Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2018-12-04 #6REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 25 Golden Hinde Boulevard — Request for a Conceptual Design Review Permit to allow a 16 - unit condominium project. The project would consist of 5 buildings with 2 to 5 units per building. Each of the units would contain three bedrooms and each would be provided with a two -car garage; APNS: 175-291-26 and -39; Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) Zoning District; Campus Properties, LLC, Applicant; Cuneo Properties, Owner; PROPERTY FACTS Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Project Site: Public/Quasi-Public P/QP Zoning District Privately operated swimming pool and club house North: Park P/OS Zoning District Public Park South: Low Density Residential R7.5 Zoning District EA- overlay Single-family Residential East: High Density Residential HR1.8 Zoning District Multi -family Residential West: Low Density Residential R7.5 -EA Zoning District Single-family Residential Lot Size Lot Coverage Max. Existing Required: Proposed: 43,560square feet 1,800 square feet per unit 2,722(gross) square feet Allowed: Proposed: N/A N/A Height FAR (Max.) Allowed: Proposed: 36 feet TBD Allowed: Proposed: N/A N/A Parking Usable Outdoor Area Min. Required: Proposed: 32 (2 spaces per unit -1 covered) 32 (covered) Required: Proposed: N/A N/A Landscaping Min.Setbacks Required: Proposed: 10% (4,356 square feet) Unknown Re uired Existing N/A N/A N/A N/A Proposed 15' N/A 10' 10' Front: Side(s): Street: Interior: Rear: 15' N/A 10' 10' Tree Removal Gradin N/A Total: TBD Cut: Fill: Off -Haul: TBD TBD TBD SUMMARY The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for review of a proposed new 16 -unit condominium project on a level 43,900 square foot site. The project consists of 5 buildings with 2 to 5 units per building. The site is developed with private swimming pool facilities. A portion of the site exists as unpaved parking for the pool facilities. The applicant is seeking the Board's recommendations on the proposed site design as well as input on design imagery that will be the basis for a formal application. With the Board's recommendation, the applicant hopes to submit a formal application for a tentative map and environmental and design review, which will come back to the Board for a formal recommendation to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final decision. The formal application will be for discretionary review of the following: • Tentative Map for development of a 16 -unit condominium project; • An Environmental and Design Review Permit for the proposed development. Staff is seeking the Boards evaluation of the project based the applicable design criteria contained in the General Plan policies and the San Rafael Design Guidelines for residential development, which is discussed in detail below. Staff is requesting that the Board provide recommendations on how to most effectively address the following: • Overall consistency with the design related General Plan Policies and Residential Design Guidelines; • The need to identify window placement; • Context of the project in relation to surrounding development and whether the proposed design imagery provide an appropriate and adequate representation of how the project should contribute to the neighborhoods unique design qualities; • Whether a 36 -foot height is appropriate for this location; • How the project could best incorporate transitional elements such stepped facades, balconies, and/or other architectural details to minimize height differences; • Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site given the densities that apply to this property; • Whetherthe landscape area along the site's frontage adequately contributes to the streetscape; BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The project site consists is an approximately 43,900 square foot level lot that is currently developed with a private swimming pool facility. The site is bound by single -story residential units to the south, east, and west and by Golden Hinde Boulevard to the north. Beyond Golden Hinde is a public park. The property located east of the site is developed with multi -family housing development. Properties to the south and west are developed with single-family residential (single story Eichler homes). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Conceptual Design Review. The plans that have been submitted are in a very conceptual phase and consist of a vicinity/constraints map, a site plan, preliminary landscape details and some conceptual project imagery options for the Board to weigh in on. More detailed information will be provided as part of the formal application. The conceptual plans propose the demolition of the existing pool facilities and construction of a 16 -unit condominium project. Site Plan: The site plan proposes a 20 -foot wide access driveway that connects to Golden Hinde Bouldevard. Architecture: The applicant has not presented a specific conceptual design for the site. Rather, they have indicated their preference is to construct the buildings in a "modern/contemporary" architectural design. The applicant has provided design imagery with several examples of building designs and has requested that the Board weigh in on the specific elements they would recommend for the proposed building design/colors. Landscaping: The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape plans that propose installation of 5 street trees (Red Maple), three (3) trees (Chinese Pistache) within the interior driveway and five (5) small tree