HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2021-10-05 Agenda Packet
Design Review Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA (REVISED)
Virtual Meeting
Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/drb-2021-10-05
Telephone: (669) 900-9128
Meeting ID: 814-0483-9089#
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
In response to Executive Order N-29-20, the City of San Rafael will no longer offer an
in-person meeting location for the public to attend. This meeting will be held virtually
using Zoom.
How to participate in the meeting:
• Submit public comments in writing before 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting to
Leslie.Mendez@cityofsanrafael.org.
• Join the Zoom webinar and use the 'raise hand' feature to provide verbal public
comment.
• Dial-in to Zoom's telephone number using the meeting ID and provide verbal
public comment.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk
(email city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or phone at 415-485-3066) who will use their best
efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as
possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for
resolving reasonable accommodation requests.
Members of the public may speak on Agenda items.
CALL TO ORDER
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Remarks are limited to three minutes per person and may be on anything within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the body. Remarks on non-agenda items will be heard first, remarks on
agenda items will be heard at the time the item is discussed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar allows the Board to take action, without discussion, on Agenda items
for which there are no persons present who wish to speak, and no Board members who wish
to discuss.
1. Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2021
Recommended Action – Approve minutes as submitted
ACTION ITEMS
2. The Neighborhood at Los Gamos
General Plan Amendment GPA 20-001 (from Hillside Resource Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use); Zone Change ZC 20-002 (from Planned District
– Hillside Development Overlay District (PD-H) and Residential – Hillside Development
Overlay District (R2a-H) to Planned Development District (PD); Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map (to combine and adjust the boundaries of the existing parcels); and Environmental
and Design Review ED 20-058; for a mixed-use project with 192 multi-family residential
units; an approximately 5,600-square-foot market; a 5,000-square-foot community
center; and 225 at-grade and semi-subterranean parking spaces; on a 10.24 acre site
located on Los Gamos Road north of Oleander Drive; on APN 165-220-06 and 165-220-
07; Christopher Hart, Applicant and Property Owner; Mont Marin/San Rafael Park
Neighborhood.
Project Planner: Jeff Hamilton, Contract Planner
Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and building design
3. 326 and 308 Mission Avenue (Aldersly Retirement Community)
Request for Environmental and Design Review for a phased redevelopment of the
Aldersly Retirement Community, including demolition and renovation of existing
buildings and construction of new buildings; APN: 014-054-31 and -32; Planned
Development (PD-1775) Zoning District; Peter Schakow, Owner; Peter Lin,
Greenbriar Development, Applicant; File No(s).: ED 20-051, ZC20-001 and UP20-
022.
Project Planner: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and building design
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Commission
less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection online. Sign Language
interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing
city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by
dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available
in accessible formats upon request.
The Planning Commission will take up no new business after 11:00 p.m. at regularly
scheduled meetings. This shall be interpreted to mean that no agenda item or other business
will be discussed or acted upon after the agenda item under consideration at 11:00 p.m. The
Commission may suspend this rule to discuss and/or act upon any additional agenda item(s)
deemed appropriate by a unanimous vote of the members present. Appeal rights: any person
may file an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on agenda items within five business
days (normally 5:00 p.m. on the following Tuesday) and within 10 calendar days of an action
on a subdivision. An appeal letter shall be filed with the City Clerk, along with an appeal fee
of $350 (for non-applicants) or a $4,476 deposit (for applicants) made payable to the City of
San Rafael, and shall set forth the basis for appeal. There is a $50.00 additional charge for
request for continuation of an appeal by appellant.
Minutes subject to approval at the meeting of October 5, 2021
MINUTES
San Rafael Design Review Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 3, 2021, 7:00 P.M.
Virtual Meeting
Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/drb-2021-08-03
Telephone: (669) 900-9128
ID: 835 3174 3214
Present: Chair Paul
Member Kent
Member Kovalsky
Vice Chair Rege
Member Summers
Absent: Member Blayney
Also Present: Leslie Mendez, Planning Manager
Steve Stafford, Senior Planner
Renee Nickenig, Assistant Planner
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. All board members were present, except for
Member Blayney.
STAFF COMMUNICATION
• Introduction of new Planning Manager Leslie Mendez
• General Plan 2040 and Downtown Precise Plan Updates
• Planning Division hiring update
• Scheduled meetings update
BOARD COMMUNICATION
None
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
Chair Paul invited Planning Manager Leslie Mendez who informed the community that
members of the public would provide public comment either on the telephone or through
Zoom. She explained the process for community participation on the telephone and Zoom.
Chair Paul reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2021, May
4, 2021 and June 8, 2021
Member Kent moved and Member Summers seconded to approve the meeting minutes of
February 17, 2021 as submitted.
AYES: Members: Kent, Rege, Summers & Chair Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Blayney
ABSTAIN: Members: Kovalsky
Motion carried 4-0
Member Kent moved and Member Summers seconded to approve the meeting minutes of
May 4, 2021 as submitted.
AYES: Members: Kent, Rege, Summers & Chair Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Blayney
ABSTAIN: Members: Kovalsky
Motion carried 4-0
Member Rege moved and Member Summers seconded to approve the meeting minutes of
June 8, 2021 as submitted.
AYES: Members: Rege, Summers & Chair Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Blayney
ABSTAIN: Members: Kent, Kovalsky
Motion carried 3-0
DISCUSSION ITEMS
2. 800 Mission Ave. (“Aegis Living San Rafael”) – Request amendment of Use Permit
and an Environmental and Design Review Permit approvals to allow a 11’ 2” height
bonus for a previously approved senior assisted living and memory care facility on two
vacant Downtown parcels with 29,885 sq. ft. of combined area. Amendment of the
approvals would increase the height of the building from 36’ to 47’ 2” and increase the
unit count from 77 suites to 103 suites. The remainder of the approved site and building
design would remain unchanged; APNS: 011-184-08 & -09; Multifamily Residential –
High Density (HR1) District Zone; Geoff Forner, Applicant; ASC San Rafael LLC,
Owner; Downtown Neighborhood.
Project Planner: Steve Stafford
Steve Stafford, Senior Planner presented the Staff Report.
Staff responded to questions from the Members.
Applicant Bryon Ziegler, Aegis and George Signori, Ankrom Moisan gave a presentation.
Applicant responded to questions from the Members.
Chair Paul invited public comment.
Public Comment in real-time on telephone or Zoom:
Nina Lilienthal Murphy, Lincoln San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, Walden Valen,
President of HOA Board at 820 Mission Avenue, Name withheld
Staff responded to questions from the Members.
Members provided comments.
Planning Manager Leslie Mendez summarized the Members’ consensus items:
• Applicant was responsive to the previous comments from the Design Review Board
• The setback and the eroding way around the tower has helped both in making the tower
more prominent and has provided the rooftop terrace
• There is still concern about the massing as viewed on Mission Street and that the top story
could use more setback
• Outdoor planting as much as possible to the decks
Members provided further comments and applicant responded to questions from the
Members.
Staff provided comments.
Member Summers moved and Member Rege seconded to conditionally approve the project
based on the consensus items as outlined by the Planning Manager and allow the applicant
to work with staff with the Design Review Board’s intent on these comments .
Members discussed the motion. Applicant provided comments.
Member Summers moved to conditionally approve the project to allow the applicant to
address the consensus items and work with staff and bring this to the Planning Commission
with a final review of the Design Review Board on these design elements, prior to
submitting for building permit.
Members discussed the motion. Staff and applicant provided comments.
Planning Manager Leslie Mendez summarized consensus wording for new motion and
Member Summers indicated that he believes that is what he said before.
Member Summers moved and Member Rege seconded to conditionally approve the project
with the consensus items, which is to increase the setback on the Mission Street elevation
at the top story and increase landscaping on all outdoor areas, to be incorporated into the
project plan set that goes to the Planning Commission and with the recommendation to
consider revisiting the northeast elevation and that the project will return to the Design
Review Board for final design review prior to building permit submittal.
AYES: Members: Kent, Kovalsky, Rege, Summers & Chair Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Blayney
ABSTAIN: Members: None
Motion carried 5-0
3. 292 Fairhills Drive – Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit to
construct a new 12” – 48”, 997 sq. ft. deck that requires a reduction of the front yard
setback by one-half the required 20 ft. front setback (10ft.), and construction of
approximately 78 ft. of 5 ft. retaining wall within the Hillside Development Overlay
District; APN: 010-142-04; R20-H Zone; Samina Saude, Applicant; Tim Cornwell,
Owner.
Project Planner: Renee Nickenig
Renee Nickenig, Assistant Planner presented the Staff Report.
Applicant Samina Saude gave a presentation.
Applicant responded to questions from the Members.
Chair Paul invited public comment; however, there was none.
Members provided comments.
Member Kent moved and Member Summers seconded to approve this project as submitted.
AYES: Members: Kent, Kovalsky, Rege, Summers & Chair Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Blayney
ABSTAIN: Members: None
Motion carried 5-0
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Paul adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
___________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF____________, 2021
_____________________________________
LARRY PAUL, Chair
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: October 5, 2021
Case Numbers: ED20-058; GPA 20-001; ZC 20-002
Project Planner: Jeff Hamilton, contract planner
Agenda Item: 2
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: The Neighborhood at Los Gamos – General Plan Amendment GPA 20-001 (from Hillside
Resource Residential to Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use); Zone Change ZC 20-002 (from
Planned District – Hillside Development Overlay District (PD-H) and Residential – Hillside
Development Overlay District (R2a-H) to Planned Development District (PD); Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map (to combine and adjust the boundaries of the existing parcels); and Environmental
and Design Review ED 20-058; for a mixed-use project with 192 multi-family residential units;
an approximately 5,600-square-foot market; a 5,000-square-foot community center; and 225 at-
grade and semi-subterranean parking spaces; on a 10.24 acre site located on Los Gamos Road
north of Oleander Drive; on APN 165-220-06 and 165-220-07; Christopher Hart, Applicant and
Property Owner; Mont Marin/San Rafael Park Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location General Plan Designation (2040) Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: Existing: HRR
Proposed: NCMU
Existing: PD-H
and R2a-H
Proposed: PD
Vacant hillside
North: PROS, P/QP P/OS, PD (1963) Vacant hillside
South: PROS, VLDR R2a-H Single and
Multi-family Residential
East: MDR, OMU, P/QP R2a-H, O, PD (1963),
PD (1508)
Office, Gymnasium
West: PROS P-OS Vacant hillside
Lot Size Lot Coverage (Max.) OR Natural State (Min.)
Required: 2.5 acres min.
Proposed: 10.24 acres
Standard: No standard for residences; 0.01 FAR for
commercial. No Natural State minimum
because the property would be in a PD zone
Proposed: 17.08% lot coverage; 50% (5.17 acres) in
natural state (4.83 ac unimproved open space
and 0.34 ac of improved hillside open space);
1.29 acres of improved landscaping near
buildings; 0.01 FAR for commercial
component
Height* Residential Density OR Gross Building/Floor Area
Allowed: 30’
Proposed: approx. 58’**
Allowed: 24.2 du/ac
Proposed: 18.75 du/ac
Min. Lot Width (New Lots) Upper Floor Area (Non-hillside residential)
Required: No min.
