HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.14 - 1201 Avesta Community Benefit Agreement
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 15, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Community Benefit Agreement with Avesta Development Group
Prepared by: Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of a Community Benefit Agreement with Avesta
Development Group for the development of a senior care facility in Downtown Dublin,
consisting of 35 senior apartments, 13 high-acuity assisted living units, 32 memory care
units and related supporting space. A Community Benefit Agreement is required in
order to allocate units and/or additional square footage from the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan’s Development Pool. All entitlements relating to the approval of the
project were approved by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the Community Benefit Agreement between the City of
Dublin and Avesta Development Group.
FINANCIAL IMP ACT:
Upon issuance of the building permit, the City will receive payment of $400,000 for the
Affordable Unit Credits. These funds will be deposited into the City's Affordable
Housing Fund. Prior to occupancy of the building, the City will receive paymen t of
$490,000 as the community benefit. These funds will be deposited into a separate
account for future improvements in the Downtown.
DESCRIPTION:
Avesta Development Group, a privately-held real estate company, has proposed the
construction of a senior care facility in Downtown Dublin at 7601 Amador Valley Blvd.
(the northwest corner of Donohue Drive and Amador Valley Blvd). The project is 66,787
square feet and consists of 35 senior apartments, 13 high-acuity assisted living units, 32
memory care units and supporting common spaces, such as a kitchen, dining spaces,
activity room, den, theater, salon and other gathering spots.
Page 2 of 2
Avesta applied for and received approval for the project by the Planning Commission on
March 22, 2016 (Attachment 1), pending approval of the Community Benefit Agreement
by the City Council. Community Benefit Agreements are required under the terms of
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to allocate units and/or additional square footage
from the Development Pool.
In this case, Avesta is seeking 35 units from the residential development pool and
10,329 square feet from the commercial development pool. In exchange for this
allocation, Avesta will pay a community benefit payment of $490,000 prior to the
occupancy of the building. These monies will be deposited into a separate account for
future improvements in the Downtown.
To satisfy the requirements of Chapter 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations), Avesta
will purchase Affordable Unit Credits through the City for $100,000 pe r Affordable Unit
Credit. The inclusionary requirement for the 35 senior apartments is four units, and
therefore the Applicant will deposit $400,000 with the City to purchase the Affordable
Unit Credits to fully satisfy the requirements of Chapter 8.68. This payment will be due
at the time of building permit issuance.
If Avesta fails to obtain the building permit for the Project within two years after the
Effective Date of this Agreement, the Excess Capacity reserved for Avesta shall revert
to the Pool maintained by the City.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A copy of this staff report has been sent to the Avesta Development Group.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes - Avesta
2. Resolution Approving the Community Benef it Agreement between the City of Dublin
and Avesta Development Group
3. City of Dublin Community Benefit Agreement
19 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCIL File #410-60
O`LIFOU
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager J
SUBJECT: Authorization of Residential Units and CommercialSquare Footage from the
Downtown Dublin Development Pool and Related Community Benefit Agreement
Deal Points with Avesta Development Group
Preparedby Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Avesta Development Group is proposing the construction of a Senior CareFacility at 7601
Amador Valley Boulevard. Theprojectincludes 40 Senior Apartments, eight High-Acuity Senior
Assisted Living suites, and 32 Memory Care suites. The Applicant is seeking the reservation of
40 residential units and 9,614 commercialsquare feet from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Development Pool. The Applicant will enter into a Community Benefit Agreement with
negotiated deal points as described in this Staff Report. The City Councilwill consider reserving
the allocation from the development pool and authorizing the preparation of a Community
Benefit Agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. All costs associated with processing the future development application will be borne by
the Applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that theCityCouncil authorize the preparation of a Community Benefit
Agreement with Avesta Development Group that includes the negotiated deal points
summarized in this report and direct Staff to begin processing the developmentapplications
associated withthe proposed project.
I
Submitted By Reviewed By
irectorCommunityDevelopmentDirectorAdministrativeServices
DESCRIPTION:
Avesta Development Group is seeking to develop a Senior Care Facility project at 7601 Amador
Valley Boulevard, a nearly one-acre site with a vacant commercial building (formerly occupied
Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 8.1
by a deli, a nail salon, and a legal office). This site is located in the Retail District within the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, as shown the figure below:
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
f
oo( , . . C .
DA
M
P
k
TheDowntown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) identifies the number of residential units that may
be constructed in the Plan area and establishes a "Development Pool" that containsthese units.
The DDSP also allows commercialdevelopment on eachparcel at a Base and a Maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the Retail District of theDDSP, the Base FAR for eachparcel is .35
and the Maximum FAR is .60. The difference between theBase and Maximum FAR is also kept
in the Development Pool. For instance, on a parcel of land that is 100,000 squarefeet in size,
the Base development potential is 35,000 squarefeet (BaseFAR .35) and up to a Maximum of
60,000 square feet (Maximum FAR .60). The parcel could be developed with 35,000 square
feet of building by right, but to develop up to 60,000 square feet wouldrequire square footage to
be reserved from the Development Pool.
As background, the total unit allocationfor all districts in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is
as noted in the Table 1 (below). Wicklow Square (54 units at the SeniorCenter) is not included
in thesenumbers since it wasbuilt and occupiedbeforethe DDSP was approved.
Page 2 of 5
Table 1: Residential Development in Downtown
DDSP District Total NumberNumber of Units Number of Units Units
of Units in Constructed Allocated/Reserved, but Remaining
District per the not yet constructed
DDSP
Retail 400 0 70(Trumark on Regional) 330
Transit Oriented 1,900 309 (Connolly Stn.) 379 1,212
313 (Bay West)
66 (Eden Veteran's)
Village Parkway 200 0 0 200
TOTAL 2,500 309 449 1,742
A developer must request CityCouncil authorization to pull both residential units and any
commercial square footage above the Base FAR from the Development Pool and must provide
a benefit to the community to do so. A Community Benefit Agreement is used to ensurethat a
benefit is provided and establishes a timeframe in which the developer must construct the
project. Anyresidential units orcommercialsquare footage is returned to the pool at the end of
the establishedtimeframe ifnot constructed.
The developer, Avesta Development Group, has prepared a concept site plan and conceptual
elevations for the development of a Senior Care Facility on the project site. The project includes
40 Senior Apartments, eight High-Acuity SeniorAssisted Living suites, and 32 MemoryCare
suites. The40 Senior Apartments will be independent living units that areage-restricted.
Residents of these apartments have the opportunity tolive independently or to utilize assisted
living services in an "a la carte" fashion.
The eight High-Acuity suites will be designed for seniors who need regular assistance with daily
living. However, the residences will have full kitchen and bathroom facilities for independent
living as well. These suites will be located on the first floor of thebuilding in close proximity to
thecommon areas and services in the facility.
The Memory Care suites will be designed for seniors who have been diagnosed with
Alzheimer's or other forms of memory impairment which make it impractical to live
independently. The MemoryCare suites offer privacy but all meals, housekeeping, activities,
etc. are provided for the resident.
Theproposedbuilding is four stories with the High-Acuity suites on the first floor along with the
interior common spaces such as the kitchen and dining facilities, activity room, and gathering
spaces. TheMemoryCare suites are on the second floor along with another dining area,
common living space, and exterior balcony. The independent SeniorResidences are on the
third and fourth floors with an exterior patio and common spaces for these units. The concept
plans are included as Attachment 1 to this staff report.
ANALYSIS:
In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the independent Senior Apartments are
consideredresidential uses while the High-Acuity and MemoryCare suites are considered a
Page 3 of 5
Community Care Facility, which is a commercial use. The proposed building size
encompassing all uses) is 69,217 square feet. Of this, 44,627 square feet is devoted to the 40
Senior Apartments (residential uses) and24,590 squarefeet is devoted to the High-Acuity and
Memory Care suites (commercial uses). Based on the size of the parcel, the amount of
commercial development allowed by right (BaseFAR) is 14,976 square feet. Therefore, the
Developer is requesting the reservation of 40 residential units from the DDSP Development Pool
as well as 9,614 commercial square feet (the difference between the Base FAR (.35 or 14,976
square feet) and the proposed commercial space FAR (.60 or 24,590 square feet).
