NOTICE OF RDRC HEARING
To: Teri L.K. Shugart, Bonnie McClure, Donna Higgins
From: Steve Capps & Marie D’Amico, 657 Knoll Drive, San Carlos, CA 94070
Date: July 2, 2009
Re: RDRC Hearing July 20, 2009 / Addition to 657 Knoll Drive
We are filing these materials for use in the RDRC Public
Hearing on July 20, 2009 (in this document, “we” refers to both Mr. Capps and
Ms. D’Amico, “I” refers to Ms. D’Amico). On June 26, 2009, Ms. Andrea Mardesich
and Ms. Deborah Nelson came to our house to discuss the matter and took
photographs. I had requested that this visit be a final inspection by the
Planning Department. Later that day, Ms. Mardesich informed me she would no
longer be employed by the City of San Carlos as of
July 1, 2009 and that Ms. Nelson would handle the matter. Ms. Nelson informed me
that she would be on vacation until July 6, 2009. At this time, I don’t know
whether there will be an inspection report prior to the public hearing but Ms.
Mardesich requested any material should be submitted prior to the RDRC hearing
and so I am submitting these materials at her request; one copy for each member
of the RDRC Committee. Materials discussed in this document are attached and may
also be viewed on our website at the URLs listed below.
Although we are filing these materials at Ms. Mardesich’s request, l am
attaching the Guidelines for Preparing Your Planning Department Submittal
provided by the City of San Carlos to me. As can be seen by the flowchart, the
timeline shows a RDRC potential hearing but before the box labeled
“Submit Application & Materials for Building Permit to Building Dept.”
Therefore, we fail to understand what are the grounds by which this matter is
subject to a public RDRC Hearing at this time, which is five months post
completion of construction and almost five months after we received
final sign-off from the Building Department on November 18, 2008. This
flowchart is attached and may be viewed at http://www.madcapps.com/rdrcflowchart.htm.
(1) 657 Knoll Drive - Historical and Architectural Landmark Designation. This house
is both a historical and architectural landmark (the highest designation) in
the City of San Carlos. See Historical Resource Inventory for the City
of San Carlos, California (December 1991). Because of its landmark designation,
we obtained a detailed evaluation and approval from a historical consultant,
Laura Jones, Ph.D., hired by the City to ensure the historic nature of the
house with the Addition was preserved with respect to the Secretary Interior
Standards for the rehabilitation of historical resources. The historical
consultant found the design of the Approved Plans reflected respect for the
historic character of the property as well as accommodation of the functional
requirements and physical constraints of the site.
(2) The Matter:
This matter revolves around complaints by three neighbors (Mr. & Mrs. Crew
at
747 Knoll Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Hall at 677 Knoll Drive, and Mr. & Mrs.
Weidell at 755 Knoll Drive) approximately five months post final construction
of the addition at 657 Knoll Drive (the “Addition”) and post the
Building Department’s final approval of the Addition on November 18,
2008. The Approved Plans for the Addition are APN: 050-094-230 (the “Approved
Plans”). The interested parties have had almost three years, since September
2006, pursuant to the Notice of Application sent to all of them by the Planning
Department to review the full-size plans and file an objection. None of them filed
any objection.
The complaints by the Halls and Weidells revolve around whether the wording of two items, Item #7 and
Item #19, in a letter addressed from Ms. Serena Nevarez to
Mr. Steve Capps, dated September 27, 2006 (the “Nevarez letter”), have been
satisfied. Item #7 involves obscure windows and Item #19 involves planting a specific
tree in a specific corner between our property and the Halls.
In addition, all three neighbors complain in some form that our property is
“quite massive” (the Crews), “appears to be massive” (the Halls) and looms over
their property (the Crews and the Weidells). According to www.zillow.com, the
Crews property is approximately 3,069 square feet, the Halls property is 2,910
square feet, and the Weidells property is 3,110 square feet. Our property is 2,710
square feet and is the smallest of all the four properties. In addition,
in terms of lot coverage, the Crews property has 24% coverage (www.zillow.com
says 24% although the Crews’ realtor’s website says 30% coverage); the Halls
property has 28% coverage; the Weidells property has 21% coverage. Our property
has 13% coverage, by far the smallest of all the four properties. It
might feel massive to them but our property is the smallest property in terms
of both square footage and lot coverage.
a. We’ve
Planted the Tree and Addressed Item #19. We have since taken the direct
advice of Mr. Greg Rubens, the attorney for the City of San Carlos, and put that
tree in that corner, although, as stated in our ARC Application, that tree is
no longer needed to address the Halls’ privacy concerns. Photographs of the
tree are attached and for convenience, may be viewed at
www.madcapps.com/hearing/newtree.htm.