Proposed: >1,100’
Allowed: n/a
Proposed: n/a
Outdoor Area OR Landscape Area
2
Required: No standard
Proposed: 1.29 acres of improved
landscaping; 0.34 acres
of improved hillside open
space; 4.83 acres of unimproved
open space
Setbacks Required Existing Proposed
Front: n/a n/a Min. 46’ from
easterly PL;
approx. 80’
to street ROW
Side(s):
Ext. side:
Ped. side:
Bldg. sep
Rear:
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Over 400’ to
southerly PL, 165’
to northerly PL
Min. 20’
Min. 51’
Grading
Total: 88,000 cy
Cut: 71,000 cy
Fill: 17,000 cy
Export: 54,000 cy
Tree Removal
Total (No./Species): 285; 256 oak, 21 bay, 8 other
55 trees proposed for removal incl. 51 oak, 1 bay, 2 pine, 1 Australian blackwood
Requirement: 11 trees in parking area; 26*3 for oaks=78 new trees
Proposed: 210 trees to be planted in and around development site; (55 Cathedral Live Oak —not a
species recommended in the hillside guidelines Appendix B)
Residential Parking
(Affordable Housing) Required (Unit Type) Total Required
Studio 1/unit 36 Studios: 36 spaces
1 BR 1/unit 48 1 BR: 48 spaces
2 BR 1.5/unit 90 2 BR: 135 spaces
3 BR 1.5/unit 18 3 BR: 27 spaces
Guest None required None required
Required Proposed
Total: 246 spaces Total: 213 spaces (171 resident & 42 guest spaces)
Commercial Parking Required Proposed
Market (5,574 sf) 1 space/250 sf: 22 spaces 12
Community Center (5,003 sf) 1/250 sf: 20 spaces 0
Total Residential Parking Required (affordable housing standards): 246 spaces Provided: 213 spaces**
Total Commercial Parking Required: 42 spaces Provided: 12 spaces**
Total Parking Deficit: 63 spaces
* Hillside building height is measured from natural grade to top of roof /structure at all points of the structure.
Standard building height is measured from an established exterior finished grade elevation to mid-point of a sloped
roof.
**Building height and parking waivers and concessions sought through Density Bonus provisions.
3
SUMMARY
The subject project is being referred to the Board for review of site and design improvements of a mixed-
use project with 192 residences, 225 parking spaces, a 5,574 square foot market, and a 5,003 square
foot community center. The project is subject to review by the Design Review Board because it proposes
a Major Physical Improvement (with 3 or more dwelling units) as defined in SRMC Section 14.25.040(A).
The Board’s recommendation would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Staff requests feedback
from the Board and provide a recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Based on
review of the applicable design criteria, staff asks the Board to specifically consider the following:
Architecture
• Whether the design of the buildings has sufficient vertical and horizontal articulation 1) to avoid
creating a “wall” effect; 2) to avoid large expanses of a wall in a single plane on the downhill
elevations; 3) to create sufficient shadows; 4) to avoid extended horizontal lines.
• Whether the gable ends should face downhill.
• Whether the east-facing elevation of the market/community center building is an appropriate
design.
Landscaping
• Whether the use of trees not on the approved list in the Hillside Design Guidelines is appropriate.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The 10.24 acre site is on a hillside, generally east-facing slope. The site is located below the ridgeline
west of the site. The average slope of the property is 36.9%; it is 34.1% for the area to be developed.
According to the arborist’s report there are 285 trees on the property, including 256 oaks of various
species and 21 Bay Laurel. Other trees include Stone Pines, Toyon and Australian Blackwood.
The site is within the Mont Marin/San Rafael Park neighborhood. It is north of the Oleander Park
neighborhood, west of Redwood Highway (State Highway 101), south of the homes along Montevideo
and Salvador Ways, and east of the homes along Las Gallinas Avenue. There is an existing office building
east and below the site at 1401 Los Gamos Drive. The Marin YMCA at 1500 Los Gamos Drive is northeast
of the site.
The site does not have frontage on a public street. The Los Gamos Drive right-of-way currently terminates
just east of the site. Access to the site is proposed via an easement running generally east-west from the
site to the existing terminus of Los Gamos Drive. The applicant currently owns this easement. The
easement would connect to the existing driveway serving the office at 1401 Los Gamos Drive. See
Figures 1 and 2 below.
4
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Proposed Development
5
According to the hydrology study for the project, there are two existing drainage paths that cross the site
from west to east, and another that skirts the northerly edge of the development site.
History:
A preliminary version of the project was submitted in 2019 for consideration. At a hearing on January 14,
2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and individual commissioners offered the following
comments:
• It is time to re-evaluate zoning for this site;
• Intensity could be ok if properly designed and with thorough review of environmental impacts;
• Clustering is good idea;
• The project would contribute to the City’s housing need;
• Would not support any more than 180 units;
• Would like to see the applicant address work force housing;
• Make market more visible;
• Continue reaching out to County for access swap;
• Consider reducing the amount of trails within the private open space areas;
• Need to define whether trails would be accessible to public;
• Specify how trails would be maintained;
• Address how trails and recreational equipment impact natural state;
• Recreational equipment should be located closer to buildings;
• Contribute as much green/low energy elements as possible;
• EV; Solar; roof orientation and design;
• Prepare more photo-simulations including views from street level to get a better sense of what
the project would look like;
• Demonstrate compliance with Hillside design;
• Height might be okay if bulk and mass can be addressed and proforma supports; use hillside
definition of height;
• Consider adding carports over parking areas to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass;
• Address views from open space;
• Landscaping design and materials needs to be appropriate;
• Environmental review needs to consider all impacts including traffic impacts of other projects.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The mixed-use development project proposes to change the Land Use designation of the site in the
General Plan from Hillside Resource Residential to Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use. The site is
proposed to be rezoned from Planned District – Hillside Development Overlay District (PD-H) and
Residential – Hillside Development Overlay District (R2a-H) to Planned Development District (PD). A
Vesting Tentative Tract Map is proposed to combine the two existing parcels into one and to reconfigure
the boundaries. The project is subject to Environmental and Design Review because the project proposes
a Major Physical Improvement (with 3 or more dwelling units) as defined in SRMC 14.16.030.
Use: The project proposes multifamily residential use, a small grocery store, a recreational facility
consisting of a “community center” and the leasing office, parking, landscaping, private and common
open space, and physical improvements including a circular driveway and retaining walls necessary to
support the project. The residential component includes 192 dwelling units. The apartments range in
size from 496 square-foot studios to 1,153 square-foot three-bedroom units. There would be 36 studios,
48 one-bedroom units, 90 two-bedroom units, and 18 three-bedroom units. The two-bedroom units would
be offered in three floor plans; the one and three-bedroom units would each have one floor plan. Each
6
unit would have a private balcony or deck ranging from 72 square feet for the studios to 143 square feet
for the three-bedroom units. The applicant is proposing that ten percent of the units be affordable. There
will be 225 parking spaces for the project including 171 covered spaces, 42 at-grade spaces and 12
covered spaces serving the recreational facility. The small grocery is at the ground floor of a two -story
building that would also contain the recreational facility and leasing office. The grocery store would be
5,574 square-feet. The recreational facility totals 5,003 square-feet including the leasing office of just
over 900 square feet. There is common recreation space on the roof of the recreation facility including a
children’s play area and a pergola providing a shaded seating area. There would be more common open
space on a series of terraces south of the building that would contain the grocery store and recreational
facility.
Access to the site would be via a private driveway from Los Gamos Drive. The driveway would connect
to a large loop internal driveway. Buildings 1 and 2 would have 36 parking spaces for the 36 apartments
in each building. Buildings 3, 4 and 5 would have 33 parking spaces for the 40 apartments in each
building. Since the applicant has stated that at least 10 percent of the units will be “Below Market Rate”,
the project qualifies as an affordable housing project, and since the applicant has applied for a density
bonus and the reduced parking standards of State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section
65915(p). A total of 225 parking spaces are provided where 288 are required. As part of the density
bonus application, the applicant has requested that a parking reduction be granted as a concession.
The buildings range from 47 to 58 feet in height above the natural grade. The allowed maximum height
is 30 feet per the 2040 General Plan, Figure 3-3. As an affordable housing project and as part of the
density bonus application, the applicant has requested that the height increase be granted as a waiver.
In no case may the City apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding
the construction of a qualifying density bonus development (Govt. Code section 65915(e).
Site Plan: The property totals 10.24 acres, or 446,054 square feet. Approximately 5.07 acres of the site
would be improved with buildings, roads and landscaping. Landscaping in the development area would
total approximately 1.29 acres. Another 0.19 acres of the site would be improved with bio-treatment areas
to manage stormwater before it enters the storm drain network. South of the development area is the
proposed improved open space totaling approximately 0.34 acres. Approximately 4.83 acres of the site
would remain as unimproved open space which would primarily be west and upslope from the buildings
and south and surrounding the improved open space area. A total of 50 percent of the site would remain
as natural open space as defined in the City’s Hillside Design Guidelines. As shown on the building
elevations (page A105 of the plans), the peaks of the proposed buildings are all below the ridgeline
behind and west of the site.
There would be five apartment buildings. Buildings 1 and 2 would be three stories tall above semi-
subterranean parking. Buildings 3, 4 and 5 would be four stories tall above the parking. The market and
community center would be two stories tall above the parking level. At-grade, above and adjacent to the
market/community center building would be a public plaza (the “Village Commons”) of almost 10,000
square feet that includes seating, a water feature, a children’s play area and other recreational amenities.
South of the apartment buildings, the applicant proposes to improve the hillside with a recreational area
while leaving most of the existing woodland intact. There would be a walking path, play structures and
exercise stations in this area.
Landscaping would be planted around the proposed buildings, the surface parking areas and along the
loop drive system. Other than the surface parking lots, all resident and customer parking would be in
semi-subterranean, “tuck under” structures beneath each of the buildings. Trash would be stored in the
parking garages. On collection days, bins would be moved to short-term at-grade pads adjacent to the
buildings, then put away after collection. A storage enclosure would be provided for each apartment in
half of the building level above the parking area.
7
Views of the site from neighboring properties are shown on pages A801 and A802. Some of the
neighboring structures are also shown on A802.
Architecture: The buildings are designed in a Contemporary style. Walls would be a combination of
stucco, lap siding and painted concrete. Trim would be painted wood. Colors are earth-tones in
complementary shades. Large areas of each of the walls of the residential buildings incorporate windows,
introducing considerable light into the units. The residential buildings use horizontal and vertical
articulation to break up the mass. The rooflines also vary and utilize gables to increase visual interest.
The roofs would be a combination of composition shingle on the pitched roofs and rolled roofing on the
flat area. Solar panels are proposed for each of the buildings.
The smaller market/community room building is proposed in the same style with the same materials and
finishes but includes large windows on the east side of the building. Each of the floors of the building
steps back up the hill, creating small sitting and eating spaces on the east side of the façade. The
stairway and elevator columns are also styled in a way that breaks up the mass. In addition, the rooftop
pergola adds interest while providing some shade for people using the rooftop recreation area.
Perspective drawings of the proposed project are shown on pages L1.02, L1.05, L1.07, and L1.08.
Building renderings are shown on pages A301 and A302. Building elevations are shown on pages A105,
A202, A205, and A209. Building and site sections are shown on pages A106, A203, A206, and A208.
Landscaping: The existing hillside has numerous trees, primarily oaks, concentrated for the most part
south of the proposed development area. Almost half of the site (4.83 acres) would remain undisturbed.
Of the 285 existing trees identified on the site, 55 are proposed for removal including 51 oaks, 1 Bay
Laurel, 2 Stone Pines and 1 Australian Blackwood. A total of 210 trees are proposed to be planted
including 55 Cathedral Live Oaks, Coast Live Oaks, California Black Oaks, Scrub Oaks, Brisbane Box,
Olive specimens and Crepe Myrtle. The plans include an extensive landscape palette (see plans L3.01-
L3.03) that relies on a variety of low-water using trees, shrubs and groundcovers. The overall landscape
plan is depicted on pages L1.03 and L1.04 of the plans.
