities. The northerly adjacent City lands (Rafael Highlands on Ridgewood Dr.) have about 7 lots per acre. "...He sued another neighbor ...forcing him to grant an easement...." (Email from Judy Schriebman to Damon Connolly, dtd. 2/11/08) When we purchased this property in 1979, we inherited an easement across the MacDonald property to 165 Oak View. There were some Title (recording) issues which were quickly resolved. We offered and they accepted substantial improvements to the MacDonald property as a gesture of neighborliness. Once the MacDonald's became aware of our quality commitment, they embraced our efforts and we remain very close neighbors, with almost 30 years of friendship. "... How many (trees) were removed for this project (200 Oak View)...?" (Email from Lorene Jackson to Bob Brown, dtd. 2/22/08) Your inference to tree removal really surprises me. You both have seen this property up close, numerous times; and you know how carefully I weave the architecture into the spaces between trees. Also, since you seem to know me so well, and my: "bad behavior", it might surprise you to know that I am one of Marin's most passionate tree huggers. I have been personally responsible for the planting of 1000's of trees throughout California and the West. Currently on order are over 450 more trees that I shall be distributing this year for planting in California and Utah, giving most of them away just to encourage tree planting and landscape beautification. There were no healthy trees removed from 200 Oak View. As a dirt deposit site from old grading activities in the 60's, a few trees were not healthy due to soil covering the trunks. These 2-3 trees were noted on the approved Site Plan, Sheet 1.1 and again on the Site Analysis, Sheet 1.2. The Site Analysis data (which in part evaluates tree health) was compiled many years ago by the Landscape Architect and myself and appeared also as Sheet 2 of the foundation drawings, issued in August 2003. The note states "Dead/dying trees to be removed." There are actually over 1000 trees on just this one lot and some thinning must surely be done in the future. Every home we have built here subordinates itself to the trees. You will note all of the homes, beginning with 140 Oak View, contain creative geometry to "dance" around the existing trees. I have been accused of creating ambitious structural framing techniques that cost more than 10 times the value of the tree that I was saving. The swimming pool site and shape, for 200 Oak View, was selected for its area because it would not require any healthy tree removal, even though the path of EXHIBIT 7-31 the sun is not optimum. The trunk of one of the dead trees has been placed as an entry sentinel/sculpture, another partially cut back and saved as a future art project. In addition I have planted several redwoods and oaks in virtually every open space at this site and adjacent; surpassing any City replanting requirements. "...Did the project get clearance from the Fire Department... vegetation management plan...? Can the fire trucks get up the to the property road?..." (Email from Lorene Jackson to Bob Brown, dtd. 2/22/08) As part of the original subdivision requirements, I installed two fire hydrants: one at the end of the public road at 140 Oak View and another at the top of the private driveway as it turns right toward 200 Oak View. These hydrants are tested regularly and the upper hydrant put out over 1200 GPM when tested by the Fire Marshall during approvals for 200 Oak View. We have very good water pressure; over 130 psi at the 1" water meter. This superior pressure is due to a connection from the upper storage tank at the top of the hill, at Oak Wood Drive, that I implemented during the original site improvement work in the early eighties. The fire sprinkler system at 200 Oak View is now nearly completed and has benefit of a 1 %2" (oversized) diameter main line with full pressure to the sprinkling distribution manifold. The water pressure is then reduced to 75 psi, which is the maximum recommended for water heaters and other domestic uses. Vegetation management has in the past been an irregular concern, but now with the birth of the City's new Vegetation Management Program we have enlightened interest. Previously I have dealt with these conflicts of creating a Defensible Space for fire protection and still addressing the majority goal of our neighbors of preserving our native state landscaping. We'll be taking a fresh look at the options, prior to the required implementation of the Plan into our neighborhood on August 2009. Our insurance companies do get nervous when they note the way we cloak our buildings in trees so that off site visibility is minimized. Although your two homes look the other way and cannot view the sites anyway, when the 100 foot protection zones are mandated, we'll all lose some important landscape screening. Currently, many of the existing trees at 200 Oak