HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 15166 (Aldersly Retirement Community Project)
1
RESOLUTION NO. 15166
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT FOR THE ALDERSLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
PROJECT
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2020, Peter Schakow, President of the Aldersly Board
of Directors (applicant), submitted applications for a Planned Development (PD) Zoning
Amendment, Master Use Permit Amendment, and Environmental and Design Review
Permit for the Aldersly Retirement Community Project, which collectively constitute a
“project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) require an analysis
and determination regarding a project’s potential environmental impacts. It was
determined that the project has the potential to result in potentially significant
environmental effects, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was
recommended; and
WHEREAS, the City released a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Project to the
Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies
and persons on November 25, 2021 for a 30-day review period, during which interested
agencies and the public could submit comments about the Project. The City held a public
scoping meeting on December 14, 2021. Comments on the NOP were received and
considered during preparation of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was issued and the Draft EIR was made
available for public review on the City’s website on August 16, 2022 for a 45-day public
review period through September 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was filed with the California Office of Planning and
Research on August 17, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a public comment hearing
on the Draft EIR on September 13, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2022, the City published a Response to Comments
Document that contains all comments received on the Draft EIR during the public
comment period, including those received at the public hearing, and prepared written
responses to those comments in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The
Draft EIR and Response to Comments Document, together with the errata, constitute the
Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held
according to law; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a duly noticed public hearing was
held before the City Planning Commission on November 15, 2022, at which all persons
interested had the opportunity to appear and comment and at which the Planning
Commission considered and made recommendations to the City Council regarding the
2
Final EIR and the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City finds
that the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the
Project and is supported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified certain potentially significant adverse effects on
the environment caused by the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council specifically finds that where more than one reason for
approving the Project and rejecting alternatives is given in its findings or in the record, and
where more than one reason is given for adopting the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, it would have made its decision on the basis of any one of those reasons;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that,
despite the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially
lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible
alternatives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for
approving the project that justify the occurrence of those impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the
testimony and evidence submitted in this matter and determined that a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is warranted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San
Rafael certifies the Final Project EIR, and makes the following findings with respect to the
Proposed Project’s significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final Project
EIR, as required under Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, and
adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the MMRP as follows:
I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As fully described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes phased construction
on the Aldersly campus, including the construction of three new buildings and
additions/renovations to existing buildings as outlined below:
PHASE 1: Build new Independent Living (IL) Building, Relocate the Campus
Reception/Entry to street level, Expand Community Space, and Improve Central
Courtyard.
Phase 1A:
•Demolish three small buildings (Liselund, Marselisborg and Graasten) containing a
total of 12 independent living, studio units.
•Demolish building at 308 Mission (currently used as office space)
Phase 1B: Add new independent living building.
•Construct new independent living 35-unit building. Includes the redesign of site entry
and parking for better accessibility for residents and visitors. (An elevator and an
interior connection to Fredensborg will enable sheltered ADA access to upper levels
on the hillside site).
•Provide nine (9) parking spaces in the new Mission Avenue IL building, five guest
parking spaces at the new main entrance, and six surface parking spaces along the
East driveway to Rosenborg.
•Expand community space with a café, rooftop lounge, arts & crafts/activity room, and
a conference room/pre-function room.
3
•Improve central courtyard. Improve outdoor spaces with new gathering spaces and
landscaping, including historic elements.
PHASE 2: Service Building Addition
•Demolish the Minor Building (8 independent living units)
•Construct a new service connector building with service elevator connections to
Rosenborg and Kronborg to improve service access for delivery, refuse and
maintenance back-of-house spaces for increased efficiency.
•Expand outdoor garden for Memory Care (Rosenborg)
PHASE 3: West Campus Independent Living
•Demolish Amalienborg and Sorgenfri (14 independent living units)
•Construct new 15 independent living units in new West Campus IL building (net +1).
•Partial rebuild of Frederiksborg to increase floor area (no net change in number of IL
units). Add four new parking spaces. Interior renovation of Frendensborg (-2 net
change in number of IL units)
At buildout of the proposed PD Development Plan, (estimated to be 10 years from Project
approval, or approximately the year 2032) the Project would result in fourteen (14) net new
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 parking on-site parking spaces would increase from 48
spaces to 54 spaces at buildout of the Development Plan.
The anticipated entitlements and permits that would be needed for the Project are the
following:
•A zoning amendment to amend the previously approved Ordinance No. 1775,
including revised Aldersly PD Development Standards. (ZC20-001);
•An amendment to a master use permit (UP20-022); and
•An environmental and design review permit for Phases 1-3 (ED20-051).
A.PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Project Sponsor has identified the following goals and objectives of the Project:
Goals:
•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.
•To allow the Aldersly Retirement Community to evolve to meet the needs of
current and future residents for the next 20 years.