In order to construct the project, the applicant will need approval of a Community Benefit
Agreement, Site Development Review, and a Conditional Use Permit for both the Community
CareFacility and a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed Parking Reduction for this specialized
use.
Avesta Development Group and City Staff have discussed the terms of the proposed
Community Benefit Agreement, as follows:
Avesta Development Group wouldreceive an allocation of up to 40 unitsfrom the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Development Pool for the Senior Apartments. In
exchange for the allocation of development capacity, Avesta will pay a Community
Benefit payment of $10,000 per unit, for a total of $400,000, or will construct physical
improvements in the Downtown area of an equivalent value. Potential improvements
includethe construction of streetscapeimprovements along Amador Valley Boulevard
including bike lanes), installation of a Storm Drain Trash Capture Device to treat the
larger watershed area, improvements to Fire Station 16 on Donohue, or a combination of
the above.
This is the first project to utilize commercialsquarefootage from the DDSP Development
Pool. The City is in theprocess of determining the value of the 9,614 squarefeet
requested from the Pool. This amount, once determined, will be reflected in the
Community Benefit Agreement that will be considered by theCityCouncil at a later date.
The applicant will have two years from approval of project entitlements, which in this case
will be Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permits, to utilize thereserved
units and commercialsquare footage.
Under the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, the proposed project wouldrequire the
construction of five units of affordable housing (12.5% x 40 units). However, Staff and the
Applicant are still in discussions regarding the most appropriate means in whichthe Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations should be addressed given the uniquenature of the proposed residential
units (age-restricted in a full care setting). The determination on whether the units will be
provided on-siteor whether compliance will be addressed by paying an in-lieu fee per unit will
be reflected in the CommunityBenefit Agreement.
City Council authorization to prepare the CommunityBenefit Agreement does not imply any
endorsement of the development project. The applicant will need to submit a Site Development
Review and Conditional Use Permit application for complete review. If the CityCouncil
authorizes the reservation of the units and squarefootage from the Development Pool and
directs Staff to proceed with processing the above applications, Staff will work with the Applicant
on the following items:
Page 4 of 5
1 . Design and architectural review, including a complete review of the building elevations,
site plan, and driveway location;
2. Review of a parking analysis to ensure that thereduced parking standard proposed for
theproject will meet the demands of the users and ensure no spill-over parking into the
adjacentneighborhoods;
3. Finalizing the value of the commercial square footage reserved from the Development
Pool, themeans of complying with the InclusionaryZoningRegulations, and finalizing the
terms of the Community Benefit Agreement.
Staff recommendsthat the CityCouncil authorize Staff to prepare a Community Benefit
Agreement that contains the deal points as described in this Staff Report. The Community
Benefit Agreement will be brought to theCity Council forconsiderationafter the Planning
Commissionapproves the Site DevelopmentReview and Conditional Use Permit for the project.
If the application does not move forward, or the project is not approved, the 40 units and 9,614
commercial square feet will not be reserved from the Development Pool and the Community
Benefit Agreement willnot be approved.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLICOUTREACH:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Conceptual Project Plans
Page 5 of 5
YK
IN
III Q J
LU
LU
1
f m
LU 1-u
0
CL
Lu
171 '!
I s. J
Q
Uo
LL
zLU
0 LU
U '
Iva
1
X111 r
llllfll 11111
I
jll 7 , Inllril I fr
k•
it L i
1 1 err
V
l
l
w
LJJ
CC) _ J Lr)
Ir^1
J
N
O
U
V z N _
aoz Q O a Q JW
n
N m W
S
v
W Q
M
A CL
F-
z
199L
r
d air; I
W Q O
is i{h U N
CL Z N
w O
LU
n W Q
p 1
LO N
Cf) z
W
O EDED
y
v
1 uoi 5
C7oCO y
CO CO
O v tr
IL 1.-
1:4-L
H
z O a o "
O Qa z
U ii
LU O U Q LL
J
cn
z O_ O Q Qz J z
Q U ~ W 2 E U
z UwUcn O
N c z O X D - w o
Q M 't Qa D U W m U > Q
ILIL
D bM bjS
CL
i
Q
w u
m
I H
Z u)
W u a W Qm
u i U N
a N
JP 9
sou
j mR> >x >
W
QOM
D m
u i ' X
A m
o
lu x
Y
I D
o u m l W Q
D / a P
Iw
U
Ip
N
P QL
NmLUO
oz 1 W'
0N
I OL
Z
mo
0 a 2
LL a z oo
Q ad buy I
N Ow NNE ¢
U
5'C PARy z
yO U wW
o
s w wNO owa o
U °o-o g?o
O uLLo
i
H
w
O a C)
o
k O7QrlZ
LU D O U Q LL
J
cn
Z O_ O Q Q JZ Z
QOZ w 2 o v z v O
w H U wtY
Q m ' a ? c) w m U > Q N
IL
co~
U ~ Lu ElElElElEl El El
QQ
IZ
1 D
I O
II
Z Ln
W Q o
I I 2u C
U I I Z N
I OJF-
I I J m
W
U I I p
W Q
U I to
II
z I
0 I INaU
o ou
II
LLLL U
U Q ° U
I I
S m
w J
o o
i
i
H
w
O
a U
o / '
OCN
C7 Q z
LU O_ U LLJ
i W t
U
w O Z U Q
H
Q N ' Q OU W m U >
co~
U ~I Lu El ElElEl El El
QQ
IZ
1 D
I O
C9 II
N II
i Z Ln
I I U
C Z N
m I OJF-m
W m
I I piOW Q
o o II
i D C9 I
i
LU I Q
C9
i C9 II LUm
II W
i O I
i i o
i
O Cf) w
m I
o m
II
I i D V II
II1zo
J o0 I I
s0
O I Imw
C9 I
u,
LU
C9 o
CO '
N /LU
0 m i
LU
Q
C9
C9
H
w
O
a OC7QZ 3:\/
JLUO_ U LLJ
i W
U w O O z -1 U QQW0Uu
ry. oj O
N m w Z O X W LL
Q 'N t Z:) U W m U >
co CL
U ~I Lu El El ElEl El El
QQ
CL
1 D
I O
i m II
ICN
I I U 0
o II
N m I Oz
cj
m
I W
I I pio
o II W Q
o
m
IIi
Lu I Qim
i m II
i I I LV
O
o LU
i m
o m
i D II
1 \z s I
J o
O
wCO w Q
CO D
5
w
V \Dm m
N /
V \p m
m
o
V \ m
O
N n
QZ
J
CL
O Z
00
00
E
Arm
o O
m
00
0
oCLo
mN
pNCONO
CO 't co 00
I^
00
W Q O00
2 U N
i
N N CL Z N
U 0 —
p E J m
W00 0U c
3 mm 1 W Q
U)-
I' N
0 og
N
m W
P
EOO
m
o g
E cO
J 00
0o m" D
0 Eg Q)
0
s E L
O c
m a
m
J
N ro
I A M
LN N
LU
c
LL
LU
CL Z
LU
LU
LU
1 +rf+.11lfll lllfllllj
a ;i Ilh l l 11 IIIIII
F'
11- • ¢ j'
i``i`_.
4-
i
1
9
r O H
T_
W
W U
rYVa
0
wLLI
a
W0
sx f D
LU LL
w
O
X11 W Q o
r U N
CL Z N
J J c~n
LU
L !7 W Q
W
r
1
R.e
J
1
Ur
ire 'Y,t'
C— ~ '
F
Y
llIlnuw
1 11111 1rirlrillr , fir,, .