(3) Discovery of
the Woods Letter, June 12, 2009. This entire dispute arose, however, prior
to my discovery on June 12, 2009 in the public files of a letter from Carroll
Woods of the Building Department to our architect, Michael Froehlich, dated October
5, 2007. If any of the parties had seen this letter, perhaps the dispute would
not have arisen; we would not have filed the ARC Application had we seen this
letter, and the ARC Application is that which has lead to the complaints of the
neighbors. The Woods Letter is attached and for convenience, may be viewed at http://www.madcapps.com/hearing/CarrollWoods.pdf.
(4) The ARC Application. May 12, 2009. After six weeks of trying to resolve this dispute with emails, phone conferences, meetings with Ms. Mardesich, discussions with the Crews and the Halls (the Weidells refused to discuss the matter), and supplying photographic evidence, on May 6, 2009, we had a meeting with Ms. Mardesich, Ms. Nelson, and Mr. Greg Rubens. We asserted, as we have asserted since
we were first contacted by Ms. Mardesich on March 31, 2009,
that we built the Addition according to the Approved Plans and we had final
sign-off by the Building Department on November 18, 2008.
It seems to us that the neighbors no longer have the right
to object to the final sign-off we received on November 18, 2008. After we
received our final sign-off in November 18, 2008, the neighbors had 10 days to
file an objection pursuant to Title 1, General Provisions, San Carlos Municipal
Code,
Section 1.25.020 which states that the time for filing an appeal to any
administrative decision made by any official of the City where such
administrative decision involves the exercise of discretion is within 10 days
of the notice of the administrative decision. If the decision is ministerial,
then no right of appeal exists. That would mean that if (a) the decision
did involve the exercise of discretion then (b) the neighbors no
longer have any right to object to the final sign-off of the Building
Department as that time period ended on November 28, 2008. I have repeatedly
cited this statute to Ms. Mardesich and have asked her that if another statute
provides the neighbors a right to object or complain five months post
completion of construction and final sign-off from the Building
Department, then please send me that statute. She has never done so.
At the meeting on May 6, 2009, Ms. Mardesich, Ms. Nelson, and Mr. Greg Rubens asked
us to file an ARC (Minor-Admin) to request (a) the language of Item #7 of the
Nevarez letter be modified to resolve any possible confusion or ambiguity and
(b) Item #19 be removed because there was no longer a necessity for the tree,
and that ARC would finalize this matter and cease the complaints with the
neighbors. We wanted to cease this matter as we had already spent a ridiculous
amount of time and resources on this matter and we really didn’t like the idea
of three of our neighbors hating our house. Ms. Mardesich told us that if we
didn’t file an ARC Application that the complaints from the neighbors would not
end. Ms. Nelson said it was a minor matter that she could rule on herself
without the need for any further review or a hearing. She said it would provide
closure on the matter. She told us that after we filed our ARC Application, the
neighbors would have 10 days to file any complaints, and after the complaints,
she would issue her final ruling. In hindsight, of course, we see that our ARC
Application has only made the situation worse because the Weidells now are
using what appears to be a telephoto lens to take pictures from their property
into our bedroom window. We also see, from the documentation they provided,
that they’ve been keeping watch from their bedroom and kitchen windows as to
the state of our bedroom windows.
With regard to the obscure windows (Item #7), Ms. Nelson told us that no one in
San Carlos had ever been required to or had put in obscure windows in their
bedrooms. I have reviewed all the minutes of the RDRC on the City’s website and
only found one reference to obscure windows – an instance where an owner
agreed, prior to permit issuance, to place one obscure window on the
bottom half of a bathroom window and in a dressing room. In addition to the
assurances that our ARC Application was a minor matter requiring only in-house
review, on multiple occasions, we received assurances that the tree
(Item #19) was not required. On April 1, 2009, Ms. Mardesich wrote that I would
be receiving a letter on April 3, 2009 which would note that the landscaping
requirements had been met. That email is attached; obviously she changed her
mind and never sent that letter. On April 11, 2009, Ms. Mardesich wrote that
the Planning Department did believe that “the one tree as proposed on the site
plan is no longer feasible because of lack of space to plant it in that
location.” She then stated that the matter needed to be reviewed by the city
attorney. That email is attached.
Ms. Nelson changed her mind after we filed our ARC Application and decided that
the matter needed to be reviewed at a full RDRC Public Hearing. If we didn’t
have assurances that the tree wasn’t required, that the matter was a minor one
capable of being reviewed and approved in-house, and if we’d had a copy of the
Woods letter at that time, we wouldn’t have filed our ARC Application. After my
discovery of the Woods letter on June 12, 2009, I requested to both Ms.
Mardesich and Mr. Rubens that I be allowed to withdraw the ARC Application in
light of the discovery of that letter. Neither addressed my request; Mr. Rubens
never responded to my emails containing a detailed history of the matter and
the Woods letter; Ms. Mardesich only said she would need to inspect the
property which she did on June 26, 2009. We have received no result about that
inspection to date.