View already "bury" over 75% of the building height. We use VF -11 emergence fertilizer spray regularly. Fire truck access to our project is limited only by the very tight and narrow turn (about % mile away) just below 25 Oak View. Once past that point our private drive, beginning at 140 Oak View, is less steep and wider that the existing road below us. In addition, we built the cul -'d -sac at the end of the public road at Oak View (on county land), entirely at our expense. Occasionally fire trucks come up here to test our hydrants; thankfully we have never needed them in an emergency. EXHIBIT 7-32 Most of us up here annually train on an emergency pumping system which draws water from the 30,000 gal. swimming pool at 140 Oak View. Also, we try to be conscientious about removing debris, weeds, cuttings, etc. to minimize the spread of fire. The last two homes, at 175 and 200, have full fire sprinkler coverage. "...Does the City have a green certification for a house of this size?..." (Email from Lorene Jackson to Bob Brown, dtd. 2/22/08) Green Certification: The City has only recently adopted a "Green" building policy and since my project was started in 2003, it was exempt. Still, I have incorporated many "Green," and other energy saving features into this home. You may be interested to learn that no wood (no forest depletion) is being used on the house exterior and therefore no oil or paint. The metal clad exterior, 18 Ga. sheathing (CorTen) requires no painting nor finishing, has a 75 year projected life and when completely rusted blends well into the hillside; plus it is incombustible. Also, I have not incorporated a wood burning fireplace into this house.. In addition, the house qualified for "Thermal Massing" points under Title 24 Energy Code due to the large amount of concrete used on the interior (left natural and unpainted). Plus the house and pool utilize a recaptured water system in which we can collect rain water from the roof scuppers into a large (beneath the house) water storage tank and re -circulate it when needed for the landscape and/or save it for added fire protection. The site is intended to be low maintenance; utilizing many natural, ungroomed tree and shrub features and a minimum amount of water for landscape irrigation. Over 82% of the site is left in Natural State and The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is only 12.2%. Lawn and gardens shall comprise less than 1 %% of the total site area. Most homes built today are far more energy efficient than those built just a few years ago. 6" thick exterior walls with R-19 insulation and doubled glazed, low'e' glass, are pretty much standard everywhere. We usually go far beyond minimum standards with all aspects of construction and in the insulation category (we use R-21 in the walls) 200 Oak View is over insulated by 10% to 25%. 1 have found that this is an inexpensive way to further minimize heat loss in the winter and minimize noise transfer in otherwise hollow walls. We even insulate our garage walls, not required at all by code. Another aspect of "overbuilding" is that we typically use 5/8" tk. Type 'X', (one hour) gypboard sheathing rather than the standard W. I have found that this not only achieves additional fire protection, but the resultant interior noise levels are less. Note that beneath this house, the underfloor, is either a concrete slab (4hr. rated) or 5/8" gypboard sheathing (1 hr. rated), even though no fire rated construction is required in these types of areas by either the City or the County. EXHIBIT 7-33 "...dirt deposited on the vacant lot (165 Oak View)... altering of the natural grade before any plans are submitted..." (Email from Lorene Jackson to Bob Brown, dtd. 2/22/08) The dirt deposited at 165 Oak View is within acceptable limits and averages less than 18" deep. A small amount of additional soils may be deposited in this area, on the adjacent property of MacDonald's, who has granted us permission to do so. You are concerned about raising the grade? What purpose would that serve? Maybe I am missing something here. Other parts of this lot are much higher than this area. I am just trying to get rid of some excess dirt and putting it in a place that will take it. This property is quite large (2.65 acres) and can easily accommodate a single home site, even more. Soils engineering studies have been completed and a drilled pier foundation system, as we routinely install, would adequately secure the new home. I have no definitive plans or schedule, only concepts for this challenging site. If you would like to meet me on that site sometime, I can wave my arms and tell you what I'm thinking. "...While he is a talented architect..." (Email from Lorene Jackson to Bob Brown, dtd. 2/22/08) Thank you for the "talented Architect," comment. I consider myself a design build architect not a developer, but whatever. Since the early eighties, Patsy and I have built each