E
Y
t IIAVIe u11111111)111)1111)I?iiwlYl.!.lIu!rnuum wynmE sl+wn_wuur E_
1 attnnuur_ nmpm I} u i
i li
k
idl T11
4
iE
1"d
aw q
E
i
O N
i
W
mu-
JL Zw
w Lo
ZO
y+4 z
1 LU ZwZ
4 I Q 0
LU
CL 5;
LU
LU
I+++m+
CL
L
R
C U N
CL1
O
z
Fjmcn
LU
D
W Q
W
N
3 Ip`
J/
I
r 7 y
0
J "
k
P•
r• 1,
00
T.
4 0
LU
LU
LU
CL
ro,
1 Ire-
i
Eu
LU
ujI
r
1,1.
M
V a
G PlanningCommission Minutesn
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 22,
2016, in the City Council Chambers located at100 Civic Plaza. Chair Kohli called themeeting
to order at 7:00 p m
PresentChair Kohli, Vice Chair Mittan; Commissioners Do, Bhuthimethee and Goel, JeffBaker,
Assistant CommunityDevelopmentDirector, Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, Kristi Bascom,
Principal Planner; Martha Aja, Associate Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Mittan and seconded by Cm Do,
on a vote of 4-0-1 (Cm Kohli abstained) the Planning Commission approved the minutesof the
February 9, 2016 meeting
ORALCOMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLICHEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA-2015-00058 Avesta Senior Care FacilityProject - Site Development Review and
Conditional Use Permits for a new assisted living/senior residential care facility in
Downtown Dublin
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the project proposed 36 parkingspaces
Ms Bascom answered that the Applicant has revised the plans and there are now40 parking
spaces proposed
Cm Goel asked to compare theheight of this project to the Trumark Regional Street project
Ms Bascom responded that the height of the Trumark Regional Streetproject is approximately
45 feet and theproposed senior care facility is proposed to be approximately 56 feet in height.
Cm. Goel askedthe height of the adjacent buildings.
Ms Bascom answeredthat the adjacentcondominiums are two stories and the apartments on
Donohue Drive are also two stories
CmGoelfelt that a two story buildingwould be approximately 25-28 feet
Ms Bascom agreed
Cm Goel felt that the proposedbuildingwould be approximately twice the height of the
surroundingbuildings
Ms. Bascomstated that the proposed building is four stories and the surroundingbuildings are
two stories
Cm. Goel asked for a comparison of the FAR for the proposed project and the Trumark
Regional Street project
Ms. Bascomanswered that the producttype is very different because the Trumark project is for
ownershiptownhomes at 60 units on2 6 acres. She stated that the proposed project is a 1 acre
site which is much more intensely developed with a variety of residential and commercial uses
Cm. Goel felt that the proposed project is 30% more dense on the 1 acre site
Ms Bascom stated that the unit density is not viewed in the sameway because residential
density would be approximately 35 units and commercial is based ona per square foot basis
CmGoel was concernedabout theparkingreduction and asked if the assumption is that 2 out
of 3 employees would be takingpublic transportation.
Ms Bascom stated that the parking study was based on the assessment of a similar facility that
operates in a similar manner She stated that the study did not assume the number of
employees or visitors, but onlyreviewed how many cars were at the facility at a certainpoint
and what percentage of theparking field was being occupied at anygiven time and is that
parking sufficient
CmGoelasked what the proximity is to alternativetransportation at the facility that was used in
the study
Ms Bascom stated that the studyfacility is located in Pleasanton and is further from transit
opportunities than the proposed project. The proposed facility is withinthe downtown area,
within a reasonable walking distance to shopping, etc , as well as busroutes along Amador
Valley Blvd
CmGoel asked aboutthe methodology used for the parking analysis
Ms Bascom responded that the methodology for theparking analysiswas to look at a facility
that wascurrentlyoperating and it's parkingsupply and demand Shestated that they also
looked at the industry standards She stated that the studyconcludedthat, based on a "reallife"
scenario, this facility would be sufficiently parked with 40 spaces She stated that, if the project
were considered only asan assisted living facility, they would only be required to provide 40
spaces, which is what is proposedHowever, because of the 35 senior apartments, it is hardto
know to what degree those residents would take advantage of the assisted living amenities,
therefore, the conservativeapproach would be to applythe senior parking ratio to this portion of
the facility
Cm Goel mentionedCondition of Approval #10 regarding a Transportation Demand
Management Planand asked, if parking becomes an issue, what would be the options the
Applicant could take to alleviate the issue
Ms Bascomanswered that the project Applicant/Operator will provideshuttleservicefor
employees toand from the BART station, transitsubsidies, and staggered shift changes to
reduce the peak parking demand for the project
CmGoel asked if theseshuttle and transitsubsidies are meant for the employees only.
Cm Bascom answered yes, theshuttle would be for the employees and suggested that the
Applicant can answer whether he will offer the service to the residents. She stated that, the
Condition of Approval reads "after six months the facility will provide a follow-up parking study
to the City with the assessment of the parking conditions " If there is spill over that is
impacting adjacent properties then the Applicant will need to submitadditional transportation
demandstrategies for the facility The Applicant/Operator will instituteadditional transportation
programs that will lessen those demands She felt that typically the parking demand mostly
comesfrom the employees not the residents, who tend to not be car owners and visitors who
come on a sporadic basis
CmGoel asked if the community care facility has24/7 care
Ms Bascom answered yes
Cm Mittanasked which trees on the project site will remain and which will be removed.
Ms Bascomanswered that, on Amador Valley Blvd , the treewellswill be enlarged, tree grates
placed over them, missingtrees will be replaced, and two additional street trees will be planted
Per thetree survey, the on-site trees are proposed to be removed The Applicant will determine
if any of the trees can be retained or relocated on-site and will do soif possible
Cm Mittan asked what type of fencing or wall will be installed at the back of the project andat
what height
Ms Bascom stated that the Applicant providedthree options for the fence/wall in the package,
but the intentwas to have a discussion with the neighboring condo HOA to see whatwould be
preferable Shefelt that the heightwould be 6 feet in height, which is typical, but it could goto 8
feet which is not unusualfor a commercial project
Cm. Mittanasked if the wall/fencewould be consistent alongtheentire back border, including
thefire station area.
Ms Bascomanswered the wall would be consistent against the condos and the Applicant will
replace the wall that separates the site from the fire station.
Cm Mittan was concerned about noise from thefire station as well as noises from the project
and asked if the City has a recommendation regarding the height of the wall to lessenany noise
pollution
Ms Bascom felt that that the City would nothave a concernregarding the height of thefence
Cm Mittan asked about the public art component of the project and if it has been worked out
withthe Applicant
Cm Bascom answeredthat, at the SDR stage, the Applicant is asked to identify whether they
intend to satisfy the public art requirement on-site or pay in-lieu fees She stated that, per the
City Ordinance, either option is up to the Applicant The Applicant has stated that they would
liketo have public art component on the cornerbecause of the way the plaza is designed
Cm. Mittan wasconcerned about pedestrian access to the senior center and asked if any
additional measures would be taken for the safety of the seniors crossing the street.
Ms Bascom stated thatthere is an existing crosswalk at the intersection which functions and
does not feel that any changes needto be proposed
Cm Mittan was concerned with the noise component because of ambulance and fire trucks, etc
entering the project from time to time
Ms Bascom suggested that the Applicant can speak to the frequency of noise at the site but
she did not have the impressionthat it would be a problem for nearby residents.
Cm. Mittan asked if there was any outreach to the neighborhoods regarding theproposed
project
Cm Bascom stated that the City mailed the typical public hearingnotice and the Applicant has
done outreach and held a community meeting with limited attendance
Cm Bhuthimethee asked what the concerns were of the one attendee at themeeting.