Lighting: Light poles with cut-off fixtures would be used along the internal driveway system and the
surface parking areas. Low bollards would be used near buildings and along pathways. Recessed lighting
would be installed in building overhangs and on stair risers. Examples of the fixtures are shown on sheet
L2.04 of the plans. A photometric study was submitted (pages PH-1 and PH-2 of the plans) and shows
illumination along the driveway system and near the buildings.
Grading/Drainage: Grading would occur to create the 5.07-acre development site, the off-site access
road (on the easement owned by the applicant) to Los Gamos Drive, and, to a more limited extent, in the
0.34 acre improved open space area south of the proposed buildings. Grading is necessary to create the
access to the site, the internal driveway system, building pads, and the landscaped areas, walls and
paths near the buildings. Grading in the 0.34 acre improved open space area is proposed to create a
walking path and pads for play structures and exercise equipment. Grading is depicted on the engineering
plans, sheets C1, C2, C3 and C4.
A total of 88,000 cubic yards of dirt is proposed to be moved: 71,000 cubic yards of cut and 17,000 cubic
yards of fill. A total of 54,000 cubic yards of dirt is proposed to be removed from the site. It is estimated
by the City’s Public Works Department that this would require 2,500 to 3,500 truck trips.
Several retaining walls are proposed. In addition to the retaining wall that forms the upslope wall of each
building, additional retaining walls are located upslope from Buildings 3, 4 and 5. One retaining wall with
a maximum height of eight feet is proposed behind Building 3. Three walls, each with a maximum height
of eight feet, are proposed behind Building 4. Two retaining walls, each with a maximum height of eight
feet, are proposed behind Building 5. The site sections shown on page A106 generally depict the retaining
8
walls within and behind the buildings. Walls behind the buildings are unlikely to be seen from offsite since
the walls are shorter than the buildings.
Other retaining walls are located near the buildings to support landscape planters and pedestrian paths.
A number of retaining walls are proposed to support the internal driveway system. In two locations , one
on the north curve and one on the south curve, these walls would be over eight feet tall. Parallel walls
are proposed to support the downhill side of the loop driveway north and east of Building 1. This becomes
a single wall for most of the east side of Building 1 and east of the proposed market/community center
building. A single retaining wall is proposed on the downhill side of the loop driveway east of Building 2.
Retaining walls are also proposed on both the north and south sides of the entry driveway. These walls
have a maximum height of approximately 5 feet.
All retaining walls other than those behind the buildings would be concrete block construction with a
stucco finish. Vines would trail over the top of the walls and trees and shrubs would be planted below
them to create an effective screen. The walls behind Buildings 3, 4 and 5 would be “soil nail walls”, vertical
retaining walls with large steel rods inserted deep into the hillside behind the wall. These walls would
have a slurry concrete finish. These would also be screened by landscaping in areas where the retaining
wall system extends beyond the walls of the buildings.
Other (such as Signage, Proposed Regulations, Design Guidelines, etc.): Because the project is a
Multi-family Residential Development on an average slope greater than 25 percent, it is subject to the
Hillside Design Guidelines (“HDG”). It is also subject to the development standards listed in the 2040
General Plan for Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use projects. In addition, since the property is
proposed to be rezoned to Planned Development, the project is required to have a minimum lot area of
2.5 acres. The site is 10.24 acres so the project complies with this standard. The G eneral Plan requires
that lots larger than five acres be within a Planned Development zone, which the applicant has proposed.
The General Plan establishes a residential density of 8.7 to 24.2 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
density is 18.75 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan has a 30 foot height limit for the site and a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.01 for the commercial component of the project since the slope exceeds 15
percent. The commercial component meets the FAR but the proposed maximum height of 58 feet
exceeds the allowed height. Since 10 percent of the units are proposed to be affordable, the project
qualifies as an affordable housing project and the applicant has applied for a density bonus with a waiver
of the height limits as provided under the State Density Bonus law as described previously.
A project identification sign is proposed on the face of the lowest retaining wall at the top of the entry
driveway. A mural is also proposed on the retaining wall at the lower level of the recreation area south of
the market. Details of the sign and mural, such as size, lettering, and lighting have not been provided.
The sign and mural are subject to a sign permit. Since the project would be new construction in a PD
zone, the project must prepare a sign program which would be reviewed by the Design Review Board for
a recommendation to the Planning Commission (Mun. Code Sections 14.19.043 and .046). This would
be required as a condition of approval.
All other development criteria for the site are found in the HDG. These criteria are discussed in detail
below.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2040 Consistency:
The property is proposed to be located within the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use (NCMU) Land
Use Designation. The following General Plan policies are relevant to the project site:
9
Land Use Policy LU-1.8 (Residential Density): The NCMU allows residential densities from 8.7 to 24.2
dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 18.75 dwelling units per acre, so the project is consistent
with the policy.
Land Use Policy LU-1.9 (Clustering): Clustering is recommended to “conserve environmentally sensitive
or hazardous portions of a site….” The project utilizes clustering to keep the development area compact,
preserving the majority of the significant trees on the southern portion of the site. The project is consistent
with the policy.
Land Use Policy LU-1.10 (Intensity of Non-Residential Development): A maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 0.01 is allowed for properties with a slope greater than 15 percent. The commercial component
of the project has an FAR of 0.01 so the project is consistent with the policy.
Land Use Policy LU-1.17 (Building Heights): The maximum allowed building height is 30 feet for the site.
The proposed maximum building height is 58 feet. Since the applicant has applied for a density bonus,
the applicant has requested that the height increase be granted as a waiver as provided under the State
Density Bonus law as described previously.
Community Design and Preservation Policy CDP-1.3 (Hillside Protection): The Policy seeks to protect
the visual integrity and character of the hillsides by controlling development through t he Hillside Design
Guidelines (HDG). The project is consistent with several hillside design standards, including clustering to
minimize grading and to avoid the appearance of larger, more massive structures, and the retention of
the majority of significant trees on the property. The buildings utilize vertical and horizontal stepbacks
which are encouraged. The top floor of the residential buildings are pushed back from the lower floors,
but the buildings still present tall downhill facing elevations in a vertical plane. Gable ends face downhill,
which is discouraged, rather than sloping the roofs with the hillside. The market/community center
building has a two-story east facing wall consisting mostly of large windows. The floors of this building
are also stepped-back up the hill, creating vertical articulation and providing outdoor seating space on
the east façade. The use of large windows may be in response to the comment from the Planning
Commission during the preliminary review hearing that the market should be given greater visibility. The
project has an extensive landscape palette using low water using trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Some
of the trees, including Brisbane Box, Cathedral Live Oak, and California Black Oak, are not on the list of
approved trees in Appendix B of the HDG. The applicant has suggested that the Cathedral Live Oak is a
more appropriate street tree as it generally takes a more vertical form rather than the spreading form of
the Coast Live Oak found in the list. Brisbane Box, although not on the list of approved trees, is very
commonly used in California landscaping schemes. Staff is seeking Board input on these choices:
• Whether the design of the buildings has sufficient vertical and horizontal articulation 1) to avoid
creating a “wall”effect; 2) to avoid large expanses of a wall in a single plane on the downhill
elevations; 3) to create sufficient shadows; 4) to avoid extended horizontal lines..
• Whether the gable ends should face downhill.
• Whether the use of trees not on the approved list in the HDG is appropriate.
More detailed discussion of consistency with the HDG is below in that section.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The proposed land use is consistent with the proposed Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use (NCMU)
designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the proposed Planned Development (PD)
zoning. As noted in the Property Facts and Project Description, the project complies with the allowed
residential density, commercial FAR, and required lot size. The project would not comply with the
following standards:
10
Building Height (Land Use Policy LU-1.17)
Buildings up to 58 feet tall are proposed where the Policy allows a maximum height of 30 feet.
Although this is a policy from the Land Use Element of the General Plan, there is no comparable
standard in the proposed PD zone. The applicant is requesting a waiver pursuant to State Density
bonus law.
Resident and Customer Parking (Mun. Code Sec. 14.18.040)
A total of 171 covered parking spaces and 42 guest parking spaces are proposed where 246 are
required, and 12 customer spaces serving the market/community center building are provided
where 42 are required. The applicant is requesting a concession from the standard provided for
under State Density Bonus law.
San Rafael Hillside Design Guidelines:
The Hillside Design Guidelines serve as a guide for evaluating development on hillside properties. The
project is a mixed-use development with residential and commercial components. The project complies
with the following criteria:
• Grading should be kept to a minimum and performed in a way that respects significant natural
features and visually blends with adjacent properties.
• Be compatible with the natural features, building location and existing open spaces of neighboring
properties.
• Respect existing views, privacy, access to light and safety of neighboring properties.
• Avoid the unstable or hazardous portions of the site.
• Preserve “existing natural features” including:
o Mature trees
o Significant or unique vegetation grouping(s) which contributes to the character of the site
o Topography
o Drainage.
• When significant trees must be removed, replanting with approved species is recommended.
• Circulation and parking should be located and landscaped to minimize views from the valley floor,
roads and neighboring properties.
• Parking should be located beneath buildings.
• Avoid building facades that are designed with a ground level wall of repetitive garage doors.
• Avoid long continuous building masses that create a “wall” effect and inhibit views.
• Facades should be articulated to produce shadows.
• Rooflines should avoid extended horizontal lines.
• Group usable open space should be provided and include a children’s play area of at least 400
square feet.
• Each unit should have private usable open space. Ground level spaces should have a minimum
dimension of 12 feet and decks above-ground should have a minimum dimension of 8 feet.
• Color selection should show evidence of coordination with predominant colors and values of the
surrounding landscape.
• Site lighting should minimize intrusion into adjacent properties, roadways, the hillside silhouette
and the night sky.
The project utilizes clustered, compact development to minimize grading. Grading is generally confined
to the northerly portion of the site which preserves the majority (230 of 285) of the existing trees and
avoids one of the drainage paths crossing the site. A variety of low water using trees are proposed,
though some (Brisbane Box, Cathedral Live Oak, California Black Oak) are not on the list of approved
trees in Appendix B of the HDG. The Cathedral Live Oak is a tall spreading tree which seems like a good
choice as a “street tree” alongside the driveway system. California Black Oaks are native to the state and
widely distributed. Brisbane Box is a tall tree native to Australia that is commonly used in California
landscaping.
11
Although the site is visible from State Highway 101 and properties to the east, development is located
below the ridgeline behind the site. Keeping the developed portion of the project to the north side of the
property helps preserve the existing views and privacy of the residential areas south of the site. The
internal driveway system and parking are designed to be screened by the proposed buildings and
landscaping. The project is divided into six buildings with each of the building pads at a different elevation.
The distribution of massing into six separate buildings helps the project better conform to the hillside than
if the project used fewer, more massive buildings.
The buildings utilize horizontal and some vertical articulation to reduce the apparent building mass. Large
windows introduce natural light and provide views to the east. There are both vertical and horizontal
stepbacks in the building form as are encouraged by the HDG. The design includes gable ends on
downhill elevations which are discouraged.
The project utilizes natural colors in exterior finishes for walls and roofing materials. Fin ishes are varied
and include stucco and siding. The market/community center building has a two-story, east-facing wall
primarily composed of large windows, which the HDG discourages. This could be mitigated by the
introduction of the outdoor seating areas at each of the levels of the building on the east façade, and the
proposed trees east of the building that would provide a substantial screen. This may also be a design
choice influenced by the request from the Planning Commission to make the market more visible. In
addition, large windows are reasonable design choices for the intended use as a market and community
center, providing the interior with considerable natural light and views to the east.
