Loading...
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)