house and lived in all but one, sometimes taking years to complete. They are really a labor of love; complex art projects that evolve with excruciating thought. I have not found that our high standards approach to building is influencing anyone, especially regular developers. This land is challenging, very difficult and expensive to build upon. It is not for the feint of heart or profit motivated developer. When you have to hire guys in mountain climbing gear to just stake out a new house, well, you get the picture. You are not going to have, regular, flatlander developers up here. How many "Spec" homes do you see in this neighborhood? There is simply not enough potential profit to attract that type of developer. "...Brent Dickens is on the Design Review Board of San Rafael... clearly a conflict of interest..." (Email from Lorene Jackson to Judy Schriebman, dtd. 2/8/08) The Design Review Board requires Licensed Architect Certification and San Rafael residency. I do occasionally have a local client, including myself, and when I do, I recluse myself from voting. It rarely occurs. You may know that the DRB is only advisory; we make recommendations only to the Planning Commission and they often don't take our sage advice. EXHIBIT 7-34 I recently resigned from the DRB after 5 1/2 years of service to devote more time to my art projects, tree promotion and education and planting programs. But, I did enjoy most of my tenure on the Board and feel my contributions were respected. Furthermore, I likely would not have been re -appointed twice if I had not garnered the support and appreciation of Staff, City Officials and other board members. I shall miss my fellow colleagues. The biggest reason for leaving the DRB is that I just found it becoming a waste of precious time to listen to attacks toward worthwhile architectural projects and sincere individuals. Our community is wrought with well meaning individuals who feel it necessary to protest everything, regardless if it is a good or a bad project. I decided I was not tough or compassionate enough to tolerate the insults and negativism often slammed at the DRB and other Board and Staff members in general. What the public should understand is that protest and negative activism seems to stop the good projects but only slows the bad ones. From my Jan. 08, 2008 resignation letter: "Sharing architectural skills and giving back to my community are reasons for participating. The DRB is a competent and meaningful group; conveying useful and valuable opinions, ideas and decisions during often complex development processes. My hat is off to those whose patience and understanding allows them to continue these noble objectives." "...The community would like to see the top level/architectural feature removed..." (Email from Lorene Jackson to Bob Brown, dtd. 2/22/08) It may interest you to know that the high roof popups (we call them that) are exempt from the measuring standards due to a quirk in the Hillside Design Guidelines. These popups could have been a lot higher (and are shown as such on some approved drawings). The height at the fascia (flat roof) is being questioned but is actually lower than that shown on approved drawings, dating back to August of 2003. Several times in your letters, you refer to negative impacts to the community. I often host County neighborhood folks and others of the "community," up here to show them what we are doing. We have many friends in the adjacent County lands and I've not had any negative feedback from any of them. Most know how special these buildings are and how hard we try to screen them from off site viewing while maintaining our views and privacy. We're actually quite proud of our history here and feel our impact to the neighborhood, demonstrated now by almost a 30 year period, has been quite positive. Certainly we have raised the bar for design and construction quality within the whole Los Ranchitos area, an achievement, you must agree, will benefit all of this community. EXHIBIT 7-35 "...Endured over 20 years of wear, tear and traffic..." (Email from Lorene Jackson to Bob Brown, dtd. 2/22/08) As you are well aware, there have been several other construction projects on Oak View including, major work at 14, 20, 25, 35, 75, 100 and at 130 Oak View, which is now a nightly rental (an issue that should be addressed regarding wear and tear from additional traffic, sometimes burdening the cul du sac with over six cars nightly and blocking my fire hydrant!) Apparently this nightly rental is legal on County lands. I believe the mitigation fees I have paid to the City over the years are far in excess of those paid under neighboring County permits. Also, the site, road and cul-de-sac work, the undergrounding of all of our utilities, water and fire hydrant improvements have been positive and substantial. "...One neighbor... told me of his working w/o a permit, during the rain, causing mudslides..." (Email