Project objectives originating from these overarching goals include:
Create a financially sustainable community that will last another 100 years
Add a second dining venue and resident lounge/gathering spaces
Create a dedicated Memory Care Center with an accessible outdoor garden
area
Update Independent Living units to attract new residents. Increase number of
larger, more marketable units (average unit size in square feet)
Improve site accessibility and access to campus amenities for staff and
residents with various levels of mobility
Improve entry experience to create a positive first impression
Define a core active space for residents that promotes social interaction and
movement between different parts of the campus
Provide outdoor spaces with lush landscaping to maintain Aldersly’s long-
4
time connections to nature and outdoor living, in keeping with the original
hygge spirit of the community
Provide additional parking
Improve delivery area and back of house spaces to increase efficiency and
ease access from Belle Avenue
Maximize Aldersly’s footprint, within the limits of the land use and design
controls established by the City’s planning documents
II.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having
jurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity
to comment on the Draft EIR. An NOP for an EIR was issued by the City to the OPR State
Clearinghouse and interested agencies and persons on November 25, 2021 for a 30-day
review period, during which interested agencies and the public could submit comments
about the Project. The City also held a public scoping meeting on December 14, 2021.
Comments on the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of
the Draft EIR.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was issued on August 16, 2022, and the
Draft EIR was made available for public review for a 45-day public review period through
September 30, 2022. The Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional, and State agencies
and the general public was advised of the availability of the Draft EIR.
The Responses to Comments Document provides responses to the comments received
during the comment period on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and the Responses to
Comments Document comprise the Final EIR. The Planning Commission was presented
with the Final EIR for consideration at a public hearing on November 15, 2022.
III.CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
Upon receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City of San Rafael, acting by and through its City
Council will certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines. The City will further certify that it has been presented with the Final
EIR and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR
prior to approving the Project. The City will further certify that the Final EIR reflects its
independent judgment and analysis.
IV.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record of proceedings consists of the
following documents and testimony:
(a)The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the
project;
(c)The Draft EIR for the Project, dated August 2022;
(d)All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
comment period on the Draft EIR;
(e)The Final EIR for the Project, including comments received on the Draft EIR,
responses to those comments, and the technical appendices, dated November
2022;
5
(f)The MMRP for the Project;
(h)All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
related to the Project prepared by the City, or consultants to the City, with respect
to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the
City’s action on the Project;
(i)All documents submitted to the City (including the Planning Commission and City
Council) by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the
Project;
(j)Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public
meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project;
(k)All matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and City Council,
including, but not limited to:
(i)City’s General Plan and other applicable policies;
(ii)City’s Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances;
(iii)Information regarding the City’s fiscal status;
(iv)Applicable City policies and regulations; and
(v)Federal, state and local laws and regulations.
(l)Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA Section
21167.6(e).
The documents described above comprising the record of proceedings are located on the
City’s webpage at: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/aldersly/. The custodian of these
documents is the City’s Community Development Director or their designee.
III.FINDINGS
The findings, recommendations, and statement of overriding considerations set forth
below (“Findings”) are to be made and adopted by the City Council of the City of San
Rafael as the City’s findings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines relating to the Project.
The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding
the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and
the overriding considerations that support approval of the Project despite any remaining
environmental effects it may have.
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR with regard
to Project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis
of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, the findings provide a
summary description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified in the Final EIR,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and state the City’s
findings and rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of
mitigation measures. A full explanation of the environmental findings and conclusions can
be found in the Final EIR; the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR regarding mitigation
measures and the Project’s impacts is adopted by reference.
The City intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR has been
inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event
the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately reflect the
mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation
measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control unless the language of the mitigation
measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
6
Sections IV and V, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final EIR
identifies as either significant and unavoidable or less than significant with adopted
mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.
IV.FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT
The Final EIR identifies one significant and unavoidable adverse impact associated with
the approval of the Project, which can be reduced, although not to a less-than-significant
level, through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. As
explained below, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable notwithstanding
adoption of feasible mitigation measures. The City Council finds there are no additional
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could be adopted at this time that would
reduce these significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. For
reasons set forth below, however, the City Council has determined that overriding
economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the Project’s significant and
unavoidable effects. The findings in this section are based on the Project EIR, the
discussion and analysis of which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A.IMPACT CUL-1: The Proposed Project would result in the demolition of
six of the nine contributing buildings and landscape features that are
contributing features of an historic resource.
The Final EIR finds that the Aldersly property is potentially eligible for listing as a historic
district in the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) and is
therefore considered a historic resource. The Proposed Project would demolish six
contributing buildings, partially demolish one contributing building, and alter an additional
contributing building, leaving only one contributing building intact. The construction of the
three new buildings would require the removal and relocation of some landscape features
–including the Rose Garden and fountain – and would infill some of the green space of
the existing campus, including a corner of the central lawn. All landscape features of the
Aldersly campus that are contributing features of the historic resource would be altered in
some way, either through relocation, removal, or alteration.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-than-
significant level. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Interpretation and Commemoration of Historic Resources.