The HDG discourages the use of retaining walls taller than 4 feet upslope from structures, and 3 feet
downslope. As noted previously, in some cases walls would up to 8 feet tall behind buildings, up to 8 feet
tall upslope from the driveway, and up to 5 feet tall below roadways. The tallest portions of the walls
behind the buildings are completely screened by the buildings. Walls elsewhere, including the walls up
to 16 feet high between the market building and residential Building 2, are proposed to be screened by
trees and shrubs below the walls and landscaping trailing over the top of the walls.
Each proposed dwelling unit would have a private balcony or patio of 72 to 143 square feet with a
minimum dimension of 8 feet. Group useable open space would include a large plaza with seating and
large-scale chess board above the market. A children’s play area totaling approximately 610 square feet
with more seating would also be above the market. The recreational area above the market, including
the children’s play area, totals over 4,000 square feet. South of the market, there would be three terraced
outdoor areas, with a lawn at the upper level, a covered seating area with a water feature on the middle
level, and more seating around a fire ring at the lower level. Each of the terraces can be accessed by
stairs. This recreational area is roughly the same size as the area above the market. There would also
be a large (approximately 3,000 square foot) children’s play area with a variety of play structures in the
“South Park” area of the hillside south of the apartment buildings. This area would also include a
circuitous path, seating areas and considerable undisturbed hillside. This area would be accessed via a
metal bridge over the natural drainage gully that bisects the site from west to east.
Virtually all of the proposed parking is located beneath each of the buildings. Just 42 of the 225 parking
spaces are at-grade and these are located on the driveway that is bordered to the east and west by the
proposed buildings. None of these parking spaces would be visible from surrounding properties.
Light poles with cut-off fixtures would be used along the internal driveway system and the surface parking
areas. Low bollards would be used near buildings and along pathways. Lighting is designed to minimize
spillover onto neighboring properties.
In summary, the project appears to meet the overall intent of the Hillside Design Guidelines with certain
exceptions.
12
Staff seeks the Board’s guidance regarding the following:
• Building Design
o Whether the design of the buildings has sufficient vertical and horizontal articulation 1) to
avoid creating a “wall”effect; 2) to avoid large expanses of a wall in a single plane on the
downhill elevations; 3) to create sufficient shadows; 4) to avoid extended horizontal lines.
o Whether the gable ends should face downhill.
• Landscape Design
o Whether the use of trees not on the approved list in the HDG is appropriate.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Pursuant to the noticing requirements found in SRMC Section 14.29, notice of the Design Review Board
hearing was provided by mail on September XX, 2021, to the applicant and property owner; the Mont
Marin/San Rafael Park Neighborhood Association, all property owners, occupants and tenants within a
radius of 300 feet of the property boundaries; the Marin Sanitary Service; Pacific Gas & Electric Company;
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District; and various City departments including the Department of Public
Works. Notice was posted on the property in the manner required on September 17, 2021. Notice was
also published in the newspaper on September 18, 2021.
CONCLUSION
The project proposes additional housing on a challenging site. The project generally meets t he intent of
the Hillside Design Guidelines in that it minimizes grading and maximizes the preservation of the existing
landscape and topography. Separating but clustering the buildings helps the project conform to the
hillside while minimizing the building footprint. The tradeoff is that the buildings are rather tall and boxy.
The proposed landscaping scheme, although it includes trees not on the approved list, appears
reasonable; the use of replacement oaks is especially welcome. Staff seeks the Board’s guidance.
EXHIBITS
1. Project Plans, dated 2/22/21 and amended on 5/19/21 available online:
Part I: https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/10/Exhibit-1_Los-
Gamos-Residential-Plan-Set-Reduced_Part1.pdf
Part II: https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/10/Exhibit-1_Los-
Gamos-Residential-Plan-Set-Reduced_Part2.pdf
Part III: https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/10/Exhibit-1_Los-
Gamos-Residential-Plan-Set-Reduced_Part3.pdf
For more project information, visit the project website:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/los_gamos_apartments/
cc: Christopher Hart, property owner and applicant, 899 Northgate Dr., Ste. 301, San Rafael, CA
94903
Riley F. Hurd III, attorney for applicant, 1101 5th Ave., Ste. 100, San Rafael, CA 94901
Colin Russell, architect for applicant, 1430 4th St., San Rafael, CA 94901
Michael Tarnoff, civil engineer for applicant, 1442 A Walnut St. #428, Berkeley, CA 94709
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: October 5, 2021
Case Numbers: ED20-051
Project Planner: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
Agenda Item: 3
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 326 and 308 Mission Avenue (Aldersly Retirement Community) - Request
for Environmental and Design Review for a phased redevelopment of the Aldersly Retirement
Community, including demolition and renovation of existing buildings and construction of new
buildings; APN: 014-054-31 and -32; Planned Development (PD-1775) Zoning District; Peter
Schakow, Owner; Peter Lin, Greenbriar Development, Applicant; File No(s).: ED 20-051,
ZC20-001 and UP20-022.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use
308 Mission: HDR P-D Single Family Dwelling
326 Mission: HDR P-D Residential Care Facility/ Assisted
Living/Memory Care (35 beds)
Extended Care/Convalescent/
Skilled Nursing Beds (20 beds)
Residential/ Independent Living
Units (55 units)
North: LDR R10; R5 Single family Residential
South: Downtown
Mixed Use
MR2.5; PD Retail/Multifamily Residential
(San Rafael Commons Senior Apts.)
East: LDR R5 Single Family Residential
West: MDR MR3; DR Multifamily/Duplex Residential
Development Standards below are based Ordinance adopted January 2002 - Aldersly
PD Zoning Development Standards (see Exhibit 2, attached)
Lot Size Maximum Lot Coverage
Required: 2.5 acres
Proposed: 2.88 acres (no change)
Required: 60%
Proposed: 52.6%
(at buildout of Phased Development Plan)
Height Maximum Density**
Allowed: 36 feet
Proposed: 35 feet*
40 feet**
(new Mission Ave. Building)
* Based on average height of south elevation
** Measured to average height of tallest pitch
roof.
Allowed: 125 (1,000 s.f./unit)
Existing: 55 Independent Living Units
Proposed: 69 Independent Living Units
** only Independent Living units count toward density
calculations
2
On-Site Parking Minimum Lot Width (New lots)
Required: Flexible based on net new
parking demand
Proposed: 56 spaces at buildout
Required: None Required
Minimum Landscape Area Setbacks Required Proposed
No minimum area specified in PD
Development Standards
Front - Mission Ave.
Side - East
Side - West
Rear - Belle Ave.
15’
5’
5’
10’
15’
5’
5’
10’
SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for review of a proposed
amendment to the approved Development Plan for the Aldersly Retirement Community. The
project proposes phased improvements over the next ten years that include demolition and
renovation of existing buildings, and construction of three new buildings on the Aldersly
Campus. The project would result in fourteen (14) additional independent living units, an
increase from 55 units to 69 units. The number of Assisted Living/Memory Care beds (35
beds) and Skilled Nursing beds (20 beds) would remain unchanged.
The proposed project requires a Zoning Amendment to revise the approved Development
Plan, amendment to the Master Use Permit, an Environmental and Design Review Permit,
and environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
• On August 5, 2020, the Design Review Board Subcommittee conducted a conceptual
design review of the project. The comments offered during conceptual design review
include the following: Parking is a concern given the addition of 14 new units. Buildout
should include additional on-site parking. A parking study should be undertaken if not
required.
• Landscaping will be important, particularly along the Mission Avenue frontage.
• Stormwater drainage requirement, including bioretention planters and permeable pavers,
shall be evaluated and included in the plans.
• Massing will be important, particularly along the Mission Ave. frontage. Consider mass-
reducing techniques such as upper-story stepbacks and material and color choices.
Staff is seeking the Board's evaluation of the project's consistency with design criter ia
contained in the applicable design-related General Plan policies, Zoning/Planned
Development regulations, and San Rafael Design Guidelines as discussed below. Staff is
requesting that the Board provide recommendations on the following:
• Architecture, Building Height and Mass - Whether the design proposed by this phased
development plan is appropriate given the existing buildings that will remain on the Aldersly
campus, as well as its compatibility with the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood and the
adjacent Downtown Precise Plan Area.
• Colors and Materials - Whether the colors and materials are appropriate.
• Landscape Plan - the placement, type, and size of proposed landscaping, exterior lighting,
hardscape, and screening of parking areas from the public right-of-way.
• Site Plan - Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site.
3
The Board’s recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for a decision on
the Environmental and Design Review permit.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting
The Aldersly Retirement Community occupies 2.88 acres on the north side of Mission Avenue
and extending to Belle Avenue to the north. The property slopes uphill from Mission Avenue
frontage (13-16 ft. elevation) to Belle Avenue (40-60 ft. elevation). The campus is developed
with residential, administrative, and healthcare buildings connected by an extensive network
of landscaped pedestrian paths and gardens. The campus is located within the
Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood, one of San Rafael’s oldest neighborhoods. The area
surrounding the Aldersly campus contains a mix of residential, retail, and community services.
The site has a General Plan Land Use designation as High Density Residential and is zoned PD
- Planned Development (Ordinance No. 1775). The Aldersly campus is located just north of the
Montecito Commercial Sub-Area of the Downtown Precise Plan Area (see Figure 1 above).
Founded in 1921 as a retirement community for Danish immigrants, Aldersly has been
transformed numerous times over its 100 years to meet the changing needs of residents and
new concepts of community care. None of the original buildings of the Aldersly campus
remain, and the existing buildings on the campus represent a variety of styles reflecting the
four periods of redevelopment in the 1940s, 1960s, 1990s and early 2000s.
Though none of the buildings on the campus are listed in the National or State Historic
Registers, or on San Rafael’s Historic Properties list, a 2017 Historic Resources Evaluation
4
prepared by Page & Turnbull determined that the Aldersly Retirement Community property
is eligible for listing as a historic district in the California Register of Historical Resources
(California Register), see Exhibits 5 and 6. The eligibility is based in part on the campus’s
age-eligible buildings (45 years or older) constructed in the 1961-1968 time period, which
appear to be early exemplary works of Rex Whitaker Allen, one of the region’s most prolific
and innovative mid-twentieth century healthcare institutional architects. The Minor Building,
constructed in 1945, would also be considered a contributor, as it is the oldest building
remaining on the campus, and its brick cladding likely influenced the materiality of A llen’s
buildings. In addition, while the contributing buildings are the primary components of the
historic district, it is the historic relationship of the campus’s buildings with the landscape and
site topography, and the resulting cohesive nature of the entire property, which forms the
basis of the property’s eligibility for significance as a historic district.
The most recent major development on the campus is the 30-unit assisted living facility and
attached parking garage (Rosenborg), completed in 2004 under the current Planned
Development (PD) District adopted in January 2002 (Exhibit 2 - Ordinance No.1775). The
2002 PD District is intended to maintain Aldersly’s role as a community asset by maintaining
the campus as a quiet, landscaped buffer between the single-family areas and
multifamily/commercial zone.
Figure 2: Existing Site Plan with Proposed Demolition
5
Application History
Pre-application Review. On February 10, 2020, staff provided the applicant with pre-application
review comments.
Conceptual Design Review. On August 5, 2020, the Design Review Board Subcommittee
conducted a conceptual design review of the project. Comments from conceptual Design Review
are addressed in the analysis section of this report
Formal Environmental and Design Review Permit. A formal application was submitted in
November 2020 (along with zoning and master use permit amendment applications) and deemed
complete in March 2021.