Ms Bascom noted that the Applicant can answer that question
Cm Bhuthimethee asked about the fence, the wall and the screen at the back of the property
and when the wall stopsand the screening starts
Ms Bascom answered that the privacy screen wallswill provide a buffer to the windows at the
ground floor residential units along Amador Valley Blvd There will be a 40 inch screen wall and
another on the interior of the project which is 6 feet high She stated that thewalls are the
perimeter boundaries on the project separating the project from fire station and the condos
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if thewallwill be stepped down as it gets closer to Donohue Drive
Ms Bascom answeredthat the level of detail has not been discussed but agreedthat at the
driveway exit it would be important to be able to see around the corner
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if they will they be removing the row of mature olive and almond trees
that are on-site
Ms Bascomansweredthat the trees are proposed to be removed She stated that the
Applicant is determining if any of the trees can be retained, but the parking area is close to the
property line which would make it difficult
Cm Bhuthimethee felt it would be sadto lose those trees because theycreate a nice buffer
Chair Kohli opened the public hearing
Mohammad Javanbakht, Applicant, Avesta Development Group LLC, spoke in favor of the
project He introduced his team members and gave an overview of the project
Patrick Morris, Fehr & Peers, spoke in favor of the project and presented an overview of the
parking study
Mr Javanbakht responded to the questionregarding comparing this type of community with
strict residential uses, such as the Trumark Regional streetproject He stated that the average
size of the unit is 432 square feet compared with the average townhome unit which would have
approximately 1,800 square feet. He stated that the proposed units would be occupied by one
person who does not drive compared to residential units that are occupied by two to four
residents who usually have two cars.
Chris Morris, architect, spoke in favor of the project and addressed the design of the project and
conceptual landscape plan
Cm. Do asked for a breakdown of the units
Mr Javanbakht answered that there are 32 memory carebeds, 13 high acuity assisted living
unitsand 35 senior apartments He stated that, of the total 35 apartments, there are four 2 bed
units, of which 11 are studios, and the rest are 1 bedroom units
Ms Do asked why there are 2 bedrooms units
Mr Javanbakht answeredthat someresidents move in with a partner ormove from a larger
home and are not ready to move to a 1 bedroom or studio, they feel more comfortable in a two
bedroom until they are ready for a smaller unit
Cm Do wasconcerned about the 2nd floor memory care units having balconies.
Mr Javanbakht answeredthat there are no balconies on the 2nd floor units forsecurityissues.
Cm Do wasconcerned about the outdoor patio on the 2"d floor for the memory care unit
Mr Javanbakht answeredthat there is a large outdoor screen on the balcony
Cm Mittan asked if they have othersimilar facilities near the proposed project.
Mr Javanbakht responded that they have communities under development currently and their
focus is to makethese communities look more like condominiums and hotels, andnot the typical
senior housing He stated thathecould reference other facilities that look similar
Cm. Mittan wasconcerned withthe balconies facingwest and the Dublinwind and if there will
be wind screens on those balconies
Mr. Morris responded that they are not that far into the design to addressenvironmental issues,
like wind screening, but it is somethingthey could addto the balconies in the future
Cm. Mitten asked where the delivery area would be located
Mr Javanbakht answered that deliveries will be made at the back of house
Cm Mittanasked if there would be delivery of medical gases and oxygen
Mr Javanbakht answered that therewould not usually be these types of deliveries and that
residents would bring their own.
Cm Mitten asked if the rooms would be wired orplumbed for oxygen
Mr Javanbakht answered no
Cm. Mittan asked if there will be room for the growth of the new street trees that will be planted
at thefront of the project
Mr Javanbakht answered yes
Mr Morris stated that they had a tree study done, butthere was no arborist involved. He
pointed out that the trees are located against the curb and there was no damage to the sidewalk
fromroot growth He added that they would determine how best to replace the sidewalk if
damaged and not upsetthe existing root growth
Cm Mittanstatedthat he was more concernedwith the canopy of the tree than the roots
Mr Morris statedthat the building is set back enough to accommodate the canopy of the trees
Cm Mittanasked how what the setback is for the resident's building
Ms. Bascom asked which residence he was referring to
Cm. Mittenstated he was referring to theexisting condos
Ms Bascom stated that she did not know the distance from theproperty line to the first condo
building
Mr Javanbakht pointedout the closest unit within the project to the condos
Cm Mittan asked how staffing will affect theparking issue. He askedhow the parkingallotment
was estimated and if it was based on facilities that the Applicant owns or a neighboring facility
Mr Javanbakht answered that the number of employees that were considered for theparking
study was based on the assumption that the entire building will run as a true assisted living
facility with high acuity residents.
Cm Mittan asked if therewill be morethan one shuttle provided for the employees.
Mr Javanbakht stated that there will be at least one shuttle and they will evaluate the demand to
determine if there is a need for two shuttles
Cm. Mittan asked if the parking space for the shuttle will takeaway from the 40 proposed
parking spaces
Mr. Javanbakht stated that the shuttle driver willremain on-site and will park the shuttle in the
loading zone area and the driver can move the shuttle if needed
Cm Mittan asked for an explanation of the function and use of therooftop courtyards
Mr Javanbakht stated that the secondfloorcourtyarddedicated to the memory care floor is for
indoor/outdoor dining There is also a state requirement for an accessible outdoor space for
memory careunits
Cm Bhuthimethee was concerned aboutthepublic view and how this project fits intothe
community Shestated that shelikesthe materials for the project, but feltthat thegrey balcony
at the front of the project is largeand imposing and asked if therewas a way to soften the
portion that wraps aroundthe front corner
Mr Morrisagreed and stated that there are a lot of ways to soften the appearance of the
balcony which may mean that they step back the darker band at thebottom.
Cm Bhuthimethee felt that they may be able to use some of the other texturalmaterials to
soften the look
Mr Morris agreed to work with the Applicant to soften the balcony
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if their landscape architect was present
Mr. Morris statedthat no landscape architect has been assigned to the project as yet
Therewas a discussionregarding the materials for the landscaping and the conceptual
landscape plan and making the project more pleasing
Cm Bhuthimethee askedabout the proposed wallalongthe back of the propertywhere there
are almond and olive trees
Mr Morris stated that the wall would be part of the project and theyprovided three examples of
the wall and plan to have a discussion with the condo HOA regarding what they would prefer
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the wall would eliminate the trees or the parking
Mr Morris stated that the trees will be part of the discussion withthe landscape architect and
the HOA
Cm Bhuthimethee wasconcerned about thelarge olive tree on the corner of Amador Valley
Blvd and Donohue Drive and asked if it would be retained
Mr. Morris stated that the tree would not be retained with the current plan unless it could be
relocated
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the health of the tree
Mr. Morris stated thattheydid not know the health of the tree
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the trees along Amador Valley Blvd willbe saved
Mr Morris answered yes
Cm Bhuthimethee felt that it wouldbehelpful in mitigating the size and stature of the building to
retain those trees
Mr. Morris felt that thetrees would help stepdown thatapproach and soften the look
Cm Bhuthimethee was concerned that the bio retention area in frontof thebuilding is a lined
structure and no treeswill be able tobe planted between the building and the sidewalk, which is
already verynarrow
Mr Morris stated that the area will be predominantly grasses and succulents
Cm Bhuthimethee wasconcerned withthe screened fencing alongthe back of the sidewalk,
and felt that it seemed unfriendly, like the project is turning their back on the community She
felt that the only people who will be able to enjoy the landscaping are thepeople in thebuilding.
She was thinking about the community and the thousands of people who pass by the building
andhave to look at the fence
Mr Morris felt that is a question for the operator but felt that the screen is very transparent
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the screenedfencing could be eliminated so that the community can
enjoy the landscaping as well as the residents
Mr Morris answered yes, but the operator will make thatdecision based on their desire to
maintain privacyfor the residents on the ground floor
Cm Bhuthimethee felt that the residents' privacy can be maintained within their unit with blinds
and shades
Ms Bascom commented that the publicworks engineers were concerned and want a barrier
because of the nature of the bioswales and making sure that between the sidewalk and the drop
off that there is a buffer for safety
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if, instead of having a solid screen wall, there could be a metal railing
that is transparent allowingthe public to see the landscaping as well.
Mr Morris stated that it is a possibility
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant would be willing to screen theparking from the
Starward Drive side
Mr. Morris stated that there are trees and shrubs in the area to screen that area
Cm Bhuthimethee feltthat the area was only grass
Mr Morris stated that there needs to be a more developedlandscape plan to address these
issues
Mr Javanbakht stated that they want to maintain the trees, especially the maturetrees, to the
greatest degree possible.