Prior to issuance of demolition permit(s), the project sponsor shall undertake the following
measures to document and provide interpretation, commemoration, and salvage of the
historic resources to be demolished, as outlined below:
CUL-1a: Documentation. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the project sponsor
shall undertake Historic American Building Survey (HABS)/Historic American
Landscape Survey (HALS)–style documentation of the property. The documentation
shall be funded by the project sponsor and undertaken by a qualified professional who
meets the standards for history, architectural history, or architecture (as appropriate)
set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (Code of
Federal Regulations title 36, part 61). The documentation package created shall consist
of the items listed below:
•CUL-1a-1: HABS-style Photographs
•CUL-1a-2: HABS/HALS-style Historical Report
7
•CUL-1a-3: HALS-style Site Plan
•CUL-1a-4: Video Documentation
The documentation materials shall be offered to state, regional, and local
repositories, including but not limited to, the Northwest Information Center (NWIC)-
California Historical Resource Information System, San Rafael Public Library, the
Marin County Free Library’s Anne T. Kent California Room, and the Marin History
Museum. Materials will either be provided in digital or hard copy formats depending
on the capacity and preference of the repository.
CUL-1a-1: HABS-style Photographs
Digital photographs will be taken of the contributing buildings and landscape
elements and the overall character and setting of the historic resource. All digital
photography shall be conducted according to current National Park Service
standards as specified in the National Register Photo Policy Factsheet (updated May
2013). The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with
demonstrated experience in documentation photography. Large format negatives are
not required. The scope of the digital photographs shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Division’s staff for concurrence.
Photograph views for the data set shall include contextual views of the site and each
contributing landscape element and building; elevations of each façade of each
building; and detail views of character-defining features. All photographs shall be
referenced on a photographic key map or site plan. The photographic key shall show
the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view.
CUL-1a-2: HABS/HALS-style Historical Report
A written historical narrative and report will be produced that meets the HABS/HALS
Historical Report Guidelines. This HABS/HALS-style Historical Report may be based on
the documentation provided in the 2017 Historic Resource Evaluation for the site and
will include historic photographs and drawings, if available. The written history shall
follow the standard outline format that begins with a statement of significance for the
historic district, describes the architectural and historical context of the district, and
includes descriptions of each contributing building and landscape feature.
CUL-1a-3: HALS-style Site Plan
A HALS-style site plan shall be prepared that depicts the existing sizes, scale,
dimensions, and relative locations of the contributing landscape elements and buildings
related to the historic resource. Particular attention will be paid to the arrangement and
plantings of landscape features that are contributing resources to the historic resource.
Documentation of all plantings is not required, but depiction of the locations and types
of mature trees, and designed hardscape and landscape features shall be included.
CUL-1a-4: Video Recordation. Video recordation shall be undertaken prior to the
issuance of demolition permits. The project sponsor shall undertake a video
documenting the historic resource and its setting. The documentation shall be
conducted by a professional videographer, preferably one with experience recording
architectural resources. The documentation shall be narrated by a qualified professional
who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
history, architectural history, or architecture (as appropriate). The documentation shall
include as much information as possible—using visuals in combination with narration—
8
about the materials, construction methods, current condition, historic use, historic
context, and historic significance of the historic resource. The video documentation shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division’s staff prior to issuance of
demolition permits.
CUL-1b: Interpretation. The project sponsor shall provide a permanent display (or
multiple displays) of interpretive materials concerning the history of Aldersly in the
Northern California Danish-American community and the architectural features of the
Aldersly Retirement Community campus as designed in the 1961-1968 master plan by
master architect Rex Whitaker Allen. Interpretation of the site’s history shall be
supervised by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. The high-quality interpretive display(s)
shall be installed within the project site boundaries, made of durable, all-weather
materials, and positioned to allow for high public visibility and interactivity. In addition to
narrative text, the interpretative display(s) may include, but are not limited to, a display
of photographs, news articles, memorabilia, drawings, and/or video. A proposal
describing the general parameters of the interpretive program shall be approved by the
Planning Division’s staff prior to issuance of building permits. The content, media, and
other characteristics of the interpretive display shall be approved by the Planning
Division’s staff prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
CUL-1c: Salvage. Prior to any demolition or construction activities that would remove
character-defining features of a resource that is a contributor to the historic resource on
the project site, the project sponsor shall consult with a qualified architectural historian
or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards as to whether any such features may be salvaged, in whole or in part, during
demolition/alteration. The project sponsor shall submit a list of materials that will be
salvaged and reused either on the site or within the interpretive program to the Planning
Division for review prior to the beginning of demolition on the site. The project sponsor
shall make a good faith effort to salvage materials of historical interest to be utilized as
part of the interpretative program. No materials shall be salvaged or removed until
HABS/HALS-style recordation and documentation are completed.
Significance with Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. While the Project proposes
to relocate some of the character-defining features and contributing elements of the
landscape, and Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would lessen the impact associated with the
proposed project; it would not reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. The historic
resource would lose its integrity and ability to convey its significance. Therefore, the impact
on the historic resource would be significant and unavoidable.
V.FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REDUCED TO A LESS-THAN-
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Project. It is
hereby determined that the impacts addressed through the corresponding mitigation
measures will be reduced to a less than significant level or avoided by adopting and
incorporating these mitigation measures into the Project. As explained in Section VII,
below, the findings in Section V are based on the Final EIR, including the discussion and
analysis contained in Appendix B of which is incorporated in full by this reference, and as
identified in the Summary Chapter, Table S-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Measures of the Final EIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the
record of proceedings.