within the boundary of the property. There is not much detail on proposed ground cover. A landscape detail sheet provides mailbox design and fence design and materias I proposed. The Board is asked to provide feedback on whether the project provides an adequate number of trees to serve as a buffer to existing single -story development and to provide recommendations on the type of ground cover and/or other landscape treatments for areas in the side and rear yards. ANALYSIS Conceptual Review provides an opportunity for early feedback from the Design Review Board, staff and the public on the design and color concept of a project before it is fully developed into formalized plans. Staff has reviewed the project and offers some preliminary feedback and questions regarding the design approach for the Board to consider in providing its comments. Staff has provided a general analysis of the project's consistency with the General Plan Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines as part of its preliminary review of the design concept. General Plan 2020 Consistency: The site is designated as Public/ Quasi -Public on the General Plan 2020 Land Use Map. This designation allows for residential development at densities between 15-32 units per acre. The following is list of design policies that the applicant will need to consider as they continue to evolve a design solution for this project. It is important to note that this list identifies areas of concern. A full list of General Plan Polices can be found in the General Plan. Land Use Policy— LU8 (Density of Residential Development) The property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Public/ Quasi -Public which allows residential development at a density range of 15- 32 units per acre. The applicable P/QP Zoning district provides development opportunity at an intensity of 1 unit per 1,800 square feet. The size of the project site, 43,560 square feet (1 acre), could accommodate up to 24 units, which is within the mid -density range that is called for in the General Plan. The applicant is proposing a development project of 16 multi -family units, which is consistent with the densities called for in the General Plan. Housing Policy - H14b (Efficient Use of Multi -family Housing Sites) Pursuant to General Plan Policy H -14b, development of multifamily housing sites should occur at the mid to high range of zoning density and shall not be approved at below the minimum General Plan base density. As mentioned above, the proposed development falls on the lower range of the General Plan Density Range. While mid-range is typically encouraged, the applicant is obligated to account for other factors, including lot coverage, setbacks, and minimum parking requirements which make mid- range densities a challenge. The proposed development is consistent with this policy as the density does not fall below the minimum range. Policy LU -12. Building Heights The maximum height limit for this property is 36 feet. However, the property is locating on the fringe of the Eichler development and the Eichler Overlay District which are limited to a height of 17 feet. Existing surrounding development consists of single -story homes. The Board is being asked to make a recommendation on how best to blend the project with the existing development given that heights in this neighborhood will remain unchanged due to zoning regulations. CD -3 (Neighborhoods): Recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities H-2. Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context. Recognize that construction of new housing can add to the appearance and value of the neighborhood if they fit into the established character of the area. Design new housing, remodels, and additions to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. Incorporate transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy. Respect existing landforms and minimize effects on adjacent properties. As discussed above the project site is on the edge of the Eichler development and is surrounded by single -story development. The applicant proposes two story buildings at a height of 36 feet adjacent to these existing single -story homes. This does not represent a compatible development approach and is out of context with existing development. In addition, the floor plans provided do not show window placements which is one of the more important features of the City's review of two-story structures as we consider potential impacts on privacy. The Board is being asked to encourage the applicant to adequately address this as part of the formal application packet. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The following development and performance standards are applicable to the project. As noted in the development summary table, the project generally proposes to comply with the district development standards. The following items will need to be addressed as part of the formal application: Front yard setback The P/QP zoning district development standards require a front yard setback of 15 feet. A portion of one of the proposed structures will encroach onto the front yard setback by 5 feet. The applicant proposes this deviation will be via a concession for providing affordable housing. The applicant will need to work with staff to identify the appropriate method for this type of request as part of the formal application and may require submittal of a proforma. Parking The total parking obligation for the project is 36 spaces as outlined below. The project proposes to exceed the required parking for this project by 1 space. Parking