Cm Bhuthimethee felt that, if theolivetree is to be move it should be somewherethat the public
can see it
Mr Javanbakht agreed and felt that the trees soften the lookof the building He stated that they
may be able to move it towards Amador Valley Blvd He stated that he would consult with an
arborist to make sure it can survive in that location butwould want to maintain as many trees as
possible
Cm Goel pointed outthe wall at the west side of the building that is solid grey and agreed with
Cm Bhuthimethee regardingthe starkness of that area as well He did not like the shade of
green on the color and materials board He asked for an explanation of theparkingstudy and
the number of employees because he is concerned about theparking ordinance and the
methodology used for the parking study
CmGoel discussed the parking study and the number of employees included in the study and
asked the Applicant to explain
Mr Javanbakht gave an overview of the parking study and the employee ratio withinthestudy
Cm Goel was concerned that there is no street parking
Ms Bascompointed out the street parking on StarwardDrive, along thecondominiums and the
shopping center which is public parking and not metered. She stated that theparking analysis
was done to showthat all of the needed parkingfor the site could be accommodated on the site
CmGoel asked why thefireaccess circulation is from Amador Valley Blvd. through the site to
Donohue Drive where thefire station is located and not the other way around
Ms Bascomansweredthat the driveway will remain in the existing location as the entrance to
the site
Cm Goel was concerned with the shuttle parked in theloading zone if therewere an emergency
with a fire truck and an ambulance blockingthe facility
Ms Bascom stated that the fire lane is 20 feet wide through the site which is what the fire
department requires Shestated that any parking on site would not encroach into the fire
access lane
Cm Goelfelt that having both a fire truck and an ambulance would stop circulation on the site
Ms Bascom stated that thefire department reviewed the site plans and were satisfied with the
way the site circulates.
Cm Goel asked if the fire department reviews thesite plan for their purposes only or do they
include other vehicles
Ms Bascom answered that the fire department reviews for any emergency vehicle that would
needto get on the site and servethebuilding She stated that the fire department makes sure
thatthere is a clear fire access circulation on site, and there would beroom to park a fire truck
that is close enough to the building to get all their equipment where it needed tobe
Chair Kohli asked the average age of the residents in assisted living
Mr Javanbakht answered the average age is 82
Chair Kohli asked what the average length of staywould be
Mr Javanbakht answered the average stay is 2-3 years.
Marlene Masetti, resident spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned with the size
of the building and felt it wastoo large for the small lot. She was also concerned about the
parking, losing retail in the downtown area and no low income housingincluded in the project
Marie Marshall, resident, spoke in opposition to the projectShe stated that shedoes not object
to the concept, but felt that it is in the wrong location She wasconcerned withthesize of the
project, the landscaping, views, parking, height of the building, architecture, taxes, school
overcrowding, and taking away retail in the downtownarea
Steven Litzsinger, resident, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he is representing his
aunt and uncle, Art and Monica Silva, long time Dublin residents He felt that this is a great
project and that senior care is needed in the area He felt thatthis project is an important
addition to the community and urgedthePlanning Commission to approve the project
Mr Javanbakht thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity for rebuttal He stated
that the parkinganalysis was performed by a specialist comparing similar facilities and actual
uses He stated that they are including more than the number of parkingspaces needed for this
type of facility based on his experience of running 200 other facilities He added that the
parking is important to him because he wants to provide the best residential experience as
possible He stated that it would notserve him as an owner of the building to have a facility that
is under-parked He felt that thisproject is very different from a strictly residential project and
most of the residents don't drive and the care providers and most staff will use public
transportation He also spoke regardingthe conceptual landscaping plan and stated that it
doesn't show theactualsize of the trees He stated that the renderings areto showcase the
building, but in reality there will be large trees, and they will try to maintain the large trees or try
to relocate them He stated that they will be planting more trees and felt that therewill bemore
trees thanthereare today.
Cm Mittan was concerned with light pollution and asked if there was a lighting analysis
completed and what the lighting plan will be for the building and theparking lot
Mr Javanbakht responded that they will follow the lighting code He stated that there will be
enough light to provide safety to the building but would be respectful of theresidents
Mr Morris statedthat thelighting plan is not planned out as yet but a photometric study will be
conducted as required through the permit process
Cm. Mittanasked about the proposed driveway materials
Mr Morris responded that the material will be concrete or asphalt
Cm Mittan asked if there wereanyareas where upgraded materials would be used.
Mr Morris responded that they have not discussed that yet, but felt it was a good point, and
suggested that theycould use a stained concrete or paver in the drop-off area and the driveway
on Starward Drive and Donohue Drive
Mr. Javanbakht stated that there is a Condition of Approval regarding lightingand thatthey will
adhere to thatcondition
Cm Do asked the plan for affordable housing in this project
Mr. Javanbakht responded thatthere have been discussions with City Staff but it has not been
finalized as yet but he stated thathe would follow the requirements
Cm Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm Mittan regarding installing decorative pavement at the
Starward Drive and Donohue Drive entrances and felt it would soften the look
Mr Javanbakht agreed
Cm Bhuthimethee asked Ms Masetti to return to thepodium. She statedthat Ms Masettiwas
concerned that the buildingwas too tall and under parked and asked what she wouldthink if the
building were threestories tall
Ms Masetti statedthat she would be in favor of a threestory building which would be more in
line with the surroundingbuildings Shewas concerned with landscaping and felt there was not
enough room for it at the front of the building and withthe parking
Cm Bhuthimethee felt that a three-story building could alleviate the parking issue
Ms. Masetti agreed
Mr Javanbakht felt that the project is well suited for the location and the proximity to the senior
center, it is within the downtown area and within walking distance to shopping, transportation
and easier for visiting family He stated that thenumber of units and the height of the building
were studied very carefully and felt that it would not be financially feasible to build the facility at
three storiesbecause of the high costof operation He stated that the building is sited
appropriately for downtown He mentioned that the Eden housing facility that is located behind
the Senior Center is a four story building and higher than this project
CmGoel asked to view the aerial photo and asked how manystories the Eden housing building
is
Ms. Bascom answered thatWicklow Square by Eden housing is three stories over parking
which is the equivalent of four stories
Chair Kohli closedthe public hearing
Cm Do asked if the 35 residential units are part of the residential pool for theDDSP.
Ms Bascom answered yes and stated that there are 400 available units in the DDSP, 60 of
thosewere allocated to the Trumark Regional Streetproject and 35 would be allocated to this
project, if approved.
Cm Mittan feltthat thissite was an appropriate place for the facility with a central location to the
senior center, shopping and fire station next door, etc He wasconcerned with the parking and
felt there could bean issue. He stated that he likes the style of the building and that it is
different butnot too different as to be out of place and fits well withthe senior center and the
nearby retail. He wasconcerned with closeness of the building to the sidewalk and the existing
largetrees and their growth. He suggested that the Applicant consult an arborist and mitigate to
the best of their ability He was also concerned with light and noisepollution, and feltthat they
should mitigate noise and light pollution to the adjacentcondos
Cm. Goel felt that the project has good amenities; he liked the garden area and the rooftop
courtyards He felt that the project is something that Dublin has been looking for He liked the
connection to the senior center He felt that the Applicant is being a good neighbor by meeting
with the condoHOA He was concerned with traffic He wasnot sure that the communitywants
a building with an urban model for senior care with a commercial look" CM Goel is concerned
with the height of building but noted that the Eden housingbuilding is four stories in height and
asked what the actual height ofthatbuilding is He wasconcerned with the building's proximity
to the edge of the roadway, the height of the building and the fact that it is on a curvewhich
could cause an issue if a vehicle lost control He wasconcerned about theparking conditions
and spokeabout the Trumark Regional project and that parking issue He agreed withCm
Bhuthimethee regarding the fencing on the front of thebuilding and stated that there is the need
to softenthe look of the balcony also. He felt that there are nice elements to the project and that
it is something thatDublin needs, he understands the importance of the proximity to the senior
center but felt the facility could be located somewhere else
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if there is anage categoryforlow income housing
Ms Bascomresponded that the Inclusionary Zoning Requirements do not specify an age
category
Jeff Baker, Assistant CommunityDevelopment Director, stated that the City has an affordable
housingprogramwhichallows for either building the units, paying an in-lieu fee for a portion of
units or, at the direction of the City Council, pay an in-lieu fee that goestowards other affordable
housing programs He stated that the City contributed $6 million to the Eden veteran's housing
project which came from the affordable housingfund. He stated that the City Council has
directed staff to look for opportunities to partner with an affordable housing developer on
another affordableproject thatmight be geared towards a specific segment of the community
that is in need He stated that there is a needto increase that fund in order to meet the City
Council's goals He stated that the Applicant has had discussions with thehousing staff
regarding what would makethemost sense, no decision has been reached as yet and it would
be the City Council's decision He added that some of the direction from thehousing staff may
be a preference forfundsrather than building at thesite.