9
A.IMPACT CUL-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to
cause a significant impact to a previously unidentified archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
B.IMPACT CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities during Project construction could
encounter human remains, the disturbance of which could result in a significant
impact under CEQA. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
C.IMPACT TCR-1: Ground-disturbing activities as a result of the Proposed Project
could encounter Tribal Cultural Resources, the disturbance of which could
result in a significant impact under CEQA.
As discussed in Chapter 3 and summarized in Table S-1 in the Summary Chapter of the
Final EIR, although construction of the proposed project would have no impact on known
tribal cultural resources, there is a possibility that previously unidentified resources and
subsurface deposits are present within the Project area. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure TCR-1, which requires a survey of the site by trained Human Remains Detection
Dogs, would avoid or reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level.
D.IMPACT AQ-1. The project could result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non – attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Appendix B -
Checklist Item III.b.).
As discussed in Appendix B, Topics Not Requiring Detailed Environmental Analysis and
summarized in Table S-1 in the Summary Chapter of the Final EIR, the project could result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase a criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non – attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires BAAQMD Best
Management Practices (BMPs) be implemented during construction would avoid or
reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level.
E.IMPACT AQ-2. The project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations (Appendix B - Checklist Item III.c.)
As discussed in Appendix B, Topics Not Requiring Detailed Environmental Analysis and
summarized in Table S-1 in the Summary Chapter of the Final EIR, the project could
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires construction equipment to minimize exhaust
emissions would avoid or reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level.
F.IMPACT BIO-1. The project has the potential to disturb active bird nests on the
Project site. (Checklist Item IV.a.).
As discussed in Appendix B, Topics Not Requiring Detailed Environmental Analysis and
summarized in Table S-1 in the Summary Chapter of the Final EIR, the project has the
potential to disturb active bird nests during construction. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, which requires avoidance of nesting birds in compliance with State and
federal regulations, would avoid or reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level.
As discussed in the Final EIR Response to Comments from California Department of Fish
10
and Wildlife (CDFW), no bats or indicators of on-site roosting (e.g., guano/staining) were
observed by the biologist during their site visit. For these reasons, bats (including special-
status species) are unlikely to roost on the project site. Though not required, the following
measures recommended by CDFW are adopted and included in the MMRP:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (Roosting Bat Habitat Assessment and Surveys):
Prior to any tree removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for
bats. A qualified bat biologist shall have: 1) at least two years of experience
conducting bat surveys that resulted in detections for relevant species, such as pallid
bat, with verified project names, dates, and references, and 2) experience with
relevant equipment used to conduct bat surveys. The habitat assessment shall be
conducted a minimum of 30 to 90 days prior to tree removal and shall include a
visual inspection of potential roosting features (e.g., cavities, crevices in wood and
bark, exfoliating bark, suitable canopy for foliage roosting species). If suitable habitat
trees are found, or bats are observed, mitigation measure BIO-3 shall be
implemented.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (Roosting Bat Tree Protections): If the qualified
biologist identifies potential bat habitat trees, then tree trimming and tree removal
shall not proceed unless the following occurs: 1) a qualified biologist conducts night
emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that
establishes absence of roosting bats, or 2) tree trimming and tree removal occurs
only during seasonal periods of bat activity, from approximately March 1 through
April 15 and September 1 through October 15, and tree removal occurs using the
two-step removal process. Two-step tree removal shall be conducted over two
consecutive days. The first day (in the afternoon), under the direct supervision and
instruction by a qualified biologist with experience conducting two-step tree removal,
limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only; limbs
with cavities, crevices or deep bark fissures shall be avoided. The second day the
entire tree shall be removed.
G.IMPACT GEO-1. The project site is subject to earthquakes that have the potential
to induce strong to very strong ground shaking. Strong shaking during an
earthquake can result in ground failure such as that associated with soil
liquefaction, lateral spreading, cyclic densification, and landsliding. (Checklist
Item VII.a.ii)
As discussed in Appendix B, Topics Not Requiring Detailed Environmental Analysis and
summarized in Table S-1 in the Summary Chapter of the Final EIR, the project could.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires that seismic design
coefficients and spectral accelerations shall be consistent with the findings presented in
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical, August 31, 2020, and
that a final geotechnical investigation be prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical
engineer would avoid or reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level.
H.IMPACT GEO-2. The project has the potential to destroy a unique
paleontological resource during construction and earthmoving activities
(Checklist Item VII.f.)
As discussed in Appendix B, Topics Not Requiring Detailed Environmental Analysis and
summarized in Table S-1 in the Summary Chapter of the Final EIR, the project project
11
has the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource during construction and
earthmoving activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which establishes
protocols in the event that fossils or other paleontological resources are encountered
during project subsurface construction, would avoid or reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
I.IMPACT NOI-1. Noise generated by construction activities, including
demolition, could exceed the 90 dBA Leq noise level established in SRMC
Section 8.13.050
As discussed in Appendix B, Topics Not Requiring Detailed Environmental Analysis and
summarized in Table S-1 in the Summary Chapter of the Final EIR, noise generated by
project construction activities, including demolition, could exceed the 90 dBA Leq noise
level established in the San Rafael Municipal Code. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure NOI-1, which requires that a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP)
prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to identify noise attenuation measures,
including but not limited to installing temporary noise barriers, would reduce this impact to
a less-than- significant level.