from Judy Schriebman to Damon Connolly, dtd. 2/11/08) Can you be more specific? When and where did this occur? Is this another rumor? "...lose that (trail through 165 Oak View) access..." (Email from Lorene Jackson to Bob Brown, dtd. 2/22108) You ladies know that I have mostly, tolerated trespassing on my property for years. You also know that the public road stops at the end of the asphalt at Oak View and the exposed aggregate road marks the beginning of the private road. This has not detoured you and your families from gaining access to our property..... I have seen some harrowing near misses when years ago, Lorene's two boys were hurling down our hill, on our private road, on their bikes at high rates of speed, without their helmets on! Scary! I do not want to stop you or the community from hiking through our property, but let's be reasonable here; this is a widespread County concern (there are similar access/liability issues throughout Los Ranchitos, specifically on Oak Ridge Dr.) without an easy remedy. Liability can be an issue, especially with reckless kids and others whom may not be familiar with the terrain. Your continued access is not an entitlement, you do not have a recorded easement, nor a prescriptive easement and neither does PG&E. Perhaps a letter of permission with a hold harmless provision might be a reasonable remedy so that your access might continue. I'm open to discussions of that type. "...LGVSD found that he had not installed the sewer line properly..." (Email from Judy Schriebman to Damon Connolly, dtd. 2/11/08) EXHIBIT 7-36 Lots of incorrect data here and the best: "...not a good sign if a developer is paying people off and not following proper procedures."??? Plus, what does this have to do with the 200 Oak View and the City of San Rafael? Bob Brown has indicated to me that this matter is irrelevant and he's not interested. But, just to counter the misinformation, allow me the following. We inherited an incorrectly placed sewer line on the nursery (Tanem) property that had been in place since 1952, over 56 years ago! The single parcel actually had two sewer lines; one for the old existing house and one for an accessory building that was permitted when that was a single parcel. It was discovered after our purchase that both lines were not in the proper easement, but likely could have remained since they were there so long. We did not lay a new sewer line in the old trench, except a short piece (10' or so) temporarily for the studio, to just get past the new fence we had installed. We did unearth the entire trench so that the old pipe could be removed and not just abandoned when the new work was properly completed. There is much more detail associated with this matter, but is not relevant to the 200 Oak View concerns. Your innuendos: "...paying people off..." and "Reputable contractors are not pleased...", and "...bad behavior being tolerated by the City...", and "doesn't pass the smell test..", etc., just might be justified if there were any factual basis for your accusations. My offer to meet with you, or any other concerned neighbor, still stands. Perhaps we can address many of these issues in an informative and neighborly manner. We request an opportunity to right misinformed allegations and a chance to restore your confidence with our projects. Open communication would certainly better serve the long term compatibility issues of this neighborhood ------ Respectfully ----- Respectfully submitted, "Fear is that little darkroom where negatives are developed," Michael Pritchard EXHIBIT 7-37 Page 1 of 1 Bob Brown From: lorenejackson [lorene94903@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:25 PM To: Bob Brown Cc: judy schriebman Subject: Re: 200 Oak View Dear Bob, Thanks for the update. I do appreciate the Dickens' response to some of our concerns. Nonetheless, as I understand, he misrepresented existing grade and exceeded height limits. We will wait for due process. We further want to ensure that this does not happen again on the undeveloped lot where he is currently modifying the existing grade. Clearly, there are many years of neighborhood history on this subdivision. I think the key issues remain: . The latest home is very imposing and will result in a loss of privacy for many neighbors. . The subdivision is out of character to the density of the neighborhood. . The mass and scale of these homes are counter to a sustainable San Rafael and exceed the median home size within a.5 mile radius. . Looking forward, we remain concerned about the potential loss of a significant wildlife and community trail on the remaining vacant lot. If the Dickens granted a trail easement through the lot, would it absolve them of their concern for legal liability? I welcome discussions to mitigate these concerns. Lorene Bob Brown <Bob.Brown@eityofsanrafaeLorg> wrote: Dear Lorene and Judy: I wanted to provide you with an update re: 200 Oak View. The