Cm Bhuthimethee stated that the Applicant will pay in-lieu fees rather than having the units on-
site.
Mr Baker answered that the decision has not been made as yet
Cm Bhuthimethee understood butpreferred to have on-site affordable units for the seniors
Shewasconcerned withthe height of the building and felt the building is massive for the site
and the landscaping area is limited Shefelt that if this project were to go down to threestories
it wouldalleviate a few concerns that the community and the Planning Commission have
regarding parking and the height of thebuilding. She suggested that, if a threestory building
would not work for the Applicant, perhaps a stepping down or step backShe asked if the
Planning Commissioners would support that change.
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the City Councilgave directionregarding allowing the units from the
housing pool to be used for this project or if they were aware of how many units wererequired
for this project
Ms. Bascom stated that the project, at the time the City Council reviewed it for theunit
allocation, was proposed at the same size, scale and location
Mr Baker mentioned that the City Council did not approve the project but they reserved the
units so that the projectcould moveforward through theentitlement phase He stated that,
while they reviewed the conceptualdrawings and did not raise any red flags regarding the size
of the building, the CityCouncil did not reviewthe SDR and theywere not asked for feedback
But theDDSP allows a building up to 75 feet in height in this district, the Planning Commission
is reviewing the design of the building etc
Cm Bhuthimethee askedthe Planning Commissionerswhat their thoughts are on the three
storyversus a four story building
CmGoel feltthat the issue is not just the height but the closeness of the building to the street;
he would support a stepped approach butthe Applicant stated that it would not be economically
feasible He was not sure if thatwould give Cm Bhuthimethee what she wants unless she was
looking for a total mass height with a setback
There was a discussion regarding a four story buildingversus a threestory buildingand how
that wouldchange the project Cm Goel mentioned the possibility to reduce the height of the
floor plates
CmGoel made a motion, to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Cm Bhuthimethee, on a
vote of 4-1, Cm. Mittan voting no, Chair Kohli reopened the public hearing
Chair Kohli askedthe Applicant to return to the podium He felt that the Planning Commission
has concerns regarding the height of the building and understanding what feasible options are
available to reduce the height
Mr. Morrisresponded that the primary consideration for the height of the building is the
structural system and the infrastructure for the building, i e the mechanical, electrical and
plumbing systems He stated that if theyreduce the floor to floorheight there would not be
enough room for those systems He stated that first floor needs additional height for services
14-16 feet), if they switched to a different structuralsystem, which has notbeen determined,
whether steel beams or post tension slab without beams, it's a very complex question.
Cm Bhuthimethee asked if there was a way to reduce the height of thebuilding.
Mr. Morris responded that it is a possibility once they have determined themost efficient and
economical structural system, but it would be reduced by inches. He was reluctant to agree to a
Condition of Approval because they don't know if they would beable to meet that reduction but
stated that they could try to reduce the size of the building as much as possible
Mr Javanbakht stated that a typical wood frame buildingwould be approximately 45 feet in
height He stated that the reason this building is taller is because, percode, a four story senior
housing building must be built out of noncombustiblematerials which is either metal or concrete
He stated that he cannot answer thequestion specifically, but once the structuraldesign is
complete he will work to makethebuilding shorter
Cm. Goel asked if the Applicant would like more time to come back to the Planning
Commission
Mr Javanbakht stated that they have gone through many designschemes and did not feel that
additional time wouldchange the design, based on the number of units, for theproject to be
feasible He stated that he is not in a position financially to go through another redesign
Cm Mittanasked if one of the designs included flipping the parking and the building so that the
parkingwas located in the front of the building.
Mr Javanbakht yes, however, theDDSP requires that the building be closer to the street, also
did not want to locate the buildingclose to the adjacent buildings
Cm Mittanasked if part of the reasoning for the site layout was the DDSP requirement
Mr Javanbakht answered yes, and part was for consideration of the neighbors
Chair Kohli closed the public hearing
Cm Bhuthimethee felt that the height can only be reduced by a few feet and asked Staff how to
word a Condition of Approval
Mr Bakerresponded that the Applicant has indicated that there are design considerations that
would drive their ability to meet thatcondition He suggested that the Planning Commission can
direct Staff to workwith the Applicant to explorethose opportunities to reduce the height of the
building, but he feltthat the Applicant couldnot commit to that today. He stated that Staff can
workwith the Applicant duringthe plan check stage
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that senior housing is needed in thiscommunity and felt that is good
project, the location is perfect being near the seniorcenter and nearother senior housing, it is
locatedwithin the DDSParea and will add this community to the downtown that could bring in
vibrancy She felt that it is a good project with a good location but felt there should be some
conditions
1 Prior to approval of plans the Applicant shall improve the appearance of the outer facade
of the third story balcony with the useof compositewoodpanels orother complementary
materials in order to soften the appearance of the large balcony; and
2 Prior to approval of the landscape plans the Applicant shall specify a cut stone pavement
material or concrete unit paver or decoratecolored concrete paving at the corner plaza
as illustrated on the plans; and
3. Provide a rich veneer material or complementary materials at the raised planters in the
plaza, and
4 Addressing thescreen at the back of sidewalk using a decorative metalrailing for
transparency so public can share landscaping and enjoypublic realm view, and
5 Show the wall orthe fencebetween the proposed building and firehouse to step down as
it approaches Donohue Drive; and
6. Pier footing to be employed to promote the preservation ofexisting trees alongthe
proposed wall, and
7 Screen theparking alongStarward Drive from the public view, and
8. Protect and preserve or transplant the olive tree on the corner of Amador Valley Blvd and
Donohue Drive and to preserve the street treesalong Amador Valley Blvd. Removal of
those treesonly on certified arboristexamination that they cannot be preserved, and
9 Decorative vehicular paving at the drop-off and entry and exit pointsalongStarward Drive
and Donohue Drive with colored or stampedconcrete or pavers; and
10 To work with staff to reducethebuilding height where possible.
Cm. Mittanadded that the area on the west side of building should be enhanced as well
Cm. Goel stated that his requestwas to soften the west sideof the building in a similar fashion
as the third floor balcony on the front of the building He felt that the architect agreed to make a
connection between two sides
Cm Do was concerned with the number of additional conditions being proposed and wasnot
sure that was the best way to handlechanges She felt that the Applicant will takethePlanning
Commission's thoughts into consideration
Cm Bhuthimethee felt that, if these are not a condition, the Applicant is not required to do it.
She asked Staff if it wasnecessary to include conditions
Cm. Do asked if the landscaping plan would be brought to the Planning Commission.