The ARC Application provides the history of Items #7 and #19 between the
interested parties. Subsequent to our filing of the ARC Application, a Notice
of Application was sent to our neighbors who stated that we were requesting
both items be deleted. We were not requesting those items to be
deleted as described in the supplemental material we attached to the ARC.
Unfortunately, none of the neighbors received that attachment prior to filing
their complaints and their complaints revolve around removing two items. The
Halls have told me they now have the supplemental material and Ms. Mardesich
has told me the Crews and the Weidells also have the supplemental materials. Our
ARC Application, the Notice of Application, the Letter of Incompletion, and Ms.
Mardesich’s emails are attached.
For convenience purposes, the material may also be reviewed on our website at www.madcapps.com/hearing/arcapplication.htm;
www.madcapps.com/hearing/noticeofapplication.htm;
www.madcapps.com/hearing/letterofincompletion.htm,
and www.madcapps.com/hearing/mardesichletters.htm.
(5) Letter of Incompletion,
June 3, 2009: Because of the letters received from the neighbors,
Ms. Nelson changed her mind and decided the matter needed to be reviewed by the
RDRC. Unfortunately, the Letter of Incompletion again said we were asking for
two conditions to be removed. We purchased the tree described in the Approved
Plans on June 10, 2009 and I requested Ms. Mardesich send a revised Notice of
Application to the neighbors which clearly stated we weren’t asking for both
conditions to be removed; we were solely asking for the language of Item
#7 to be clarified and we were no longer asking for Item #19 to be removed
because we had satisfied Item #19.
(6) The Woods
Letter, October 5, 2007. This letter, from Carroll Woods to our architect,
Mr. Michael Froehlich, dated October 5, 2007, asks him to revise the plans to
address the items from the Planning Department as described in the Nevarez
letter, which is attached to the Woods letter. Our architect did revise the
plans after the Woods letter and they became the Approved Plans.
a. No.
1 states that all requirements from the Planning Dept. Conditions
of Approval shall be met prior to permit issuance. It says “See
attached” for the Planning Department Conditions of Approval which is the
Nevarez letter. We revised the plans after the Woods letter and the conditions
in the Nevarez letter were/are not separate or outside of the plans -
they were incorporated into the plans which became the Approved Plans prior
to permit issuance. If we hadn’t satisfied all the conditions of the City’s
Planning Department, we wouldn’t have gotten a permit.
b. No.
4 discusses revising the site plans to show all tree locations and references
Sheet A-2.3 and is labeled “Landscaping Plans.” That was Item #19 on the
Nevarez letter and we have fulfilled the condition of adding the one tree in
the approved Landscaping Plans.
c. No.
7(e): “Revise the second floor windows #3 and #4 to show frosted glass per
Planning Dept. conditions. See sheet A-3.2 and A6.2.” Ms. Mardesich has said
the question is what Item #7 of the Nevarez letter required. It’s quite clear
from the Woods letter what Item #7 required; the obscure windows on Sheets A3.2
and A6.2 of the Approved Plans which we built as the Addition.
The Woods Letter is attached and for convenience, may be viewed at http://www.madcapps.com/hearing/CarrollWoods.pdf
(7) Final Signoff,
November 18, 2008. We have received conflicting statements, but it seems
that this matter may be a result of the Building Department’s failure to get
final approval from the Planning Department before the Building Department gave
us our final sign-off on November 18, 2008. If that is the case, then any
complaints that result from that mistake are a matter between the Building
and/or Planning Departments and the neighbors. Not us. We had a final sign-off
on November 18, 2008 and any mistakes made prior to that final sign-off, of
which we had no knowledge, are not our responsibility. It has, however,
unjustly seemed to have become our responsibility as we have now spent considerable
time and effort (as can be seen from this lengthy filing) for more than three
months trying to achieve formality in this matter.
(8) The Neighbors
Complaints. As requested, we have addressed each of the letters of the
Crews, the Halls, and the Weidells in attached Exhibits. Each exhibit contains
a copy of their letter, our response letter, and supporting photographs for our
position. For convenience, these materials may be viewed at our website at the
URLs mentioned below.
a. The
Crews: The Crews’ general objection is if certain conditions were included
in a permit, they object to the removal of those conditions. We are not
requesting any conditions be removed. The Crews specifically object to our
property because they state it overhangs several of their yards on their side
of the knoll. As described in our response letter and as shown in the attached
photographs, we cannot see the Crews house from our house nor can they see our
house from their house.