City Attorney sent Mr. Dickens a letter on March 5, 2008 informing him of the height violation and requiring a response. Mr. Dickens sent a response letter, which resulted in an additional letter from the City Attorney's Office which demanded that either an application for a modified height exception be filed or building modifications be accomplished by April 1. Both letters informed Mr. Dickens that he proceeds at his own risk in terms of additional work on the residence. Mr. Dickens has sought legal assistance, and his attorney has requested a stay until Monday, April 24 to enable him to become familiar with the situation and City code requirements. In the meantime, Mr. Dickens reviewed the code enforcement file and wished to respond to issues raised beyond the height question. He asked that I forward the attached response to you. Feel free to contact me via e-mail or phone (485-3090). 1 will be off next week on vacation. Bob Brown Please consider the environment before printing Chis email Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo yourhomepage. EXHIBIT 7-38 3/27/2008 BR NT & PATSY DICKENS, 1M Oak `view ®r„,Saes Rafa%k, CA tjOW H415-02-8028 0415-492-0444 C 418-208-4454 breatOSO�a®he®m www.archandplan.c®m May 31, 2008 Lorene Jackson 25 Oak View Dr. San Rafael, CA 94903 RE: 200 Oak View Drive Dear Lorene: Sincere thanks for your e-mail of May 29 and this opportunity to reply. There has been a great deal of correspondence generated recently and you may not have received all of it. It is all available in the City files but I can also provide you with copies, if you wish. I'll try to answer and respond to your questions and concerns, though many have been previously addressed. Like us, you have lived in this neighborhood a long time. I often used to see you walking up our road (I hope you'll continue) so I know you have seen our previous work up close, which you seem to possess no objections. I am hopeful that I can achieve this degree of comfort with 200 Oak View. Please give me the opportunity, as there are many positive aspects of improving these properties in our own neighborhood for all of us. The story poles that were erected in 2003 located the boundary of the top edge of the flat roof fascia. It is from this element that the official heights are measured. The story poles were in place many months and were observed by City personnel and others. The high "popup" roof elements (they are called architectural features) are exempt from the height measurement criteria. Those elements are apparently the ones that you are objecting to. In the Hillside Design Guidelines, these roof top projections are suggested as a way of adding interest to an otherwise flat and straight roof. The City possesses great concern for development in all of our neighborhoods. Some of these neighborhood concerns could have appropriately been addressed five years ago. It seems that perhaps now the timeliness of these concerns may render some of this matter difficult to ameliorate. Plus, many on our copied list are probably growing weary of the debate. Numerous photos were submitted during the City review process in 2003. These included adjacent buildings and far and near photos of 200 Oak View. You may wish to research City files to verify compliance with existing conditions. I do have some really fine photos of this project taken during construction by neighbors EXHIBIT 7-39 from across the valley (from Oak Ridge). I can show you these if you want to come up and have a look. These neighbors have been tracking our progress and have sent us a card: "Thanks for being lively neighbors and making great views." There are actually some people in our neighborhood who look forward to the evolution of architectural ambition. I realize that you may not share that opinion, but you can appreciate how difficult it is to try and please everyone. We, as well as the City, have spent an inordinate amount of time writing and responding to concerns from everyone who have raised any issue at all about our work up here during the past 30 years. When the e-mails you and Judy originally wrote about our activity were forwarded to us, I began making many forays into our neighborhood to solicit any concerns of our neighbors about the visual impact of 200 Oak View. 1 must say that I have not met one person who have any critical comments about this project. Some neighbors, who are also members of your Los Ranchitos Improvement Association, have expressed that they have not even heard a formal discussion of this project at a meeting. I am sure you are sincere that some neighbors may have some legitimate concerns. I would appreciate an opportunity to address them. If there has been "the loss of privacy...." as mentioned in your e-mail, please give me an opportunity to rectify this if possible. That comment is puzzling since we all have so much privacy around here that very seldom do our homes ever have any