MrBaker answered that the final landscape plans would notcome back to thePlanning
Commission but the formallandscape plan would be based on the conceptuallandscape plan
He stated that if there is something that the Planning Commissionspecifically wants to see they
canmake it a Condition of Approval He stated that Staff hears thecommentsthat the Planning
Commission is making and feltthat, though not a Condition of Approval, Staff wouldexplore with
these concerns with the Applicant He stated that if there is something specific that the Planning
Commission wants they canadd a Condition of Approval
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if the Applicant supports the additional Conditions of Approval that
the Planning Commission should also support them
CmMittan felt that there is no formal landscaping plan therefore, it is thePlanning
Commission's only chance forinput
Chair Kohli felt that Cm Bhuthimethee feels strongly about the Conditions of Approval that she
has suggested, but there wassome hesitancy by the other Planning Commissionersaboutthe
number He suggested either voting on eachcondition individually, bundle them together and
vote or continue to deliberate to decide which should ones should be included
Cm Mittan felt that theyshould quickly go throughthe additional Conditions of Approval and
then vote on them as a bundle
Cm Do agreed with Cm. Mitten.
Cm Goelstated he would vote no and that Cm Bhuthimethee felt that her Conditions of
Approval were driving his choice
Therewas a discussion regarding Cm Bhuthimethee's suggested Conditions of Approval
After the discussion, Chair Kohli stated that four Planning Commissioner's support voting on the
additional Conditions of Approval as a bundle
Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, suggestedthatthere are three options,
1 Make a motion as recommended by Staff,
2 Make a motion to accept Staff recommendation with the additional items as direction
to Staff,
3 Make a motion as recommended by Staff, with the 10 items as additionalConditions
of Approval.
Chair Kohli asked the PlanningCommission which they would prefer
Cm Do choose option #2 making the conditions as a direction to Staff
Cm Mittan choose option #3 making the items Conditions of Approval
Cm Bhuthimethee chooseoption #3 making the items Conditions of Approval
Cm Goel stated that his choice would be none of the above
Chair Kohli suggested having Staff read the additional Conditions of Approval and asked if the
Planning Commission should give the Applicant an opportunity to respond.
Ms Faubion felt that it was time for the Planning Commission to take action
Chair Kohli agreed
On a motion by Cm Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm Mittan, on a vote of 3-2, the Planning
Commission adoptedStaff's recommendations with conditions as stated by Cm Bhuthimethee
Ayes Kohli, Bhuthimethee, Mittan
Noes Do, Goel
Added Conditions of Approval
1 The Applicant shall work with Staff to identify opportunities to reduce the overall
height of the building wherefeasible
2 The Applicant shall work with Staff to soften thevisual appearance of the third floor
balcony at the corner of Donohue Drive and Amador Valley Blvd
3 Incorporate enhanced paving material in art plaza
4 Incorporate a visually openbarrier alongthe back ofwalk on Amador Valley Blvd.
5 Stepdown the wall on the north property line at the Donohue Drive exit
6 Consider opportunities to preserve the trees alongthe north property line
7 Transplant the large Olive tree on the corner of Donohue Drive and Amador Valley
Blvd unless determined to not be feasible by a certified arbonst
8 Incorporateenhanced paving material at the driveways and the drop-off area
9 Provide a hedgescreen at the driveway on Starward Drive.
10 Incorporate enhanced veneer materials on the seat wall at the art plaza
RESOLUTION NO. 16-02
A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITYCARE FACILITY/
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE MORRISLY AS PART OF THE AVESTA SENIOR
CARE FACILITYPROJECT
7601 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
RESOLUTION NO. 16-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING REDUCTION FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL USE FOR THE AVESTA SENIOR CARE FACILITY PROJECT
7601 AMADOR VALLEYBOULEVARD
RESOLUTION NO. 16-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITYOF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE
AVESTA SENIOR CAREFACILITYPROJECT
7601 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
8.2 PLPA-2016-00012 Dublin Infiniti Dealership Site Development Review to allow
construction of a 2,745 SF addition, facade modifications and site improvements
Martha Ala, AssociatePlanner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report
Cm Milian asked if there are any changes to landscaping plan
Ms Aja answered no.
Cm Mittenasked about round-about, at the endof the court and if that was meant to be a
decorative area
Ms Aja answeredthatnothing ever beenapprovedforthat area but the Applicant has
expressed interest in doing something more decorative
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that therewas supposed to have been an art piece in that area.
Ms Aja answeredthat the Applicant, through the development of the Kia Dealership, made a
monetarycontribution in-lieu of providingpublic art
Chair Koh li opened the public hearing
lnder Dosanjh, Applicant, had no comments
Chair Kohli closed the public hearing.
Cm. Bhuthimetheedisclosed that, early in her career she worked for Applicant but is not
currently working for the Applicant
Ms Faubion stated that as longas there is no current source of income, she is not required to
recuse herselffrom the discussion and vote
On a motion by Cm Goel and seconded by Cm Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 16- 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWPERMIT FOR A 2,754 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION, FACADE MODIFICATIONS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
DUBLIN INFINITI DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 4300 JOHNMONEGOCOURT
NEWOR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
101 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the PlanningCommission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234)
10 2 Cm Mittan asked Mr. Bakerabouttrainingfor SocialMedia guidelines Mr Baker stated
that there is no date set as yet fortraining
ADJOURNMENT-The meetingwasadjourned at 1017 50 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST
c2fake
Assistant Community Development Director
G IMINUTES120161PLANNING COMMISSIOM03 22 16 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF)docr
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DUBLIN AND AVESTA DEVELOPMENT GROUP
WHEREAS, Avesta Development Group has proposed the const ruction of a
senior care facility in Downtown Dublin at 7601 Amador Valley Blvd. (the northwest
corner of Donohue Drive and Amador Valley Blvd); and
WHEREAS, the facility is 66,787 square feet and consists of 35 senior
apartments, 13 high-acuity assisted living units, 32 memory care units and supporting
common spaces; and
WHEREAS, Avesta applied for and received approval for the project by the
Planning Commission on March 22, 2016, pending approval of the Community Benefit
Agreement by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Avesta is seeking 35 units from the residential development pool
and 10,329 square feet from the commercial development pool. In exchange for this
allocation, Avesta will pay a community benefit payment of $490,000 prior t o the
occupancy of the building; and
WHEREAS, Avesta has agreed to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 8.68
(Inclusionary Zoning Regulations) through the purchase of four Affordable Unit Credits
through the City for $100,000 per Affordable Unit Credit; and
WHEREAS, if Avesta fails to obtain the building permit for the Project within two
years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Excess Capacity reserved for
Avesta shall revert to the Pool maintained by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin hereby approve the Community Benefit Agreement between the City of Dublin
and Avesta Development Group, as attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager
to execute the Agreement and gives the City Manager authority to execute any minor
amendments to the Agreement, as needed, to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November, 2016, by the
following vote:
AYES:
ATTACHMENT 2
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
1
CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
This Community Benefit Program Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into on this day _____ of
___________, 2016, by and between the City of Dublin, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Avesta
Development Group LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”). City and Developer are,
from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a “Party,” and are collectively referred
to as “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. On February 1, 2011, the City adopted Resolution No. 9-11 establishing a “Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan” (the “Specific Plan”), which sets forth a comprehensive set of guiding principles,
standards, and design guidelines for the implementation of future development in Downtown
Dublin (“the Specific Plan Area”).
B. The Specific Plan regulates the density of development allowed in the Specific Plan Area by
establishing a “Base Floor Area Ratio (FAR)” for development in each of the three districts within
the Specific Plan Area.
C. The Specific Plan also establishes a pool of additional development potential, in the form of
1,320,220 square feet of non-residential development, 150 hotel rooms, and 2,500 residential
dwelling units (collectively “the Excess Capacity”) apportioned between the three districts in the
Specific Plan Area. The pool can be used by developers that wish to develop a project that
exceeds the Base FAR up to a defined “Maximum FAR” and by developers that wish to develop
residential dwelling units. Developers wishing to utilize said Excess Capacity must participate in
the Community Development Program and enter into a Community Benefit Program Agreement
with the City.
D. Developer proposes to develop certain property at 7601 Amador Valley Boulevard (“the
Property”), which is within the Retail District of the Specific Plan Area, and as part of its proposal
desires to develop a project consisting of 35 senior apartments within a larger Community Care
Facility that includes an additional 13 high acuity assisted living units and 32 memory care suites.