Neighborhood Meeting. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 9, 2021, via Zoom, at which
time the submitted plans were shared with neighbors in attendance. The applicant had already
done considerable outreach with neighbors and neighborhood associations prior to the application
submittal, and the comments made during the meeting were overall positive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS
The short-term and long-term goals of the Aldersly Community are to make Aldersly a better
place for residents and staff; keep Aldersly a place where residents can affordably live the
rest of their lives; and, to create a revenue stream to support the residential community into
the future. The project proposes phased improvements over the next ten years that include
demolition and renovation of existing buildings, and construction of new buildings o n the
Aldersly Campus to address these goals. As noted in the proposed PD Zoning and
Development Standards, the overall goal the master plan is “to keep Aldersly a boutique
residential community for older people looking for a home with hygge - Danish for the
experience of coziness and comfortable conviviality that engenders feelings of contentment
and well-being”.
At buildout of the Development Plan in approximate ten years (2031), the project would result
in a new three‐story Independent Living (IL) building along Mission Avenue, a new
Independent Living building on the western portion of the site, a new service building along
Belle Avenue, three renovated/reconfigured buildings, and new outdoor spaces including a
memory care garden, activity lawn, and rose terrace. The project, which includes demolition
of six existing buildings, construction of three new buildings, and additions/renovations to
four existing buildings, would result in fourteen (14) additional independent living units, an
increase from 55 units to 69 units. The number of Assisted Living/Memory Care beds (35
beds) and Skilled Nursing beds (20 beds) would remain unchanged. The number of on-site
parking spaces would increase from 48 to 56 spaces at buildout of the Aldersly Development
Plan.
The proposed phasing of the Aldersly Development Plan is shown on Sheet A2.1 (Phasing
Diagram) and is outlined below:
PHASE 1 MISSION AVENUE INDEPENDENT LIVING
Phase 1A: New Mission Ave Independent Living (IL) Building:
1. Demolition of Marselisborg (4,500 sq. ft.), Graasten (4,320 sq. ft.), Lieslund (1,800 sq. ft.)
Independent Living buildings
2. Construction of new independent living apartments along Mission Avenue
3. 8 (net new) parking spaces located near the new east driveway (308 Mission property)
4. Redesign of the site entry
6
5. Expansion of community space and improve central courtyard
Phase 1B: Frederiksborg Independent Living (Remodel/Addition):
1. Interior renovation of 15,000 sq. ft. Frendensborg (no discretionary review required;
consistent with approved Development Plan)
2. Partial rebuild of 5,000 sq. ft. Frederiksborg with a 1,200 sq. ft. addition for a total of 7,200
sq. ft.
Phase 1C: Fredensborg Terrace
1. Improve outdoor space
PHASE 2A & 2B - KRONBORG RENOVATION
1. Renovate existing 14, 250 sq. ft. Kronborg (20 Skilled Nursing beds; no net increase)
2. Renovate lower level to provide Wellness and additional amenities
3. Remove the 6,510 SF Minor Building currently used for Independent Living
4. Add a new service connector with an elevator to support and improve site circulation
5. Expand outdoor garden for Memory Care
PHASE 3 - CHRISTIANSBORG RENOVATION
1. Renovate and expand Christiansborg (5,500 SF) Independent Living units
2. Improve outdoor spaces with landscaping; define a core active space for the residents
PHASE 4 - WEST CAMPUS INDEPENDENT LIVING ADDITION
1. Replace Amalienborg (5,500 sq. ft.) and Sorgenfri (3,800 sq. ft.) with a new Independent
Living building (+1 unit net)
Sheet A1.1 Existing Site Plan, indicates the existing buildings that are proposed to be
demolished in order to implement the proposed Development Plan.
Given the proposed ten-year+ timeframe for the proposed development, the focus of this
review is on Phases 1 and 2; future stages may be subject to further design review either as
a new Environmental & Design Review Permit or as required by conditions of approval, prior
to issuance of building permits for these phases. The DRB, however, should feel free to offer
comments and recommendations on the overall site plan and all phases of proposed
development (Phases 1-4).
Site Plan: One of the main site design challenges of this project is to provide new facilities to
better meet the needs and expectations of 21st century seniors (who tend to be age 80+ rather
than age 60+) on a sloped site that is already developed with buildings constructed at different
elevations. Other challenges include providing additional on-site parking, improving food service
delivery, maintaining existing landscaping and making outdoor spaces more functional and
accessible. Sheets A3.1 - A3.5 call out site elevations +16, +26, +36, +46 and +56, which are key
to maintaining and improving on-site circulation and connectivity between existing and proposed
buildings.
The proposed design introduces an accessible entrance as part of the new Independent Living
building on Mission Avenue, new parking, elevator service and direct connections to t he existing
food service building. A new service building along Belle Avenue (Phase 2A) would also provide
internal connections between buildings on the north side of the site and improved dumpster
storage and access.
Architecture: As noted above, the existing buildings on the Aldersly campus represent a variety
7
of styles reflecting the four periods of redevelopment in the 1940’s, 1960’s, 1990’s and early
2000’s. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings to make way for
new buildings, and renovation of existing buildings on the campus. Sheet A5.0 of the plans
packet includes photos of existing buildings on the Aldersly campus and notes their
character-defining elements, as identified in the Page & Turnbull Historic Resources
Evaluation.
The architectural style and proposed exterior materials are intended to be compatible with
the existing buildings that will remain on the Aldersly campus and buildings in the
neighborhood. Exterior materials include a variety of colors and textures, including stucco (four
different colors), modular brick to match existing buildings, and fiber cement siding painted (four
different colors), a concrete tile roof, concrete reveals and metal balcony railing. Proposed exterior
colors and materials for new buildings are depicted on Sheet A5.3 of plans and the exterior
building elevations and perspective drawings.
Elevations of the proposed Mission Avenue Independent Living Building are provided on Sheet
A5.1. Elevations of the proposed new wing of the Frederiksborg and new service buildings are
provided on Sheet A5.2, and perspective views of proposed new buildings are provided on Sheets
A5.5 and A5.6. Site sections are provided on Sheet A5.7.
Landscaping and Lighting: Aldersly has extensive landscaping and a lush garden setting that
contributes significantly to the aesthetics of the property and the neighborhood. There are no
minimum landscape or yard requirements specified in the proposed PD Development Standards
due to the single ownership of the facilities, the communal nature of the exterior areas, and the
desire to maintain planning flexibility. However, parking areas visible from a public right-of way
are required to be screened in accordance with requirements contained in the City’s Zoning
Ordinance.
A proposed master landscape plan (Sheets L0.0 - L6.0) addresses the existing trees on the site,
a tree protection plan, preliminary plant list (including plants for bioretention areas), vegetation
management, and exterior lighting plan, including lighting cut sheets for proposed fixtures. Sheet
L5.2 provides a preliminary landscape plan specific to Phase 1 development, and Sheet L5.3
provides an illustrative landscape master plan for the entire Aldersly campus at proposed buildout
of the Development Plan (Phases 1-4). Special attention was given to the Mission Avenue
streetscape where some perimeter landscaping and trees are proposed to be removed to make
way for new buildings.
The proposed phased development of the Aldersly campus would require the removal of
mature trees and other landscaping to make way for new buildings. An inventory of existing
trees on the property (Sheet L1.0) identifies trees proposed to be removed at each of the four
phases of site development. A total of 77 trees are proposed to be removed; most of them non-
native, ornamental species (Japanese maple, juniper, Crape myrtle, flowering plum, fruiting and
fruitless mulberry), and one large palm tree along Mission Avenue is proposed to be relocated.
While the total number of trees to be removed is substantial, removal of the trees would occur
gradually over many years as required to make way for the phased development, many are
located within the interior of the site, many existing mature trees would remain, and new
landscaping, including a variety of trees, is proposed. As stated in the approved and proposed
PD Development Standards “[T]the campus pattern of tightly landscaped pathways, terraces,
open courtyards and decks, and garden areas will be replicated to the extent feasible as approved
through design review.”
Staff seeks feedback from the Board relative to the master landscape plan, including the
placement, type, and size of proposed landscaping, and screening of parking areas from the
8
public right-of-way.
Access, Circulation and Parking: Vehicle access to the site would be in approximately the same
location as existing, but the location of driveways/curb cuts would be shifted slightly for both entry
points along Mission Avenue. The existing main entry along Mission Avenue (horseshoe-shaped
driveway) would be reconfigured in approximately the same location, but with fewer parking
spaces to improve accessibility. The shift in driveway locations has been reviewed by the City
Engineer and no major concerns were identified. However, the Department of Public Works will
continue to evaluate the project and recommend conditions of approval as appropriate.
The existing driveway to Rosenborg, located to the east toward Union Street, would shift further
east, and some of the existing parking spaces along this driveway would be removed. Eight new
parking spaces are proposed east of the driveway (demolition of building at 308 Mission is
proposed). Additional parking (nine spaces) would also be provided at the first level of the new
Mission Avenue IL Building. At buildout of proposed Development Plan, there would be a total of
56 on-site parking spaces.
There is no specific parking requirement identified in the PD 1775 Development Standards
adopted for the Aldersly campus. Instead, the Development Standards require that projects that
generate a net increase in demand for parking on campus will attempt to accommodate the
increased demand as part of the new project. Net new demand shall be determined by a traffic
study and subject to acceptance by the City Engineer. A Traffic and Parking Study prepared by
W-Trans (February 2021) addresses the adequacy of on-site parking supply for proposed
development by assessing current usage of the parking and consideration of the additional
parking to be provided as part of the project as well as city code requirements. Of the 48 existing
on-site parking spaces, 30 are reserved for residents of the Independent Living units, six are for
staff, eight are for visitors, and four are undesignated. Residents of the independent living units
are an average of 88 years old and those who own cars tend to drive infrequently, so most of the
residents’ parking spaces are in use throughout the day. As a result, peak parking demand was
based on the maximum staffing level, which is during the afternoon before the shift change at
2:30 PM. Consideration was also given to parking usage in the neighborhood surrounding the
site, as some employees may choose to park off-site given the limited number of on-site staff
parking spaces. The study notes that the potential impact of Aldersly staff on the on-street parking
supply is lower on weekday evenings and on weekends because administrative staff only work
standard business hours Monday through Friday, so the parking demand outside these hours is
lower. The W-Trans study also collected data on usage of on-site and off-site parking available
for use residents, staff and visitors. Based on this data, it appears that the existing parking supply
at Aldersly is adequately serving the site under current conditions. It is noted that Aldersly
currently provides valet parking to maximize the use of its space on site when they host events
and additional supply is required. The parking study concludes that with the net increase of eight
parking spaces proposed on-site, and with the continued use of valet services to expand the on-
site parking supply, there will be adequate on-site parking, and the proposed project will not have
a detrimental effect on street parking in the area.
The City Engineer has reviewed and accepted the traffic and parking study as complete. As the
project moves through the City’s review process, the adequacy of on-site parking will continue
to be evaluated. The Board may wish to provide feedback and recommendations on the
proposed parking location and design.
Off-Street Loading and Unloading/Refuse Collection. There is currently one off-street truck
loading area on Belle Avenue, installed in 2004 as part of the 30-unit (bed) Assisted Living project
(Rosenborg) and serves as the main service entrance for deliveries and refuse collection. The
9
submitted plans show the proposed new service building and refuse storage enclosure along
Belle Avenue (Sheet A5.6), which improve the functionality and appearance of the loading area.
General Plan Consistency:
In general, the project is consistent with the applicable design-related policies contained in both
the previous General Plan 2020 and the recently adopted General Plan 2040. The site is
designated High Density Residential (HDR) on the General Plan 2020 and General Plan 2040
Land Use Maps. As noted previously, the Aldersly campus is located just outside of (and north
of) the Downtown Precise Plan Area. Design-related policies applicable to the project and how
the project complies with these policies are described below along with specific areas where staff
is seeking feedback from the Board.