window coverings. This is due to the heavily shrouded landscape and foliage which we cherish. Lorene, let me clarify your data regarding the house size as it relates to the others that I have built: The house at 175 Oak View is 128' long, roof/roof. 200 Oak View is 119' roof/roof, 9 feet shorter than 175. The house at 160 Oak View is 129' long roof/roof. The first house built at 140 Oak View is about 112' long roof/roof. Clearly, their sizes are compatible. The gross floor area of 175 is about 6050 sq. ft., including the pool house. The net residential area is 4967sq. ft. The gross floor area for 200 Oak View is about 6490 sq. ft., about 9% larger (not 40%). The net residential floor area of 200 Oak View is about 5250 sq. ft., about 6% larger than 175. This is why I have said that the sizes are compatible as to height, width and massing. I am not trying to bore you with mathematic details but as an engineer I'm sure you can appreciate my goal of trying to be accurate. Yes, you can see 200 Oak View for a split second interval as you drive up Oak View, just as you can see most houses momentarily. But the visual impacts of this residence and the others continue to diminish as we vigorously nourish our EXHIBIT 7-40 precious tree cover. Plus, none of these homes break the skyline as many adjacent homes do. Unlike some insensitive houses around us, 200 is becoming less visible as the trees flourish and the patina of the siding takes hold. As previously demonstrated, 200 will continue to disappear. The floor area ratio for 200 is 12.2 % as stated on page 4, paragraph 3, of the March 12 letter sent around the neighborhood. That ratio is about the same for 175 Oak View. These properties are about 1 1/4 acre each with much natural state terrain. Also, I am quite sure that the residence at 200 would comply with San Rafael's sustainability policy (Green Certification). There are many compliant features which were enumerated in the March 12 letter. In part this includes a rain water collection system for added fire protection or landscape use; extensive use of recyclable materials including the CorTen metal siding which requires no paint nor oil and is incombustible. There is no wood burning fireplace. In addition this house qualified for "Thermal Massing" points under Title 24 due to the large amount of concrete used on the interior (unpainted). The list of "Green" features is quite long including roof/wall/floor insulation way beyond that required by Codes. I build these homes with a 100 year occupancy goal. There have been a lot of discussions with the City about the height/tallness concerns and I am pleased that you will trust the City to resolve this matter with us. Judy also has indicated a similar stance; as I'm sure we're all growing weary of the correspondence blitz. Please allow me to pass on some history. All of the other homes in our enclave were built without variances and all are quite tall, some taller than 200 Oak View. With a zoning change in the late nineties, height issues were more restrictive but still allowed by exemption or variance. Actually a variance application was discussed with City staff at the time of 200 Oak View processing, in 2003. We met all of the variance criteria because of site steepness, compatibility with the adjacent residences, etc. Even now staff has'indicated that, if necessary, they would support a Height Variance/Exemption (don't ask me the difference?). Lorene, if, by chance you have been following recent revelations with the soil engineer and others (all in our City file), you might know that when site work began in 2003, loose fill and debris was discovered along the downslope edge of the residence area. This was considered potentially unstable and was directed by the soil engineer to be removed from the building site. This removal was the primary cause of the extended distance of the underpinned tallness. The debris has been sifted out and much of the soil is still down there and could be replaced under the guidance of the soils engineer. City staff is pondering this alternative, to in part, remedy the tallness issue. We are moving some of the dirt around to protect our trees, a very high priority in achieving our design goals. EXHIBIT 7-41 The overall building height and tallness are compatible with adjacent homes within this subdivision. The higher elements (architectural features) are exempt from the measurement criteria. Even a higher home could be built on this site, under current Codes and Ordinances. As you are aware the house is lower than what is shown on approved plans and view blockage has never been an issue. Hopefully, your concerns about my building at 165 Oak View have vanished at this time. We call this the "Cliff Lot," and I again extend an invitation to you to show you what I'm mentally processing about development ideas for this challenging site. As expressed in my recent e-mail to you, the public access