Obligation Parking Ratio Number of Units Total parking required Total Parking proposed 3 -bedroom units 2 spaces per unit 16 32 32 Guest Spaces 1 per 5 units 16 4 5 Total Spaces 36 37 Driveway Aisle Pursuant to Section 14.18.130, the minimum driveway aisle width is 26 feet. The applicants site plan shows a 20 -foot wide driveway. The applicant will need to modify the proposed design to demonstrate compliance with this requirement as part of the formal application. Bicycle Parking On November 19, 2018, the City Council adopted amendments to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.18.090 (Bicycle parking). This amendment expands the bicycle parking obligation requiring multi -family development provide short term bicycle parking at a rate of 5% of the total automobile parking requirement. Thus, a total of 2 spaces will be required for this project. The applicant will need to demonstrate how the bicycle parking will be accommodated and shall include the following: • Bike racks shall be provided with each bicycle parking space. The rack shall consist of a stationary object to which the user can lock the bike. • Parking facilities shall support bicycles in a stable position. • The facilities shall provide at least an 18 -inch clearance from the centerline of adjacent bicycles on the left and right, and at least ten inches (10") to walls or other obstructions. • Bicycle parking should be situated conveniently to building entrances • Bicycle and auto parking areas shall be separated by a physical barrier or sufficient distance to protect parked bicycles from damage by cars. • Bicycle parking facilities should be located in a highly visible, well -lit areas to minimize theft and vandalism. • Overhead coverage or rain shelters for bicycle parking facilities are encouraged. Garbage The applicant will need to identify location of garbage and demonstrate that garbage storage and pick- up will be possible without impacting driveway aisle, garage spaces, or guest parking spaces. Garbage storage areas shall not be placed within required yard setbacks, or within required landscape or parking areas required for the use or site Fencing and Screening Perimeter fencing along the property boundary consists of 6 -foot high wood fence. Mailbox A single structure multi -unit mailbox would provide a centralized mail delivery for all 16 units. The applicant will be asked to provide protective overhead weather cover that is designed to be consistent with the architecture of the development. Outdoor living space The applicant will be required to provide at least 150 square feet of outdoor living space per unit. The applicant has included project data information which confirms the intent is to provide the minimum required. However, the project plans do not demonstrate how this will be accomplished for all the units. The applicant will need to demonstrate how the outdoor living space will be accommodated. Height The applicant proposes to build to the maximum height allowed. Architectural elevations have not been submitted so it is difficult to provide comments regarding expected heights. However, given the surrounding single -story development, staff has some concerns about compatibility. The applicant will need to show the use of stepbacks and articulations that will merge the larger buildings forms into the existing neighborhood. The applicant will need to provide a contextual rendering that shows how the building massing compares to existing development. Shading It is unclear how the proposed development will affect shading on adjacent properties. The applicant will need to submit a shadow diagram that evaluates potential shading of adjacent properties. San Rafael Design Guidelines: The San Rafael Design Guidelines serve as a guide for evaluating development. The project is a Multi- family residential project. The project will need to demonstrate compliance with the Design Guidelines for residential development. The following criteria are applicable to the project: • Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units. For example, a building can be articulated through architectural features, setbacks and varying rooflines to appear more as an aggregation of smaller building components. • Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help merge larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used. • Adjacent buildings should be considered, and transitional elements included to minimize apparent height differences • There should be a clear, well-defined sense of entry from the street to the building. • Where possible, the entrances of street front units should be oriented towards the street rather than to the interior of the lot or to the parking lot. The placement and size of windows in the building should be consistent with the overall building design and the neighborhood streetscape. Where windows do not reflect an existing pattern, greater attention should be paid to other means such as balcony overhangs, porches, materials, colors, etc. of articulating the fagade. Window proportions should be consistent with the proportions of the building and with other windows on the building. • Windows should overlook the street, parking and public areas to permit surveillance and increased safety. • Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized and designed in compliance with zoning. • Where possible, ground level parking areas should be recessed or placed to the rear of building's facade. • Design for adequate vehicle maneuverability in parking areas. Vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street. • Minimize