Policy LU-1.17: Building Heights. Use General Plan Figures 3-3 and 3-4 as the basis for
determining “baseline” maximum building heights in San Rafael. Maximum heights should
continue to be codified through zoning and any applicable Specific Plans or Precise Plans. In
addition, the following specific provisions related to building heights shall apply:
a) Height of buildings existing or approved as of January 1, 1987 shall be considered as
conforming to zoning standards.
b) Hotels outside of the Downtown Precise Plan boundary have a 54-foot height limit. Within
Downtown, the height provisions of the Downtown Precise Plan apply (see Figure 3-4).
c) As provided for by Policy LU-1.18, “baseline” building heights are subject to height
bonuses where specific community benefits are provided, where a Variance or zoning
exception is granted, or where a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is being
implemented.
d) Heights may be increased by up to six (6) feet above the baseline building heights as
necessary to mitigate the exposure of properties to sea level rise and other flooding
hazards (e.g., raising the first floor of habitable floor space above anticipated tidal flood
elevations).
The maximum building height limit of 36 feet is established by the policy above, as contained in
General Plan 2040. However, the methodology for measuring maximum building height is
addressed in Section 14.03.03 of the Zoning Code (Definitions). The methodology for measuring
height is different depending on whether the building has a flat roof, mansard roof or a pitched
roof. Due to the slope (and cross-slope) conditions on the Aldersly property, the corners of the
Mission Independent Living building have a “taller” measured height because the slope drops
away from the building at certain locations. Therefore, the measured vertical distance is greater
than 36 feet. However, the calculated maximum height per Zoning Code definition would be
below the 36-foot height limit based on the refence datum used for measurement of height,
(elevator and fire exit stairs are considered a mechanical appurtenances and are excluded from
height limit requirement). Therefore, staff finds that the project conforms to general plan policies
regarding building height.
Policy LU-1.18: Height Bonuses. Allow the granting of height bonuses for development that
provides one or more of the amenities listed in Table 3-2, provided that the building’s design is
consistent with applicable design guidelines and standards. No more than one height bonus may
be granted on each site.
Use permit requirements for height bonuses are shown in Table 3-2. The bonuses may be used
in lieu of those provided by State density bonus programs for affordable housing. Bonuses are
10
not additive. In other words, an applicant using State density bonuses is not eligible for additional
bonuses offered through local programs.
As noted above, the maximum proposed building height for the Mission Avenue Independent
Living building is below the 36-foot height limit based on the Zoning Code definition of building
height. Therefore, a height bonus is not required nor is one being requested by the applicant.
As a point of comparison, the property south of the Aldersly campus across Mission Avenue (San
Rafael Commons Senior Apartments and Salvation Army property) is located within the
Downtown Precise Plan Area, and therefore has a base height limit of 40 feet and permits a height
bonus of an additional 10 feet if certain criteria are met (Height Bonus Tier 1 Area).
Policy LU-2.8: Senior and Disabled Care Facilities. Encourage facilities and services to meet
the needs of older and disabled residents, including senior housing, assisted living, and
convalescent care facilities; and facilities providing adult day care and social services, and health
care for older adults and people with disabilities.
See Goal EDI-6 for additional policies and programs addressing the needs of older adults
Policy LU-3.2: New Development in Residential Neighborhoods. Preserve, enhance, and
maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to keep them safe, desirable places to live.
New development, redevelopment of existing buildings, and land use changes within and adjacent
to residential areas should:
• Enhance neighborhood image and design quality
• Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties
• Preserve historic, unique, and architecturally significant structures
• Respect and enhance natural features and terrain
• Reduce exposure to hazards, including limited emergency vehicle access
• Include amenities such as sidewalks, pathways, trees, and other landscape improvements
• Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels
• Meet expected parking demand
• Minimize reduction of views, privacy, and solar access for neighboring properties
While these principles are fundamental, they do not preclude neighborhood change.
Neighborhoods are dynamic places, and should adapt to changing tastes, styles, technology, and
needs as they evolve.
Policy LU-3.6: Transitions Between Uses. Outside of mixed-use developments, maintain
buffers between residential uses and adjacent commercial and institutional uses. Parking lots,
loading areas, trash facilities, and similar activities associated with nonresidential uses should be
appropriately screened.
Program LU-3.6A: Parking Lot Design. Maintain design guidelines for parking lots that
address landscaping, buffering, environmental quality, and neighborhood compatibility.
Parking lots should not be the dominant visual feature from the street frontage.
Policy NH-2.18 Architecture (Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood): Maintain a mix of
architecture styles in the Montecito/ Happy Valley Neighborhood, compatible with the character
11
of the area’s attractive older buildings. Newer buildings should be well designed, blend well with
existing homes and provide a pedestrian-friendly street front.
The exterior materials and colors proposed for the proposed new buildings, especially the Mission
Avenue and West Campus Independent Living buildings, are generally compatible with other
buildings on the Aldersly campus and help to unify the new buildings with the buildings that will
remain. The Mission Avenue IL building would be the most prominent new building because of its
location along Mission Avenue. Although most of the existing trees within the 15-foot front yard
setback are proposed to be removed, trees within the Mission Avenue right-of-way would be
preserved and additional new trees and other landscaping is proposed, which would provide for
pedestrian friendly street front.
Staff seeks the Board’s comments regarding the compatibility of the proposed development with
the overall neighborhood character, especially the existing homes in the area.
Policy EDI-6.2: Aging in Community. Improve opportunities for older adults to age in place and
continue living independently in their San Rafael homes. This should include recognition of the
importance of in-home support services and caregivers, At the same time, provide more options
for those seeking to “age in community” and relocate to suitable housing in the city that includes
supportive services, smaller units, and access for persons with mobility limitations. This includes
support services and facilities for those suffering from dementia-related illnesses and those who
have become homeless due to medical or mental health conditions.
Program EDI-6.2A: Aging in Place. Continue to support programs and services that
assist older adults with home modifications that facilitate aging in place. Support home
sharing programs that pair empty nesters with rental seekers.
Housing Policy H-2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) recognizes that
construction of new housing can add to the appearance and value of the neighborhood if it fits
into the established character of the area.
The proposed project would provide additional independent living opportunities for older adults
while also seeking to maintain compatibility with the surrounding area and the garden setting of
the Aldersly campus, especially the height and scale of new buildings. Staff is seeking feedback
from the Board as it relates to the overall design of the phased development and its context within
the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
As noted earlier in the staff report and in the development summary table, Ordinance No. 1775
adopted by the San Rafael City Council in January 2002, established a PD (Planned
Development) District, including the Aldersly PD 1775 Development Standards (Exhibit A of
Ordinance No. 1775—see Exhibit 2 of this staff report), that addresses maximum building height,
setbacks, lot coverage, parking and loading, and landscape/open space requirements. These
standards were crafted to blend with the adjacent neighborhood at the perimeter of the campus
while allowing reasonable flexibility in interior portions of the site. The approved PD 1775 also
establishes the range of allowable land uses allowed on the property. There are no new or
different land uses requested as part of the proposed PD beyond the uses allowed by the
approved PD 1775. However, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 14
independent living units as well as substantial changes throughout the entire campus.
As part of their application package, the applicant submitted a zoning amendment application to
amend the previously approved PD District Plan, including revised Aldersly PD Development
Standards. The proposed/revised Development Standards (Exhibit 3) are very similar to those
12
approved PD Ordinance No. 1775, with a few exceptions as discussed throughout this report by
topic. The zoning amendment and revised PD Development Standards will be considered by the
Planning Commission and City Council, along with the master use permit and environmental and
design review permit.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
The San Rafael Design Guidelines serve as a guide for evaluating new construction. The
project proposes phased construction of new independent living buildings, a new service
building and other improvements on the Aldersly campus, and therefore needs to
demonstrate compliance with the Design Guidelines for residential development. Criteria
applicable to the project are as follows:
• 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 facade.
• 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.
13
• 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.
Staff believes that the proposed phased development of the Aldersly campus is consistent
with design criteria applicable to this type of development. The project incorporates terraces,
varied rooflines and building stepbacks that break up the mass of the buildings from key vantage
points along Mission and Belle Avenues. There are a variety of building styles with varying
setbacks in the Montecito/Happy Valley neighborhood and throughout San Rafael. The entry
design to the Mission Avenue IL building is better defined and more visible for visitors and guests
by virtue of its location and architectural design features. Windows and decks provide visibility to
the street on all sides of the street frontage. Proposed light fixtures are appropriate for the use of
the site and would be required to comply with the City’s lighting requirements.
Previous Design Review:
As noted above, on August 5, 2020, the Design Review Board Subcommittee conducted a
conceptual design review of the project. The comments offered during conceptual design review
include the following:
• Parking is a concern given the addition of 14 new units. Buildout should include additional
on-site parking. A parking study should be undertaken if not required.
• Landscaping will be important, particularly along the Mission Avenue frontage.
• Stormwater drainage requirement, including bioretention planters and permeable pavers,
shall be evaluated and included in the plans.
• Massing will be important, particularly along the Mission Ave. frontage. Consider mass-
reducing techniques such as upper-story stepbacks and material and color choices.
The overall site design, landscaping, parking, and building mass has not changed substantially
since the August 2020 Conceptual Design Review. Refinements and changes to the proposed
Mission Avenue IL building include the following:
• The exterior materials, color palette and window styles were revised to better coordinate
with elements from the Aldersly campus and to help minimize the mass of the building,
especially along Mission Avenue.
• Vertical elements were introduced to the south elevation along Mission Avenue to break
up the length of the roofline.
• Some of the taller portions of the building, such as the fire exit stairs, have been
recessed and set back further from Mission Avenue in order to reduce the perceived
mass of the building from Mission Avenue.
• The entry design on the east and west ends of the Mission Avenue IL building were
revised to evoke Danish/Scandinavian architecture to celebrate the Danish heritage of
the Aldersly community.
14
Staff believes that the changes made to the Mission Avenue IL Building help to reduce the
perceived mass along Mission Avenue and improve the overall appearance of the building.
Staff seeks the Boards guidance regarding the following:
• Architecture, Building Height and Mass - Whether the design proposed by this phased
development plan is appropriate given the existing buildings that will remain on the Aldersly
campus, as well as its compatibility with the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood and the
adjacent Downtown Specific Plan Area.
• Colors and Materials - Whether the colors and materials are appropriate.
• Landscape Plan - the placement, type, and size of proposed landscaping, exterior lighting,
hardscape, and screening of parking areas from the public right-of-way.
• Site Plan - Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
The City has received no public comment as of the printing and distribution of this staff report.
Any correspondence received will be included in Exhibit 7.
The next step in the review process is to complete an Initial Study for public review and comment
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Notice of availability of the
CEQA document will be provided to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the Aldersly
campus. Subsequent notices will include date of a Planning Commission hearing for consideration
of this project.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has submitted an Environmental and Design Review Permit application as part of
their application package for a phased development of the Aldersly campus. The applications will
be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, along with the Zoning Amendment
and Master Use Permit Amendment. Staff is seeking input from the DRB regarding architectural
design approach, site plan and landscape/site design. The Board’s recommendations will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for a decision on the Environmental and Design Review
permit.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and
building design.