VI.ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project. The Project objectives are listed
in Chapter 2 (Project Description) of the Draft EIR; the potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, including feasible mitigation measures identified to avoid these
impacts, are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in
detail in Chapter 5 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the Draft EIR.
Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion of the
Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the alternatives. As
explained in Section VII, below, the findings in this Section VI are based on the Final EIR,
the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
1. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1), the No Project Alternative is required
as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” to allow decision makers to compare the
impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of taking no action or not
approving the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(3)(B), when the project is a development project on identifiable property, the “no
project” alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed.
Under Alternative 1, the Aldersly campus would remain in its existing condition and would
not be subject to redevelopment. Aldersly would continue to operate as it currently exists
and no new construction would occur within the Project site, except for repairs and interior
renovations to existing buildings. The number of Independent Living units, assisted
living/memory care beds and skilled nursing beds would be essentially unchanged (55
Independent Living units, 35 Assisted Living/Memory Care beds, and 20 Skilled Nursing
beds).
A.Comparison of Environmental Impacts: There would be no redevelopment of
Aldersly’s campus under Alternative 1. Aldersly would continue to operate as is
which would include ongoing minor repairs and renovations of existing buildings.
12
The Aldersly campus would remain eligible for listing in the California Register and
there would be no other environmental impacts under this alternative.
B.Facts in Support of Finding: Alternative 1 would not meet the Project’s overarching
goals or objectives. Under this alternative, Aldersly would not add or update existing
independent living units, construct a dedicated outdoor garden for the Memory Care
Center or other outdoor spaces for connecting with nature, create a core active space
to promote social interaction, or add a second dining venue and resident
lounge/gathering spaces. These objectives are necessary for meeting the Project’s
overarching goals of maintaining Aldersly as a boutique residential community for
older adults while providing the flexibility to evolve to meet the current and future
needs of residents. These objectives would also ensure that Aldersly remains a
financially sustainable community for the foreseeable future. The new and updated
independent living units responds to changing market demand for older adult
independent living and is therefore needed to attract new residents. The dedicated
outdoor garden would enhance Aldersly’s new and innovative Memory Care Center.
The improved outdoor spaces, new core active space, and second dining venue and
resident lounge/gathering spaces provide additional amenities to retain and attract
new residents.
Alternative 1 would also not meet the objectives of improving site accessibility for
staff and residents, providing additional parking, or maximizing Aldersly’s
development footprint within established land use and design controls for the Project
site. Overall, under Alternative 1, there would be uncertainty as to whether Aldersly
may be redeveloped and modernized to ensure its ongoing and future viability as a
non-profit community for older adults.
C.Finding: Accordingly, City Council hereby finds Alternative 1 to be infeasible for the
preceding policy, social, and economic reasons and because it would not satisfy the
Project’s objectives. Each of these reasons would separately and independently
provide sufficient justification for rejecting Alternative 1
2.Alternative 2: On-Site Preservation Alternative:
Alternative 2 would limit redevelopment to the southern edge of the Aldersly campus.
Marselisborg, Graasten, and Liselund, all of which are contributing buildings to the historic
resource, would be demolished and replaced with a new building fronting Mission Avenue
that would include a parking garage, administrative space, and 35 independent living units.
Frederiksborg would also be demolished and replaced with a two-story building containing
ground floor indoor parking and six independent living units. As with the Project, many of
the contributing landscape features of the historic resource would be relocated, altered, or
removed to accommodate the independent living building along Mission Avenue. The
Minor Building would be demolished and replaced with the outdoor garden for the Memory
Care Center. The new service connector building would not be constructed between
Rosenborg and Kronborg. Alternative 2 would also not construct the independent living
building in the northwest portion of the campus thereby preserving contributing buildings
Amalienborg and Sorgenfri. In total, four of the nine contributing buildings would be
demolished. The net increase of residential and administrative space under Alternative 2
would be 53,390 sq. ft. and the average size of the independent living units would be 830
sq. ft.
A.Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Since Alternative 2 proposes less
development than the Project, net increase of 53,390 sq. ft. versus the Project’s net
13
increase of 64,260 sq. ft., this smaller project would generally reduce the Project’s
environmental effects to some degree. For example, air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise, and biological resource impacts would be reduced due to there
being less construction (although these impacts are less than significant for both the
Project and Alternative 2). Alternative 2 would also reduce the impact to the historic
resource but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Even though an
additional two contributing buildings would be preserved, the Project site would still
lose its historic integrity and ability to convey its significance due to demolition of
four of the nine contributing buildings and relocating, altering, or removing most of
the contributing landscape features.
B.Facts in Support of Finding: Alternative 2 meets some but not all of the Project’s
objectives. For instance, the alternative would add a second dining venue, create a
dedicated outdoor garden for the Memory Care center, and define a core active
space for residents to promote social interaction. The alternative would add
independent living units and increase their overall size, but not to the extent the
Project would (830 sq. ft. in Alternative 2 compared to 968 sq. ft. in the Project).