large paved areas, for example by using alternative materials (i.e., turf block, stamped concrete or pavers). • For multifamily buildings, parking should be distributed to provide easy access to units and/or building entrances. Visible front or structured parking should be screened, landscaped or have an articulated design. • Landscaped front yards should contribute to the overall visual quality of the neighborhood and to create a strong landscaped character for the site. • Fences in the front and street side yards should include detailing in character with the house. • Landscaped areas adjacent to sidewalks are encouraged. • Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and vehicular safety. • Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond the boundaries of the property. • Lighting fixtures should complement the architecture of the project. A more thorough review of the project will be prepared when more details plans are provided as part of the formal application process. Staff seeks the Boards guidance regarding the following: • Overall consistency with the design related General Plan Policies and Residential Design Guidelines; The need to identify window placement; • Context of the project in relation to surrounding development and whether the proposed design imagery provide an appropriate and adequate representation of how the project should contribute to the neighborhoods unique design qualities; • Whether a 36 -foot height is appropriate for this location; C. • How the project could best incorporate transitional elements such stepped facades, balconies, and/or other architectural details to minimize height differences; • Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site given the densities that apply to this property; • Whether the landscape area along the site's frontage adequately contributes to the streetscape; NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the meeting was posted on site and mailed to the surrounding residents and property owners within 300 feet, at least 15 days prior to this Design Review Board meeting. The City has received several phone calls and comments from neighboring residents expressing concerns about the proposed project. Written statements, if any, are attached. CONCLUSION The project is a request for Conceptual Design Review. The plans that have been submitted are very conceptual and do not include architectural elevations and the floor plans do not include enough detail to decipher location of window and egress openings. While this makes it difficult to provide feedback on design, it also presents an opportunity for the Design Review Board to more freely provide guidance and direction to the applicant on elements of the project that really need to be evaluated before final designs are submitted for review. Staff has outlined certain criteria that the applicant will need to address as part of the formal submittal (i.e. driveway aisles, location of outdoor living area, location of garbage storage and pick-up, mailbox cover, shading, etc.). Staff is asking the Board to provide comments related to heights, front yard setback, the need for stepbacks, landscaping and overall compatibility issues that the applicant will need to address. EXHIBITS 1. Project Narrative 2. Correspondence Full-sized and reduced (11"x 17') color plans have been provided to Board members only. cc: Michael Hooper, P.O. Box 564, Larkspur, CA 94977 7 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW October 2018 25 GOLDEN HINDE BLVD ANN CURTIS SWIM CLUB PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project comprises 16 for -sale two story townhomes located on an approximate 1.01 acres site with access from Golden Hinde Blvd. The property is conveniently located for access to the Civic Center SMART station via the new pedestrian path, to Kaiser Permanante, Northgate Mall, Safeway and area schools. Bus transit is also available on Los Ranchitos. Hartzel Park is located directly across the street. The 16 two story townhomes will comprise 5 buildings ranging from 2 to 5 units. Each townhome will have 2 car garages. In addition, there will be 5 surface parking spaces on site. The townhomes have generally been oriented to the north and north west to provide an attractive complete street frontage to Golden Hinde and to protect privacy. This orientation has the additional advantage of providing excellent views of the park across the street and the surrounding hills. The townhomes will be accessed from a new centrally located private driveway off Golden Hinde Blvd. that will extend back in a T shape to accommodate fire and trash truck turn arounds. Pedestrian access will be from a sidewalk parallel to the driveway. All sides of each building will be within 150 feet fire hose pull length. All sides of each building will have an eaves height of no more than 30 feet. Therefore no aerial ladder fire truck access will be necessary. The 16 townhomes will comprise a mixture of 3 bedroom units: The below market rate requirement in San Rafael is 15% for projects of 20 units or less. The project will provide two units affordable to Moderate and Low -Income families (one of each) and pay an in -lieu fee on the remaining fractional requirement (0.4). OCT I Golden Hinde/Project Description 10_12_18 PLANNING Sq. Ft. Beds Baths Garage Number Plan 1 End Duet 1,500— 1,600 3 2.5 2 6 Plan 2 5 Plex Interior 1,700— 1,800 3 2.5 2 6 Plan 3 5 Plex End 1,1850— 1,900 3 2.5 2 4 Total 16 du The below market rate requirement in San Rafael is 15% for projects of 20 units or less. The project will provide two units affordable to Moderate and Low -Income families (one of each) and pay an in -lieu fee on the remaining fractional requirement (0.4). OCT I Golden Hinde/Project Description 10_12_18 PLANNING The property is constrained by 2 Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District easements: 1. A north south sewer line easement along the west property that will remain. 