issue has heightened interest with the adjoining neighbors because of the recent e-mails from you and Judy regarding this access. Please do not consider my adjoining neighbors "spiteful" if they now re-evaluate this matter due to those e-mails. You are aware of the position of Patsy and I, we have no plans to stop or deter any legitimate walker, hiker, or biker. However, please be sensitive to the other property owners and their justifiable concerns about privacy, safety and liability. I'm certain we can all work this out. Sincere thanks for your time to read this. I'm hopeful that our recent messages rekindle a sustained and positive dialogue. Respectfully submitted, Brent Dickens EXHIBIT 7-42 Page 1 of 1 Sarjit Dhaliwal From: lorenejackson [lorene94903@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 6:03 PM To: brent950@aol.com cc: Sarjit Dhaliwal; Bob Brown; Raffi Boloyan; damon@damonconnolly.com; judy@leapfrogproductions.com Subject: Re: 200 Oak View Dr. Dear Brent, Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate you attention to the numbers. However, I am unclear about your use of net and gross floor area. I am familiar with the County's definitions of building area, would that be the same as gross floor area? I do know architects often calculate floor area different from what jurisdictions use in calculating building area as well as for calculating FAR (which I know are different.) If you compare the building size of the home at 175 (excluding detached structures) and the new home at 200, there appears to be a significant increase more than 9%; that is where the 40% number came from. I am also unclear about the height of the story poles you erected. Did the story poles show only the maximum allowed height w/o architectural features, or did they show the full height of the roof's pitch and corners, including all architectural features. Did you run netting along the top corners? Please correct me further if I am wrong: As I understand the elevation issue, it appears that fill was placed on the property and that the new elevation was shown as existing grade on the plans. Since this was an undeveloped lot, you would have had knowledge of the fill. Yet, you used this new grade for calculating building heights, not natural grade. I presume a licensed surveyor or engineer approved site plans for the project. Was that person not informed or aware that fill had been added? [If so, this underscores my concern about the new fill added to your last undeveloped lot.] I do understand that residential heights can exceed 30 feet in certain cases, but that is typically with design review approval. Homes of this size also require design approval. What reflects poorly on.the City is that during the time this home was approved, you were on the City's Design Review Board. While I fully trust that you recused yourself from a decision on your project, it does not remove the shadow of your influence. I also sincerely appreciate your inclusion of "green" building practices; cisterns are becoming more common for large homes such are this. My reference was again to the size of the new home. The intent of green building is to minimize the size of a single-family residence. Increased conditions of approval for homes over 3,500 square feet are merely minimal offsets to the true carbon footprint of large homes. In the County (the neighborhood you have the greatest impact upon) homes above 4,000 square feet are discouraged. It appears that two people occupy most of the large homes in your subdivision. While it is not my place to judge the needs of others, homes of this size are counter to the intent of Sustainable San Rafael to reduce your impact on the environment. Best Regards, Lorene Jackson EXHIBIT 7-43 6/10/2008 Page 1 of Sarjit Dhaliwal From: Brent950@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:16 PM To: larehe94903@yahoo.com Cc: Bob Brown; Raffi Boloyan; Sarjit Dhaliwal; Damon.DiDonato@ci.san-rafael.ca.us; psmith@marinlaw.com; auntpats@comcast.net; archandplan@comcast.net; judy@leapfrogproductions.com; clayangel@mac.com; catmacdonald@sbcglobal.net; suzie@barkingdogcreative.com; p.vandenberg@mac.com Subject: Re: 200 Oak View Dr. Dear Lorene: Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to reply and explain our work up on the hill. The sequence of the following reply aligns with your questions and comments of your June 8 E Mail (yesterday). Most every municipality has it's own measurement criteria for determining floor areas and they do vary somewhat. My understanding of "Gross" area is that it includes the garage. This is the case in San Rafael. In the County, you are given a garage allowance and then must count excess area over that amount. Lot One Residence, (175 Oakview) is 4967 sq. ft. The Pool house is 340 sq. ft and the Garage is 718 sq. ft. In San Rafael they are all added together to get Gross Floor area. Some detached buildings and spaces with