EXHIBITS
1. Site and Architectural Plans prepared by Perkins-Eastman, dated January 15, 202,1
available online:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/09/REDUCED-21-
0930-Aldersly-Revised-Submittal.pdf
2. Ordinance 1775 - Aldersly Planned Development District, including Exhibit A, Development
Standards, adopted January 22, 2002
15
3. Proposed PD Development Standard, available online:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/09/2020-1104-PD-
Zoning-and-Master-Plan-Dev.pdf
4. Memo from Perkins-Eastman Architect re Design Revisions, dated September 9, 2021
5. Draft Project Impact Analysis, Page & Turnbull, October 27, 2020, available online:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/09/Historic-Resource-
Evaluation-2020-compressed.pdf
6. Project Impact Analysis, Page & Turnbull, December 21, 2020, available online:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/09/Aldersly-Project-
Impact-Analysis-Fin.pdf
cc: Peter Lin, Greenbriar Development
3232 McKinney, Ste. 1160
Dallas, TX 75204
plin@greenbrierdevelopment.com
Gilbert Carrasco, Executive Director
Aldersly Retirement Community
326 Mission Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
GilbertCarrasco@Aldersly.org
Soo Im, Associate Principal
Perkins Eastman
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Attachment 1
Site and Architectural Plans
prepared by Perkins-Eastman, dated
January 15, 202,1 available online:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proud
city/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/09/RE
DUCED-21-0930-Aldersly-Revised-
Submittal.pdf
CJ,c:\ Y 1,s
I\\ c. \ e ,s\ '{ C,cvc.\fY\ ·,~ ((,\"2 1n " ,,,
.3L"1 •·1.• ~<P fYl, ,,,,,,,,, ,lv-l niA "-
ORDINANCE NO. 1 775
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING T HE ZONING
MAP TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY F ROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT TO A REVISED PD DISTRICT WITH ADOPTED
DEVELOPMENT P LAN AND Z ONING REGULATIONS FOR THE ALD ERSL Y
GARDEN RETIREM ENT COMMUNITY AT 30 8 AND 326 MISSION AVENUE
(APN 014-054-3 1 and 32) (ZC0l-04)
WHEREAS, o n June 15, 2001, NCB Development' Corporati on submi~ted a n
app li cati on to the C ity of San Rafael requesting ap proval of a R ezoning fro m P lanned
D evelopment (PD) District to a revised PD District with an adopted Development P la n
fo r the Aldersly Garden Retirement Community; and
WHEREAS, the R ezoning r equest was accomp anied by re late d project
applications which were processed concurre ntly; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the s ubj ect appli cations a n Initial S tudy was p rep ared
consis tent with th e requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the C ity Council has approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the project by adoption of a sep arate resoluti on; and
WHEREAS, th e proposed P lanned Development (PD) Dis trict conta ins
development standards for the A ld ersly Gard e n Retirement Community, including a
facility containing 30 assis t ed living units , as outlined in Exhibit A; a nd
WHEREAS, the application for R ezo ning to a PD District includes a
Developm ent P lan cons is ting of proj ect plans submitted for approva l with the
development s tand ards, which contain the informatio n required purs uant to Zonjng
Ordinance Section 14.07 .060; and
WHEREAS, a notice d escribing the proposed Rezoning was: a) publis hed in a
local newspaper of general circulation in the area; b) m ailed to property own e rs w i thin
300 feet of the subj ect property; and c) mail ed to sp ecial interest groups; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2001, the San Rafael Planning Commission h e ld a
pub lic heari ng o n the proposed Rezoning a nd re lated proj ect applications in c luding a
Master Use Permit and Environmental a nd Desig n Review P e m1it, accepting all oral and
written publi c testim o ny a nd the written rep ort of th e Community D e velopment
Department staff and recommended approval to the C ity Council in R esolu tio n No.01 -56;
and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2001, the City Council held a public hearing and
accepted all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community
Development Department staff.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
DIVISION l. The City of San Rafael Zoning Map is amended to .incorporate the revised
Planned Development District for the Aldersly Garden Retirement Community at 308
and 326 Mission A venue, as presented in Exhibit A of this ordinance, based on the
following findings:
1. The Development Plan and Planned Development District (PD) amendment are
consistent with the Genera l Plan, adopted Montecito/Happy Vall ey Neighborhood
Plan and other applicab le City plans and policies in that:
a) The project implements General Plan Land Use policy LU-9f by maintain in g a
density consistent with th at all owed by the High Densi ty Residential land use
designation.
b) The project would implement Land Use Policies LU-19 through 36 by proposing
high qua li ty building design, and includ es an approporiate l evel of site landscape
treatment including landcaping along Mission Avenue. Furthermore, the Design
Review Board considered the development plan, and after modifications were
incorporated into the plans, voted to recommend that the design was compatible
with the sunounding neighborhood.;
c) The project would be cons istent with Circu lation Policy C-18 by contributing
appropriate traffic mitigation fee;
d) The project would comp ly with Housing Policies H-8 and H-9 which require the
retention of rentaJ unit s and that most of the City 's existing stock of lower cost
units be maintained. The project would comp ly with Housing E lement Policy H-
I 5, which requires that future develop ment be planned based on public facility
and servic e capacity, community needs, and sow1d neighborhood planning in that
the project has been reviewed by the C ity and other public agencies with regard to
public facility and service needs and co nditioned accordingly. Housing Element
Policy H-32 encourages a mix of housing units throughout the City, including
those for lower income seniors and the disabled, and encourages access ibl e units
in a ll projects . The proposed assisted living faci lity would provide a non-
institutional, residential care setting for frail older person s who do not require
skilled nursing care. The assisted living project would provide current Aldersly
residents and residents of the s u rrounding community with a long-tenn care
alternative that is specifically designed to maintain older person's privacy,
dignity, and maximum independence .
e) The project would comply with Housing Policies H-19 and 2 1 by providing 30
assisted living units that would provide a continuum of care for the Aldersly
residents, and wou ld retain the existing residence at 308 Mission Avenue as a
reo tal unit;
2
f) The project design has been evaluated in a variety of tec hnical r eports, in cluding a
geoteclmical and air qu ali ty study, and throug h implementation of conditions of
approval and miti gation measures woul d b e consistent with H ea lth and Safety
Policies S-1, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-9, S-11 a nd S-21.
g) The project desi gn incl.udin g conditions of approva l would be consistent with the
Noise E lem ent polici es for residential use N-1 throu gh N-7;
h) The proj ect would comply with Residentia l Neighborhood Policy RES -I , which
requires that new developments be ha1moniou s ly integrated into ex istin g
nei g hborhoods in te1m s of dens ity, intensity and design. The Des ig n Review
Board considered the development plan at three m eetin gs, and a ft er modifications
were incorporated into th e plans, voted to r ecommend that the d esi gn was
compatibl e with the s unounding n ei g hborhood.
i) The proj ect wou ld be co nsis t ent with the app li cable poli cies of the
Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood P l an i n that proposed new buildings
would b e compatible with th e existing bu ildings on the Ald ers ly campus. The
proposed fen estration, bri ck wainscoting and architectural details of the ass is ted
living facility would promote a residential character. Architectural e lem ents such
as towers and two-story bays would reduce the a pparent scale of th e building, and
the increased setback of the upper levels on the east side of the building would
he lp to reduce the building's prominence, as viewed from adjacent resi dential
properties to the east alon g Union Street. Furthermore, trees and a variety of
shrubs and ornamentals proposed a long Mission A venue, and retention of th e
existing sidewalk along Mission Avenue would provide a pedes tri a n friend ly
streetfront, as called for in the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighbo rhood Plan.
j) Conditions of approval are included in the accompanying project app.lications to
ensure consistency with all applicable General Plan policies includin g policies
di scussed above by r equiring that: 1) interior noi se levels not exceed 40 dBA for
bedrooms and 45dBA for other rooms; 2) exterior noise levels not exceed 60
dBA; 3) utility systems will b e installed and des igned to serve the site; and 4)
traffic mitigation fees will be collected to contribute to long-term traffic
improvem e nts.
2. The applicant has d e monstrated that public faci li ties would be provided to serve the
anticipated population in that the proj ec t development is well within the d ens ity limits
anticipated by the General Plan 2000, the s ite is served by San Rafael Sanitation
District and Marin Municipal Water District, and t he City's Police, Fire and Public
Works D ep a rtments have reviewed the proj ect and d ete nnined that services are
avai lab le. The accompanying project applications are proposed to be conditioned
according! y.
3. The development wou ld be improved by deviations from typical Zonin g Ordinance
property development and parking standards by: a) increasin g the number and
confo1mity of on-site parking and circulation; b) providing improve d loading
facilities for the campus; and c) providing landscaping that enhances the proj ect en t ry
and parking areas.
4 . The auto, bicy cl e and pedestrian h'affic sys tem is adequately d esi gned for c irc ulation
n eeds and public safety in that internal access and circulation mee t C ity standard s and
walkways are provided from parking a reas with handi capped parking avai lable in the
3
proposed parking garage near the proposed elevator entrance to the assisted living
facility and emergency vehicle access is provided to serve the proposed developme nt,
in comp li ance with City standards.
5. The public health, safety and general welfare are served by the adoption of the
proposed amendment in that it jmplements the General Plan and the development
plan conforms w i th City standards as discussed in Findings l through 4.
F urthennore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and adopted for the
proj ect that evaluated potential environmental impacts of the project and determined
impacts would be less-than-significant based on incorporation of miti g ation measures.
DIVISION 2. A summary of this Ordinance s hall be published and a certified copy of
the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City C lerk at least five
(5) days prior to the Co unci l meeting at which it i s adopted.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage, and
the summa1y of this Ordinance shall be published within fifteen ( 15) days after the
adoption, together with the names of those Councilmembers voting for or against sam e,
in the Marin Independent J ournal, a newspaper of general circulation published and
circulated in the City of San Rafae l, County of Marin, State of California.
Within fifteen (l 5) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall also post in the office of the
City C lerk, a ce11ified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of
those Councilmembers voting for or against the Ordinance.
~7
Attest:
The foregoing Ordinance No. 1775 was read and introduced at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of San Rafael on the 17!!! day of December, 2001, and ordered
passed to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers: Cohen, Heller, Mill er, Phill ips & Mayor Baro
Councllmembers: None
Councilmembers: None
4
And will come up for adoption as an Ordinance of the City of San Rafael at a regular
meeting of th e Counci l to be held on T uesday, Janu ary 22, 2002.
>A.~
JEAN~ONCINT, C ity C lerk
EXHIBIT A: Aldersly PD Zoning Development S tandards
5
EXHIBIT "A "
Aldcrs ly PD Z oning D evelopment S tandards
Establishing a Pla nned D evelo pm ent (PD) zo ne for th e A ld ersly campu s is inte nd ed to
a llow th e Alders ly Board th e fl exib ility to meet th e fut ure needs of th eir ol de r res id ents
with fac ilities d esigned to s upp ort evo lving bes t practi ces in s erv ices and env ironme nts.
T hi s i s likely to inc lu de a co mb ina tion of fac iliti es renovat ion, ex pansion , a nd n ew
con s truc tion. T he PD is a l so intended to mainta in Ald ers ly's role as a community asset
b y m a in ta ining t he ca mpus as a qui et, landscaped bu ffer be tween th e s in g le-fa mil y ar eas
a nd th e multi fa m ily/co mmerc ial zo ne.
To this e nd , the PD p roposes the fo ll owing s tan dards. Each is crafted to ble nd w ith th e
neig hb orhood at the c ampus' perim eter , while a ll owing reasonab le fl exibil ity in interior
porti on s of the s ite.
A . L and Uses
A ll ow all land u ses c urrently p erm itted m HRl .8 categor y w ith the foll owing
m odifications:
• r esidential c are fo r o lde r p er so ns
• a dult d ay care, subj ect to app rova l of a use permit
• anc illary co mmer c ia l, medical, and o ffi ce uses incorp orate d into the build in gs to
serv e r es idents' n eeds (e.g., l aundry, beauty, dining, retai l, recreation facility , clini c,
offices, mainten ance or s torage bu ildings, etc.)