These smaller independent living units would be less attractive to potential new
residents and so the alternative falls short of the objective to ensure Aldersly can
operate in a financially sustainably manner for the foreseeable future. The
alternative also would not maximize Aldersly’s development footprint within existing
land use controls. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would not meet the objectives of
improving site accessibility as construction would be focused solely in the southern
portion of campus. The desired improvements to the delivery area and back of
house spaces with a connector building between Rosenborg and Kronborg would
not be constructed.
Although Alternative 2 would further reduce the Project’s less than significant
impacts, the impact to the historic resource would remain significant and
unavoidable as four of the nine contributing buildings would be demolished and the
majority of contributing landscape features would be relocated, altered, or removed.
C.Finding: Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds Alternative 2 to be infeasible for
the preceding policy, social, and economic reasons and because it would not satisfy
the Project’s objectives. Each of these reasons would separately and independently
provide sufficient justification for rejecting Alternative 2.
3.Alternative 3: Off-Site Alternative
Alternative 3 would locate all new development on the eastern end of the Aldersly campus
and on two parcels owned by Aldersly (121 and 123 Union Street) adjacent to the northeast
corner of campus at Belle Avenue and Union Street. The only contributing buildings that
would be demolished under Alternative 3 are the Minor Building and Liselund. Seven
contributing buildings and seven contributing landscape features would remain intact.
Rosenborg, a non-contributing building constructed in 2004 that currently houses assisted
living and memory care facilities and Liselund would be demolished and replaced with a
new building with two to four stories spanning from the two adjacent parcels on Union Street
down to Mission Avenue. This new building would accommodate 41 parking spaces, 15
assisted living units, 15 memory care units, and 42 independent living units. The Minor
Building would be replaced with an outdoor landscaped area. As Rosenborg contains a
parking garage with 30 spaces, the majority of on-site parking spaces would be temporarily
eliminated during the construction process. The net increase of residential and
administrative space under Alternative 3 would be 46,730 sq. ft. and the average size of the
14
independent living units would be 764 sq. ft.
A.Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Alternative 3 would retain the majority
of the buildings and landscaping elements that contribute to the historic district
thereby reducing the significant impact to less than significant. Accordingly, the
campus would retain its eligibility for the California Register. Alternative 3 would
result in a net increase of 46,730 sq. ft. of residential and administrative space
whereas the Project would increase residential and administrative space by 64,260
sq. ft. As such, construction related environmental impacts under Alternative 3 may
be somewhat reduced. However, some construction impacts will be increased. In
particular, development on the two adjacent parcels will be in closer proximity to
existing single family homes on Belle Avenue and Union Street, as compared to
the Project, which could increase air quality and noise impacts. Alternative 3 would
also require more earthwork than the Project, although with implementation of
BMPs, a construction management plan, and compliance with the noise ordinance,
impacts would remain less than significant.
B.Facts in Support of Finding: Alternative 3 meets some but not all of the Project
objectives. The new building replacing Rosenborg would include a second dining
venue and gathering/lounge spaces and the Minor Building would be replaced with
the outdoor garden for the Memory Care Center. The alternative would provide
larger independent units than exist today, but the average unit size would be even
smaller than the independent living units under Alternative 2 and therefore be less
marketable to potential residents. This would impact Aldersly’s ability to remain a
financially sustainable community.
Alternative 3 would also require demolishing Rosenborg which is a relatively new
building constructed in 2004 and was remodeled in the past year to house
Aldersly’s state-of-the art Memory Care Center and assisted living facilities.
Rosenborg, as recently upgraded, was a major investment by Aldersly and
demolishing it well before the end of its useful life would add significant costs not
accounted for and is likely a financially infeasible option. Demolishing Rosenborg
would be impractical and may not be an option that the California Department of
Social Services (“CDSS”) would approve. As a licensed Residential Care Facility
for the Elderly, Aldersly is required to obtain approval from CDSS for major
modifications to its facilities. Since Rosenborg houses both the Memory Care
Center and assisted living facilities, demolishing it would require displacing and
temporarily relocating up to 35 residents across both programs. Relocating these
residents on campus would be extremely challenging given the constraints of
existing facilities combined with construction of the project and the special
requirements and needs of these residents. It would also be very disruptive since
these residents have medical conditions requiring stable, routine, and consistent
care. As such, Alternative 3 may be infeasible because it would be impractical and
disruptive to temporarily relocate up to 35 assisted living and memory care
residents and may not receive approval from CDSS.
Alternative 3 also would not improve site accessibility and access to campus
amenities, define a core active space for residents, or provide additional parking
spaces, all of which are Project objectives. In fact, the number of overall parking
spaces would be reduced by three. The alternative would also not make the most
of Aldersly’s development footprint, opting to instead expand onto the adjacent
parcels which would require rezoning. Development on the two parcels would
result in additional impacts to the adjacent neighbors on Belle Avenue and Union
15
Street. The new building replacing Rosenborg would be taller and have greater
massing and would therefore further impact the views and shadows of the single-
family homes situated on Union Street and directly east of the campus.