2. An east west sewer line easement that will be relocated along the south property line. The project will provide 16 much needed workforce for sale townhome units including two below market rate units affordable to Low and Moderate -income families, close to services and transit on an infill site that would complete the Golden Hinde frontage and the neighborhood. ZONING General Plan: P/QP (Public/Quasi Public) Zoning: RECEIVED P/QP (Public/Quasi Public) OCT 12 Zold Allows Residential with AUP PLANNING Allows use of R 1.8 zoning district for development standards Front: 15 ft Side: 3 ftto 5 ft Rear: 5 ft 60% Lot Coverage Max 150 sq.ft/unit open space Min Density Bonus: The project will provide 15% of the townhome units (2.4 units) for sale to Low and Moderate -Income families respectively earning less than 80% and 120% of the Area wide median income adjusted for family size. The project is therefore eligible for a Density Bonus and to receive 2 Concessions and Incentives that would provide identifiable and actual cost reductions, and an unlimited number of Modifications and Waivers of Development Standards that would otherwise have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the Project, and certain Parking Reductions. The Project would claim 0% Density Bonus and no Parking Reductions but would claim Concessions and Incentives and Modifications and Waivers. Concessions and Incentives: Golden Hinde/Project Description 10_12_18 1. Waiver of City fees would provide identifiable and actual cost reductions. 2. Waiver of any required recreation facility would provide identifiable and actual cost reductions. Modifications and Waivers: 1. A modification of the front yard setback standard from 15 feet to 10 feet. 2. A modification of the open space requirement from 150 sq.ft/unit. Subsequent Applications to be Submitted: Administrative Use Permit Tentative Map/Final Map 0% Density Bonus Concessions and Incentives Modifications and Waivers Environmental Review RECEIVED OCT I � [01d Golden Hinde/Project Description 10_12_18 Alicia Giudice From: Sharon & Henri <cademars@pacbell.net> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 4:06 PM To: Alicia Giudice Subject: Design Review of Proposed Development at 25 Golden Hinde in San Rafael Dear San Rafael Design Review Board, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed development at 25 Golden Hinde in San Rafael. I agree that the site presents a unique opportunity for a higher density housing development but believe that the project as presented to the public does not adequately address several factors which should be carefully balanced in a new development: building height and its impact on single -story neighbors, adequate parking, and green space. The plans show a disregard for the privacy and enjoyment of the development's neighbors. The plans as proposed place a solid line of 2 story structures squarely up against a minimal 10 foot setback with no buffers of roadways, driveways or green/patio areas to mitigate the impact of a looming wall of 2 story buildings. On the east side of the development is a collection of small one-story condominiums and apartments that will be dwarfed and literally overshadowed, losing almost all of the natural sunlight they currently receive. On the southwest lie a few Eichler homes whose backyards and interior living spaces will become the "view" of their new neighbors, while their view of trees and sky will be replaced by walls and windows. This is a development that was designed around single story Eichler dwellings, interior/exterior living, and large expanses of (curtainless) windows and sliding doors. It is not just for historic preservation but for privacy and enjoyment of property that San Rafael extended the protection of banning 2nd story additions in the Terra Linda Eichler development. A development on a lot that has existed for decades with no discernible presence above the fence -line ought to make a good faith attempt to mitigate its impact on neighbors' privacy, view, and natural light. I see no evidence that any such effort has been made. Similarly, inadequate provision has been made for parking. Given that these days an enclosed garage is often used as a storage room not a parking space, the overall parking provided. appears to be inadequate, especially when considering the impact of visitors. Street parking is already heavily used near the junction of Golden Hinde and Los Ranchitos Road by commuters parking near the bus stop and residents of the development on the corner. The impact of 20-30 additional cars parked nightly will spread well up the street. And lastly, no room has been left for plantings and greenery. There is nowhere for kids to run around. There are few surfaces that will soak up rainwater, greatly increasing run-off. I do not oppose the development of this site, but the current proposal is deeply flawed. Let's work together to balance the competing interests of the entire neighborhood. Sincerely, Sharon de Marcellus 12 Drakes Cove San Rafael, CA 94903 Alicia Giudice From: Eric Caindec <eric.caindec@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 11:38 AM To: Alicia Giudice Subject: Ali - 25 Golden Hinde comments To Ali Giudice and the Design Review Board