Any ch an ge in use of existing bui ldings on the site shall require an am endment to the
Mast er Use Pennit.
B. Minimum Lot A rea
While the c ampus i s inten ded to be con si d ere d as a who le fo r pla nning purposes, the
minimum l ot size sh a ll b e 6000 S F (sam e as HR l .8) wh ere a sep a rate lo t m us t be
c reat ed fo r fi n a ncin g purposes. T he lo t size establish e d fo r fi nan c ing s ha!J no t be used
for the purpos es of m aximum unit number calc ula ti ons.
C. Minimum L ot A rca per Dwe lling Unit
The Aldersly campus currently h o uses a uniqu e array of h o using types, including 6 4
indep e nd en t seni or h o us ing uni ts, 33 skilled nursing units, a nd 7 ass is ted li v in g units.
T h e p roposed ass ist ed living proj ect w ill modify thi s to 62 in depend ent seni or ho us ing
units, 20 s k ill ed nursing uni ts, and 30 assisted livi ng un i ts. On ly the indep e nd en t seni o r
hous ing qual ifi es as a "d well ing unit" fo r th e purpose of thi s proposal. T h e m ini m mn
lo t ar ea per d welling unit is pro posed to be 1000 SF of lo t area p er unit. T h is fi g ure is
est ablis h e d us ing t he 1000 SF of Jot required fo r t he HR 1.0 d esignation as a g uid e.
6
D. Minimum Lot Width
Because of th e existing configuration of campus and its compact, high-density
ch aracter, no minimum lot width is establ ished. In most cases th ere is not expected to
be a separate lo t for a specifi c p roject due to the camp us struc ture of th e site. However,
separate tots may need to be establi shed for financing pu rposes.
E. Set Backs/Miuimum Yards
1. Maintain a 15' building setback along the campus' front (Mission Avenu e).
11. Maintain a 5 foo t building set back along the campus' s id e property lin es. The
two upp er levels of the assisted liv in g facility s hall b e set back a minimum of 11
feet from the east property line.
iii. Maintain a 3' park ing and paving set b ack from campus side property lin es o r a
O' parking and paving set back and a privacy fence (5' minimum height) where
a 3' set b ack is not provided. (The O' set back w ith fence i s 11ecessa1y in some
cases to maximize parking on th e site.)
iv. Maintain a 10 foot building set back along the campus' rear prope1ty li ne (Belle
Avenue).
v. Provide bui ld ing set backs on campus (intema l set backs) that con fo 1m to life-
safety codes governing the Ald ers ly campus .
vi. Existing Condi tions: Buildings existing at the t ime thi s plan is adopted an d out
of compliance with set back s tandards estab li s h ed above shall be a ll owed to
remain as "grandfath ered" buildings.
F. Distance Between R es idential Structures
Provide and maintain building separations at th e interior and perimeter of the property
which meet minimum bui lding code sta ndards for li fesafety in place at the time of
construction p ermitting.
G. Maximum Height of Structure
Maximum height of structures are proposed to meet City standards (36 ') with
exceptions fo~ towers and other elements a ll owed as per the City exceptions process.
Existing Cond itions: Buildings existing at the time this plan is adopted and o ut of
compliance with the h eight standards establish ed above shall be a ll owed to remain as
"grandfathered" buildings.
7
H. Maximum Lot Coverage
Lot Coverage: Total building foo tprints on the campus shall not exceed 60% of the
campus' l and area as previously allowed under the fo1111er HRl .8 land use designation .
Maintaining the former 60% coverage is proposed to remain in keeping with the 40% to
60% coverages allowed on s imilar adjacent sites. The 60% l ot coverage allows the
campus to meet future community demand for independent, assisted, and nursing care
housing as well as an oppo1tunity to increase economies of scale over time to maint a in
a sound financia l position.
I. Minimum Usab le Outdoor Area per Dwelling Unit
Given the unique residential character and needs of the campus, no minimum shall be
established for usable outdoor area per dwelling unit in order to maintain A ld ers ly's
flexibility in lo cat in g projects in the most efficient and approp1iate pa1t of campus.
Aldersly's ga rden camp us provides communa l outdoor areas for the use of all residents.
J. La11dscapi11g/Yard Areas
1. Landscaping and yard areas requirements will not be estabJished for the Aldersly
camp us due to the single ownership of the facilities, the conununal nature of
exterior areas, and the desire t o maintain planning flexibility.
ii . Open Space: The cutTent pattern of tightly landscaped pathways, tenaces, large
open courtyards, and garden areas will be replicated as feasible in future projects.
A balance between parking needs and landscaping will be sought.
K. Paving Setback
The paving set back from campus boundaries will be 3 feet where p ossibl e to provide
the required buffering and O feet where parking or access requirements prevent a 3 foot
set back from being practical. In the event that the 3 foo t set back is not practical , a
privacy fence (minimum of 5 feet tall) will be erected anywhere the full 3 foot buffer is
not in place.
L. Park ing
Aldersly 's historic land development patterns, starting in the early l 920's, and the
campus' topography have severely limited parking availabi lity on campus. These
factors also make the introduction of additional parking difficult to achieve. Where
parking can be introduced, it is often at the expenses of landscaping. For these reasons,
parking is an area of the PD standards where substantia l flexibility is so ught. The
fo ll owing parking related standards are designed to provide the necessary flexibility.
8
Parking Capacity
At p ea k hours, the campus currently generates a demand for 78 spaces fo r
residents, s ta ff, vis itors, and ven dors . Alders ly's ex is ting campus provides 39
p arki n g spaces. During p eak hours, 39 o n-street parking spaces are uti lized.
The n ew assis te d li ving proj ect wi ll provid e a net add iti on to campu s of 18
spaces, while gene ratin g a need for 8 new sp aces (see attac hed traffic s tud y). Th e
ass is ted living proj ect w ill result in a net add ition of 10 parking spaces to meet th e
curre nt campus d emand, re duc ing de mand fo r peak hour on -street p ark in g b y
25%, or from 39 cars t o 29 cars , In addition, th e n ew load in g area at Bell e
Avenue (see next sectio n) will provide vendo r parkin g, further imp rov in g on-
campus p a rking capacity.
The c urrent camp us plan i s no t configured to allow the easy introdu ction of
add itional parking on site. As a result, th e current campus has p arking n eeds th at
will continue to require a combination of on -campus spaces as well as on-street
p arking . Future campus proj ects will attempt to r educe the cun·ent demand for on
street p arki n g where feas ibl e.
Future projects, where they generate a net increased demand for parking o n
campus, will attempt to accommodate the increased d emand in the new proj ect
site area or on campus. Where it is not possible to accommodate a ll increased
parking at the n ew proj ect s ite area or on cam pus, Aldersly will work w ith the
City of San Rafael to id entify accept ab le strategies to accommodate the additional
p arking demand generated by the project under cons ideration.
Net new demand shall b e d etermined by a traffic s tudy and subj ect to acceptan ce
by the City 's Traffic Engineer.
Parking Space Dimensions
Parking spa ce dimensions s h a ll comply with City standards.
Allowable Compact Spaces
T h e allowable percentage of compact spaces sh a ll comply with C ity standards.
Tandem Spaces
Tandem sp aces will b e a llowed on ca mpu s p e r C ity standards.
9
M . Parldn g Lot Screening
Parking Vi s ible fro m Public R igh t of Way
Parking vis ib le fro m a public rig ht o f way s hall b e screene d in accordance w ith
the r equire m e n ts contained in The C ity of S an R a fa e l 's Zon ing O r din a nce.
Par/d ng Visib le fro m A dj acent Private Property
P arki n g locate d n ext to a dj acent residentia l properti es sh a ll be scr een e d with a
solid ban-ier a nd land scaping in o rd er to shie ld headligh t g lare.
Can opy Trees a t P ar king
One tree for eve ry four spaces will b e prov ided within parking areas or a t an
alte rnate l ocatio n as c lose to the p a rking ar ea a s feasible. F lex ibility i n the
location o f the trees is re quire d in orde r t o m a ximi ze the p a rking av ai lable .
Innovative strategies fo r lo cating t rees w ith.in p arking a reas withou t diminis hing
p arking capacity w ill b e impl e m e nted .
Planting Areas B etween Sp aces
N o pla nting a r eas will b e provide d b e tween p a rking s p aces due to the n eed t o
max imize o n -site parking. Alte rna t e s trat egies for landscaping the p a rking areas
will be implem e nte d as fea s ible.
N. Off-Street Loading and Unloading
One o ff-street truc k loading and unloading ar ea will b e provide d for the campus a lo n g
B e ll e Ave nue an d will b e c o n struct e d as p art of the 3 0-unit assist ed livin g project.
The proposed lo ading zone, s ized to a ccommoda te th e c urrent range of d e liver y
v e hicles, is s h own o n Draw ing C3: "Proposed Si te D ev e lopm ent Plan" tha t is
inc luded in the plan s s ubmitted fo r the 30 -uni t assist ed living proj ect.
0. Phasing Plan
C urre ntly, the ass is ted living building a nd a s m all 20 0 s quare foo t additi o n to the
c ampus dining room a r e the only ide ntified d ev e lopme nt proj ects for the campus .
The assis t e d living p roj ect is anti c ipat ed to b r eak g ro und a s soon as possible and b e
comple te d 12 m o nths late r. Pla nning fo r the dinin g r oom a dditi o n is no t antic ip ated
t o b egin until 20 02 .
10
While no add iti onal proj ects are cun-ently id entifi ed, Alders ly's mi ss ion to maintain
best practice serv ices for its resid ent s will lead to future co nstru ction and r enovation .
When th ese projects are identified, they will be planned and integ rat ed into ca mpu s
ba sed on the provisions contained in thi s PD propo sal and as accepted by th e c it y of
San Rafael.
11
Attachment 3
Proposed PD Development
Standard, available online:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proud
city/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/09/20
20-1104-PD-Zoning-and-Master-
Plan-Dev.pdf
PERKINSEASTMAN.COM
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA 94104 | +1 415 926 7900 PERKINSEASTMAN.COM
September 9, 2021
Jayni Allsep
Planning Consultant
City of San Rafael
Project Name: Aldersly Retirement Community
Project Number: 70762.00.0
Subject: Planning Submittal Elevation Revision Narrative
Dear Ms. Allsep,
Following changes have been implements in the latest elevation development in response to our last conversation
during the Concept Design Submittal.
• Massing of the building is consistent with the designed presented at Concept Design submittal.
• Buildings material was coordinated with the existing campus to utilize material that is consistent with the
existing campus, which includes brick, fiber cement panels (in lieu of wood), fiber cement siding and stucco.
See Elevations on A5.1 and A5.2.
Revised Renovation (1/2021)
Concept Design Submittal Elevation (5/2020)
Page 2 of 2
• Window style was coordinated to be consistent with the elements from the main campus including mullion
locations, color, and the panels around the windows. See A5.0 for existing campus character)
• Top floor of the building is set back to help minimize the massing on Mission Avenue. See drawing 2/A5.1
• The entry design on east and west ends of the building evoke Danish/Scandinavian Architecture to celebrate
the Danish heritage of the community.
• Vertical elements on the south end of the elevation break the length of the roofline.
Attachment 5
Draft Project Impact Analysis, Page
& Turnbull, October 27, 2020,
available online:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proud
city/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/09/His
toric-Resource-Evaluation-2020-
compressed.pdf
Attachment 6
Project Impact Analysis, Page &
Turnbull, December 21, 2020,
available online:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proud
city/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/09/Ald
ersly-Project-Impact-Analysis-Fin.pdf