C.Finding: Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds Alternative 3 to be infeasible
for the preceding legal, social, economic, and other considerations and because it
would not satisfy the Project’s objectives. Each of the reasons described above
would separately and independently provide sufficient justification for rejecting
Alternative 3.
4.ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)) require the identification of an environmentally
superior alternative to the Proposed Project. If it is determined that the “no project” alternative
would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (Section
15126.6[e][2]). To determine the environmentally superior alternative, the impacts of all the
alternatives were compared to determine which alternative would have the least adverse
effects. Alternative 1, the “no project” alternative, is the environmentally superior alternative
to the Proposed Project because it would avoid all of the significant impacts associated with
the Proposed Project.
Alternative 3 would retain the majority of the buildings and landscaping elements that
contribute to the historic resource thereby reducing the significant impact to the historic
resource to less than significant. However, as noted above, Alternative 3 would meet fewer
of the project sponsor’s objectives. The new building replacing Rosenborg would include a
second dining venue and gathering/lounge spaces and the Minor Building would be replaced
with the outdoor garden for the Memory Care Center. The alternative would provide larger
independent units than exist today, but the average unit size would be even smaller than the
independent living units under Alternative 2 and therefore be less marketable to potential
residents. This would impact Aldersly’s ability to remain a financially sustainable community.
Alternative 3 would also require demolishing Rosenborg which is a relatively new building
constructed in 2004 and was remodeled in the past year to house Aldersly’s state-of-the art
Memory Care Center and assisted living facilities. Rosenborg, as recently upgraded, was a
major investment by Aldersly and demolishing it well before the end of its useful life would
add significant costs not accounted for and is likely a financially infeasible option. As noted
above, demolishing Rosenborg may not be an option that the California Department of Social
Services (“CDSS”) would approve. As a licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly,
Aldersly is required to obtain approval from CDSS for major modifications to its
facilities. Since Rosenborg houses both the Memory Care Center and assisted living
facilities, demolishing it would require displacing and temporarily relocating up to 35 residents
across both programs. Relocating these residents on campus would be extremely
challenging given the constraints of existing facilities combined with construction of the
project and the special requirements and needs of these residents. It would also be very
disruptive since these residents have medical conditions requiring stable, routine, and
consistent care. As such, Alternative 3 may be infeasible because it would be impractical
and disruptive to temporarily relocate up to 35 assisted living and memory care residents and
may not receive approval from CDSS. Alternative 3 also would not improve site accessibility
and access to campus amenities, define a core active space for residents, or provide
additional parking spaces, all of which are Project objectives.
16
VII.STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As stated above and determined in the foregoing findings, the City has determined that the
Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to an historic resource and there
is no feasible mitigation or alternative to reduce the impact to less than significant. The City
has determined all other impacts to be less than significant.
Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public
agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially
lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions (see also Public
Resources Code Section 21081(b)). Accordingly, the City Council specifically adopts and
makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Project has mitigated the
significant impacts on the historic resource to the extent feasible and finds that the remaining
significant and unavoidable impact is acceptable in light of the economic, legal,
environmental, social, technological, or other considerations described below because the
benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental effect, and that the
adverse environmental effect is therefore acceptable.
The City Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below is a separate
and independent basis for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and
unavoidable impact and warrants approval of the Project. Based on the substantial evidence
in the record, including the public record of proceedings as well as oral and written testimony
at all public hearings on the Project to date, the City Council hereby determines that
implementation of the Project would result in the following substantial benefits:
1.Promote City Goals and Policies: The Project promotes the following goals and
policies of the City’s General Plan:
a.Goal EDI-6: An Age-Friendly Community. Enhance the quality of life for older
adults in San Rafael.
The Project supports the City’s goal of serving older adults and enhancing their
quality of life. The new and expanded independent living units and other
improvements would attract new residents and enhance the living experience of
existing residents. The second dining venue, lounge and gathering spaces, and
core active space would provide additional areas for residents to meet and
socialize. The outdoor garden for the Memory Care Center and other outdoor
experiences would elevate the campus’ outdoor living experience. The site
accessibility improvements would make it easier for residents to move about the
campus.
b.Policy H-13: Senior Housing. Encourage housing that meets the needs of San
Rafael’s older population, particularly affordable units and affordable care
facilities that foster aging within the community. Support development that
provides housing options so that seniors can find suitable housing to rent or
purchase.
The Project would result in a net increase of fourteen (14) independent living
units for seniors (from 55 units to 69 units) and would continue to provide 35
assisted living/memory care beds and 20 skilled nursing beds. In response to
market demand, the new and remodeled Independent Living units would be
larger than Aldersly’s existing independent living units and include amenities
such as a full kitchen and in-unit washer and dryer. Independent living units
17
provide older adults the option to live in a supported community with the
experience of living on their own. These independent living units are also an
option for older adults seeking to downsize from their single-family homes.
c.Policy LU-1.3: Land Use and Climate Change. Focus future housing and
commercial development in areas where alternatives to driving are most viable
and shorter trip lengths are possible, especially around transit stations, near
services, and on sites with frequent bus service. This can reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with motor vehicle trips and support the
City’s climate action goals.