ceilings lower than Tare exempt for the floor area computation; but this varies with different cities. You can compute the relative floor area differences of 175 vs 200 but they are compatible. The visible mass of 200 is currently larger than 175; but that is changing all of the time. Please note the very significant tree growth on the Northwest side. 175 is actually 9' longer than 200 but is less visible due to tree cover. This was not the case just 5 years ago; but how quickly things can change. As explained in my May 31 letter to you, page 1, para 3, the story poles erected showed the boundary of the flat portion of the roof. These "popups" are exempt from the height measurement criteria and story pole requirements.) do not recall that netting was run along the corners, I have not noted that this was required? However we do routinely run a bright string line connecting the poles when this represents a meaningful building line. Lorene you may wish to review the City file with the extensive soils information developed on this project. Also. the fill and debris deposits on this site preceded my ownership; likely going back to the original grading of the Rafael Highlands Subdivision of the 1950s and 60's. I have saved some of the old tree branches and trunks in case someone want to do a forensic study of the old, existing debris deposits. When initial soils testing (drilling) was done, the debris fill was not noted since it was not within the original building envelope, but just outside as is the case now. When actual site preparation and pier drilling was initiated in 2003, the soils engineer noted the debris and requested it be.removed, thus lowering the grade beneath the house. The soil engineering file will explain this in more detail. The original topo was prepared by a licensed surveyor (actually a couple of them). Debris fields covered with dirt would not necessarily be noted on a steep site as this especially with such heavy tree cover, poison oak, etc. As explained previously, the dirt that we put onto Lot 6 (165) is within lawful limits and is not near the proposed building site. This home, 200 Oakview was successfully passed through the City's Design Review process. Of course I did not vote on my own project. I would like to think that excellent architecture casts a shadow of influence for our neighborhood. What am I supposed to do, make it unattractive to avoid positive comments as has overwhelmingly been the case for this home? Although we can't please everyone, we are trying to raise the residential design bar and construction standards of our neighborhood. EXHIBIT 7-44 6/10/2008 Page 2 of 2 Also, I would suggest that my colleagues on the Design Review Board hold their peers to a higher standard. Homes in San Rafael do not need to be designed by a licensed architect are are often not. As a former DRB member I often saw unprofessional design solutions and the Board would spend considerable time helping (dragging) the applicant to a better final result. With a well thought professional solution right out of the box, we could help make it even better. We had a special meeting item one night where we discussed how we might handle these "Grass Roots" non-professional submittals. It is time consuming and frustrating for staff and DRB members as well. Please feel free to talk with any DRB member and I assure you, none of them would cut any slack for a fellow architect. In fact, when we saw that the applicant was an architect we expected more and we often would say: "This better be good". But, of course, the DRB is advisory only, we had little clout. As explained previously, the issuance of the Building Permit for 200 Oakview precedes the Green Certification Policy. Still, I have no doubt that this house would currently comply. The list of Green features is extensive. I sincerely feel that all of these homes up here will stand the test of time and scrutiny from our community and beyond. Part of the concept for these homes is to encourage low traffic and a stay- at- home life style. We do not have lots of bedrooms to discourage large families with more cars and trips on our small roads. We do very thorough kitchens with lots of eating area options to encourage home cooking rather than trips to a restaurant and large food pantries to minimize trips to the market. Yes, I do think of these things. All of these residences have a designated home office and shop space in the garage to encourage more stay at home activities. In summary, I do sincerely believe that the impact that my work on the environment, the neighbors and the community shall have a favorable outcome. And, when someone says or implies that it is not, I appreciate the chance to respond; therefore thank you for this opportunity. Respectfully, Brent ************** Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008. (http://citysbest. aol. com? ncid=aol acg 00050000000102 ) EXHIBIT 7-45 6/10/2008