Meeting Fr Eric Caindec, neighbor Re My comments regarding the 25 Golden Hinde Project Dt 11/29/2018 Thank you for receiving and including my comments regarding the 25 Golden Hinde development project being proposed. My comments are based on the drawings and project plans that were provided for my viewing at the San Rafael Planning Department on November 26, 2018. General Comments We purchased our home in 2002. Our back fence borders the back edge of Cuneo Properties lot. The project will have a significant impact on my back yard view corridor. My house is an Eichler with over 95% glass. Up to now, we have received no conversation or outreach from Campus Property or Michael Hooper. Same, up to now no conversation or outreach from Cuneo family or Cuneo properties. For a representative sense of existing home designs and neighborhood personality, Google "Golden Hinde Images San Rafael", and get to the following URL. I believe this provides'a representative sampling of the look and feel of the neighborhood. httos://www.bine.com/images/search?q=golden+hinde+sa n+rafael+ca&q pvt=golden+hi nde+sa n+rafael +ca&FORM=IGRE Design Comments and Questions This design does not seem to reflect any sensitivity to neighbors and potential impact to neighbors. This design does not seem consistent from an external building concept with existing neighborhood property design. Any attempt at Eichler consistency or single story prevailing features seems non-existent. 2 story is extremely and negatively impactful to existing personality, lifestyle, and harmony of directly co -bordering properties. Traffic can be an issue, particularly in the morning and after school to Terra Linda High Where will guests park? What are outdoor lighting design included in design? Where will windows be facing, in relation to neighboring properties? Are there decks or patios, other outdoor features for residents at the individual property level? Request increased set back from shared fences to reduce tight feel. What are landscaping plans, particularly with significant view impact to neighboring homes? Personal Concerns My home is an Eichler, all glass back of house which faces the direction and fence shared with back of 25 golden Hinde lot. Right now, the back view of the hills and shared fence is looked at directly from our living room, kitchen, dining room and master bedroom. The View corridor from our home is significantly impacted Design modification suggestions No 2nd story. Do away with enclosed garage, use freed up space for single level living space. Provide typical street type parking for residents on the Cuneo property. My observation, people are not parking their cars in their garages, using for storage instead. Thus they will park on the street. Do not install windows that will be directly looking in to the yards and homes of existing properties. Do not install outdoor lighting that will directly be shining in the direction of or be visible to existing properties. Thank You. Eric Caindec z ` 1 ± f i r f L V !�J R w ` k r • pli ement of project to simulate visibility v h®use W m o o � �.�.. 06 0 U 3 .j LO r N V p o } ■�. E V) -1 tl ti 1. 1, f7:L 4) (D 0 W Q) n tD) P 0 -1 tl 1, f7:L 4) (D 0 W Q) n tD) P 0 7 -1 tl 1, f7:L 4) (D 0 W Q) n tD) P 0 -1 z U V V +� V C1] � O � � V ©� v� 4-J biD un (a) V ccs V � © bC rd C�l) � U U .� ` U) U C U •'� Q) U c1� ® U u V q) C Cn La U1 � �1 z V � v� biD un (a) V ccs © bC rd b .� U •'� Q) U u q) bC u U Cl •r—, ® U u Q ) Q 4-3 b.O ujr-jr-4 Cdr . V > od I cn -�-' -U CA CU cn F� Cd ® 4 cn cp CO 4-j biO ^ 1 --d 4-jto bIJ � cn cn . ,-� 4J � va ,-� • r --a 0-4 b.0 cd N ®Q� . b0 b..0 _c c� ® — - 0 o 0 =— II U C!� °� Cn CJa t cd ct 1 14-1 � � u u u 0LON 101, CA Lo lut C� b,C bJD V V U t� b -C cu bt bt U ct U P4 u u Cd u r-� bJD cu CU .b C� b,C bJD V V U t� b -C cu bt bt U ct U P4 u u Cd u r-� November 29, 2018 Community Development Department Planning Division City of San Rafael 1400 5' Avenue San Rafael, CA., 94901 RE: 25 Golden Hinde I wish to comment on the proposed development for 25 Golden Hinde in San Rafael. This letter is being submitted as I may be out of town during the planning meeting of December 4, 2018. Also, some of the impacted neighbors preferred for me to act as the spokesperson for their questions and concerns, rather than attend the meeting in person. I understand the proposed development at this location, is for a 16 unit condominium project which may be two stories or up to 36 feet. We wish to be informed as to whether this design is certain, or subject to change pending approval processes etc. We also need to know when the project would begin, and approximately how long it would take place. We are needing to know whether it is really necessary to build two stories , or 36 feet in a residential neighborhood ? The adjacent Golden Hinde apartments are one story and not nearly as intrusive as this proposal would be to the neighborhood. Those of us who live directly behind or next to this proposed development, will not only suffer from the unconscionable building noise, but from an intolerable invasion of privacy from a two story development peering into our properties. This entire proposal is so disturbing and invasive, I and some of my neighbors have discussed plans to move from the neighborhood. Is this fair ? Should not our opinions be considered ? At the very least, we are begging you to drop the two story proposal and replace it with a much more considerate and less intrusive alternative. Kindly contact me and advise as to these comments and concerns as soon as convenient. Much thanks, Carolyn Couls carolyncpi@yahoo.com