For convenience, the Crews letter, our response to the Crews letter, and the photographs
to support our response may be viewed at www.madcapps.com/hearing/crews.htm.
b. The
Halls. We have lived next door to the Halls for 14 years and we’re
disheartened that the Halls don’t know by now that we are very private people
and we respect their privacy as we would want them to respect our privacy.
We’ve put in trees along the entire property line between our houses to create
a privacy hedge taller than their six foot high fence. The Halls can see quite
easily from their house into our kitchen and eating/dining areas. We don’t have
curtains on those windows because we assume the Halls don’t spend time looking
through their windows into our windows. Similarly, we don’t spend time looking
from our windows into their property.
As they state in their letter, the Halls relied and are relying upon oral promises
made to them by
Ms. Serena Nevarez in the fall of 2006. We don’t have any knowledge of oral
promises Ms. Nevarez may or may not have made to the Halls but the Halls can’t
rely upon oral promises or their memory of such oral promises. They can only
rely upon written documentation and the documentation in this case clearly
demonstrates that we built the Addition to the Approved Plans. The Halls have
had an opportunity to review the Approved Plans since September 2006. If they
had wanted to object, they should have done so then; they are not entitled to
object now, almost eight months post-construction. If the Halls need more
privacy, they are completely free to put obscure glass, as we have done, or even
curtains on their windows, as we have done, or plant trees or bushes between
our properties, as we have done. We currently have 15 trees that we planted
between our property and the Halls as shown in the photographs attached to our
response to the Halls letter. Our attached response to Halls letter also responds
in more detail to their letter. For convenience, the Halls letter, our response
to the Halls letter, and the photographs to support our response are attached
and may be viewed at www.madcapps.com/hearing/halls.htm.
c. The
Weidells. The Weidells have submitted a complaint with ten attachments with
many different allegations. We will only briefly respond here; our more
detailed response is attached under the label Weidells.
We want to reassure the Weidells that we can see almost nothing
of their property and house as shown in the photographs both already attached
to our ARC Application and attached to this document. We offered to Ms.
Mardesich, many times, that if the Weidells would like to come in our house and
see the view from our windows to their property, we would allow them to do so.
They chose not to do so. Views from angles up and angles down are different as
Mr. Weidell says in his email to Ms. Nevarez on September 22, 2006 (“. . . I
realize things look different from different angles on a hill.”). The Weidells say
in their complaint that if they can see inside our home from theirs, then we
must be able to see inside their bedroom window. That is not true. We cannot
see inside their bedroom window. The Weidells say that from their bed, they can
stare up into the 657 windows. That may be true (we don’t know) but we repeat,
we cannot see inside their bedroom from our windows. We want them to know that
there isn’t any need for them to live differently in their master bedroom, to
keep their shades drawn, or to dress in another room as they say in their complaint.
To reiterate our statements to the Halls above, we are very private people and
we respect the privacy of others as we would want them to respect our privacy.
The Weidells say their eyes are drawn up towards the sunlight and the sky;
there are beautiful views on this knoll for everyone and we respectfully
suggest they focus on that beauty.
The photograph that the Weidells submitted in conjunction with their complaint
is a photograph from their property up into the windows of Bedroom 4 taken with
what appears to be a telephoto lens. That would be an invasion of our
privacy.
In brief, regardless of their memory of mysterious other plans which never
existed (described in our detailed response), the Weidells can only rely upon
written documentation and the written documentation demonstrates that we built
the Addition to the Approved Plans. The Weidells reviewed the Approved Plans
many times; Mrs. Weidell reviewed them herself at the City in August 2008
(according to their submission). They have known how many windows were in the
Addition and whether they were translucent or transparent for almost four years.
Similarly, they’ve known that the Approved Plans required only one tree (which
we’ve since placed) as Mrs. Weidell reviewed the landscaping plans at the City.
They had an opportunity to object to the Approved Plans since September 2006. If
they had wanted to object, they should have done so then; they are not entitled
to object now, almost eight months post-construction.
The Weidells say that between the time of approval (fall 2006) and now, they
have “spent literally thousands of dollars in landscaping to help block the
view upward as we knew construction was forthcoming.” The Weidells complain,
however, that while the planting has grown in nicely, it is not evergreen and
opens up during the winter. If the Weidells wanted more privacy, then they
should have spend that money on evergreen planting, which would provide the
screening and privacy they want during the entire year. They cannot
complain now that the screening isn’t evergreen, and thus we should plant
screening, when they themselves chose deciduous planting. If they need more
privacy, they can do a variety of things; put obscure glass, as we have done, put
reflective UV blocking film on their windows, and/or plant trees or bushes
between our properties that are evergreen. What they cannot do, however, is
require us to fix problems they themselves created.
For convenience, the Weidells letter, our response to the Weidells letter, and the photographs to support our response may be viewed are attached and may be viewed at www.madcapps.com/hearing/weidells.htm.