Policy M-3.8: Land Use and VMT: Encourage higher-density employment and
residential uses near major transit hubs such as Downtown San Rafael,
recognizing the potential for VMT reduction in areas where there are attractive
alternatives to driving, concentrations of complementary activities, and
opportunities for shorter trips between different uses
The Project would increase the overall density of the Aldersly campus with 35
modernized and larger independent living units and other amenities such as
the second dining venue and lounge/gathering spaces. The Project is within
one half mile of the San Rafael Transit Center which is served by SMART,
Marin Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and Sonoma County Transit, and is near
commercial and retail uses in Montecito Plaza downtown San Rafael.
d.Policy EV-3.3: Economically Productive Use of Land. Encourage the use of the
City’s commercial and industrial land supply in a way that creates positive fiscal
impacts, economic opportunities for local businesses and property owners,
employment growth, and services for San Rafael residents.
The Project makes the most of the development potential of the Aldersly
campus. The modernized and larger independent living units and other
improvements would ensure that Aldersly can operate sustainably as a non-
profit into the future and continue to provide a home for older adults and retain
its employees.
2.Increase Opportunities for Older Adults to Remain in the Community: The
Project would provide a total of 35 modernized and larger independent living units
designed to meet the current and future needs of older adults in the City and the
region. Marin County has the highest median age of any County in the Bay Area
and it is projected that persons over 65 will be the fastest growing population during
the time horizon of the City’s 2040 General Plan. Overall trends show that more
people are growing into their 80s and beyond thereby increasing demand for
community and assisted living. A significant benefit of the Project is to expand
opportunities for older adults to remain in the community.
3.Ensure Financial Stability for Aldersly in the Long-Term: The Project would
ensure that Aldersly remains a financially sustainable non-profit community for the
foreseeable future. Older adults are not looking for housing that met their parents’
needs. To meet the market demand of today’s older adults, Aldersly needs to
increase the overall size of its independent living units and offer amenities such as
full kitchens, in-unit laundry, open floor plans, and larger windows that allow in more
natural light. These upgrades are needed to ensure that Aldersly can remain
competitive and operate at financially sustainably. Not pursuing these
18
improvements would threaten the long-term viability Aldersly. Aldersly is an
important part of the San Rafael community, so a key benefit of the Project is
ensuring its long-term financial stability.
4.Maintain and Enhance the Aldersly Experience: The Project would maintain and
enhance Aldersly as a boutique residential community for older people with an over
100-year history as a contributing and valued member of the San Rafael community.
Aldersly is known for its long-time connection to nature and outdoor living in keeping
with the original hygee (Danish for the experience of coziness and comfortable
conviviality that engenders feelings of contentment and well-being) spirit of its
community. The Project would enhance the outdoor living experience for residents
by establishing an accessible dedicated outdoor garden area for the Memory Care
Center, improving the other outdoor spaces on campus with lush landscaping, and
creating a core active space for residents that promotes social interaction and
movement around the campus. The second dining venue and resident
lounge/gathering spaces would provide additional space for residents to gather and
socialize in an inviting and comfortable setting. The campus is also difficult to traverse
due to its hillside location. The Project would address this issue by improving overall
site accessibility including ADA improvements. Given Aldersly’s long history within
the San Rafael community, a key benefit of the Project is maintaining and enhancing
the unique and special Aldersly experience.
5.Efficient Development that Respects the Existing Neighborhood: The Project
would provide much needed senior housing within Aldersly’s existing development
footprint. The Aldersly campus is located within the Montecito/Happy Valley
Neighborhood which is one of San Rafael’s oldest neighborhoods and is adjacent to
downtown San Rafael. The neighborhood consists of a mixture of residential, retail,
and community services. Aldersly is situated in a transitional area from retail and
community services uses to single family homes. The Project efficiently uses existing
developed land to redevelop Aldersly while maintaining the balance of land uses and
layout of development in this established neighborhood. For instance, the Project’s
largest building, the independent living building fronting Mission Avenue is oriented
towards existing commercial and multi-family land uses and away from, to the extent
possible, nearby single-family homes.
6.Development of an Existing and Transit-Adjacent Site: The Project would
redevelop portions of Aldersly’s campus which is located in an urbanized area of the
City directly adjacent to downtown San Rafael and within a half a mile of the San
Rafael Transit Center. Development near transit provides a number of environmental
benefits particularly by reducing air quality and greenhouse gas emissions by
reducing overall vehicle trips. Transit oriented development can also lead better to
social and health outcomes, encouraging people to walk, ride their bikes, and/or use
public transit. Projects located near transit can also contribute to reducing vehicle
traffic congestion. Transit oriented development also naturally encourages more
connected communities by concentrating development around transit locations. As
such, a key benefit of the Project is its proximity to transit which provides the
additional benefits discussed above.
VIII. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The City Council adopts the mitigation measures set forth for the Project in the Final EIR and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit A and
19
incorporated herein by this reference.
IX. SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these findings or the application of these findings to a
particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions of these findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall
continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
San Rafael, held on Monday, the 5th day of December 2022 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Hill, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Kate
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
EXHIBIT A
ZONE CHANGE MAP
Existing Zoning = PD (1775)
Proposed Zoning = PD (TBD)
PD(1775)
PD(TBD)