The project also includes the related parking, landscape, hardscape, and on-site amenities (“the
Project”). In exchange for the use of excess development capacity in the form of 35 residential
units and 10,329 square feet of commercial square footage to enable development of the
Project, Developer proposes to provide $490,000 (“the Community Benefit”).
E. Developer proposes to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations) by applying Affordable Unit Credits that this agreement obligates it to purchase
through the City for $100,000 per Affordable Unit Credit. The inclusionary requirement for the
35 senior apartments is four units, and therefore the Applicant will deposit $400,000 with the
City to purchase the Affordable Unit Credits to fully satisfy the requirements of Chapter 8.68.
This payment will be due at the time of building permit issuance.
2
F. Developer has applied for, and the Planning Commission has approved, contingent upon City
Council approval of a Community Benefit Program Agreement, a Site Development Review
(Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-04), a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Care
Facility/Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-02), and
a Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Reduction (Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-03)
which approvals, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to
the Project, are referred to as the “Project Approvals.”
G. The City and Developer have reached agreement with respect to the Community Benefit and
desire to express herein a Community Benefit Program Agreement clearly setting forth the
Community Benefit to be provided by the Developer, the scope and nature of excess
development capacity to be granted to Developer in exchange for said Community Benefit, the
Developer’s obligation to purchase Affordable Unit Credits to satisfy its affordable housing
obligation, and the City Council’s approval of the use of the Affordable Unit Credits under City
Code Section 8.68.040(D).
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises,
obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Relationship of City and Developer.
It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily
entered into by the City and Developer and that the Developer is not an agent of the City. The
City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership
between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in
connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or
partners.
2. Effective Date and Term.
2.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement is the first date on which all of the
following have occurred: (a) its execution by Developer, and (b) its execution by City.
2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall
extend until the earlier of the following: 1) the Developer has provided the Community
Benefit and deposited funds with the City for the purchase of Affordable Unit Credits as
provided in Section 3 of this Agreement, 2) any of the Project Approvals expires, or 3)
two years after the Effective Date if no building permit has been issued for the Project.
3. Community Benefit to Be Provided By Developer.
3
3.1 Developer shall provide a $490,000 Community Benefit to the City, specifically in the
amounts of $350,000 for the 35 units of residential housing capacity and $140,000 for
the 10,329 square feet of commercial allocation. The contribution shall be made prior
to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project; provided, however, that the
City and Developer may mutually agree that a portion of the $490,000 Community
Benefit shall be supplied by Developer constructing mutually agreed upon physical
improvements that benefit a geographic area or individuals or interests beyond the
Property and the Project. In no event shall the City be required to allow occupancy of
the building unless the $490,000 Community Benefit contribution has been provided to
the City.
3.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code
(the “Inclusionary Zoning Regulations”), Developer shall satisfy its four-unit affordable
housing obligation for the 35 senior apartments and for the Project as a whole through
the application of the four Affordable Unit Credits which may, at City’s election, be
purchased from either the City or Dublin Family, L.P., an affiliate of Eden Housing, Inc.
(“Eden”) created as a result of Eden’s construction of an affordable housing
development in Dublin (“Eden Project”). Developer shall purchase such credits by
depositing $400,000 with the City no later than issuance of building permit. The City will
use the deposited funds to purchase the Affordable Unit Credits from either the City or
Eden on Developer’s behalf in accordance with the terms of the Eden Project Regulatory
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement amends the terms of the Eden Project
Regulatory Agreement with respect to Eden’s rights to the Affordable Unit Credits or
funds from the proceeds of the sale of such credits. Deposit of the $400,000 fully
satisfies Developer’s obligation under the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the 35
senior apartment units.
4. Security Deposit.
Within 14 days of the effective date of this Agreement, Developer shall provide to the City a
deposit in the amount of 10% ($49,000). Said deposit is intended to secure the provision by the
Developer of the Community Benefit described in Section 3 of this Agreement. The City will
return the full amount of the deposit within 5 days of Developer’s provision of said Community
Benefit as required by Section 3 of this Agreement.
If Developer fails to provide the Community Benefit during the term of this Agreement, the
deposit shall be forfeited, and City shall have no obligation to return it to Developer. However,
City shall return the entire deposit if this Agreement expires without any development of the
Project by the Developer or if the Developer elects in writing to abandon its rights under the
Project Approvals and this Agreement at any time prior to the expiration of this agreement, in
which case the Agreement shall automatically terminate.
4
5. Reservation of Excess Development Capacity.
5.1 Reservation of Excess Capacity. During the term of the Agreement, and so long as each
of the Project Approvals remain in effect, City shall reserve 35 units of residential
housing and 10,329 square feet of commercial space allocated to the Retail District of
the Specific Plan Area and the Affordable Unit Credits for Developer’s use. If Developer
fails to obtain the building permit for the Project within two years after the Effective
Date of this Agreement (as such time may be extended by any events of force majeure),
the Excess Capacity reserved for Developer shall revert to the pool maintained by the
City.
5.2 Limitation on City’s Obligation. This Agreement shall not be construed to require the
City to issue any Project Approval to the Developer. City is solely required to reserve the
Excess Capacity and Affordable Unit Credits identified in Section 5.1 of this Agreement.
Other than this obligation, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from
denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for
the Project. Unless otherwise specified by this Agreement or the Project Approvals, all
of City’s applicable ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies shall
apply to the Project including, but not limited to, those governing the permitted uses of
the Property, design and construction of the Project, density and intensity of use of the
Project, and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings within the
Project.
6. Amendment or Cancellation.
6.1 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time
to time by mutual consent of the parties.
7. Severability.
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this
Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal, unless a
Party’s consideration materially fails as a result.
8. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If
any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to
challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties shall cooperate in
defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest
5
in any such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees
expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding.
9. Assignment.
Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all or portions of the Property to other developers
(each such other developer is referred to as a “Transferee”). In connection with any such sale,
transfer or assignment to a Transferee, Developer may sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee
its rights and obligations under this Agreement, so long as said transfer would not result in
development of the Property in excess of the FAR permitted by the Project Approvals. Affiliates
of Developer, including ventures in which Developer is the development partner but not the
majority owner, will not be considered Transferees for these purposes. No such transfer, sale or
assignment of Developer’s rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior
written approval by the City Manager. The City Manager shall not unreasonably withhold
approval of any transfer and the sole criterion shall be that the proposed Transferee possesses
the financial ability to satisfy the obligations of Developer pursuant to Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of
this Agreement. Developer shall submit to the City Manager any notice of Developer’s intent to
transfer, sell or assign its interest, which shall include documentation that the Transferee
satisfies the criterion. Within five (5) business days after Developer submits its notice, the City
Manager may request any commercially reasonable documents, certifications and other
information necessary to determine whether the criterion is met, and the City Manger’s failure
to request such additional information shall constitute a determination that no such further
information is needed. The City Manager will make a written determination on any transfer,
sale or assignment on or before the later of: 1) five (5) days after Developer’s submission of
additional information if requested by the City Manager, or ten (10) calendar days after
Developer’s notice of the proposed transfer, and the City Manager’s failure to object in writing
to the transfer, sale or assignment within such time period shall constitute approval of the
transfer.
10. Notices.
All notices required to be given to City under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
addressed as follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
FAX No. (925) 833-6651
All notices required to be given to Developer under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall
be addressed as follows:
6
Avesta Development Group
c/o Mohammad Javanbakht
13922 Quito Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Tel: (925) 899-8981
Email: mjavan@avestadev.com
11. Agreement is Entire Understanding.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties.
12. Legal Authority.
Each individual executing this Agreement hereby represents and warrants that he or she has full
power and authority under the entity’s governing documents to execute and deliver this
Agreement in the name of and on behalf of the company and to cause the entity to perform its
obligations under this Agreement.
13. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole benefit of
the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other persons shall have any right of action
based upon any provision of this Agreement.
[Execution Page Follows]
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF DUBLIN DEVELOPER
AVESTA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC
By: ______________________________ By: _____________________________
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager Mohammad Javanbakht
It’s Manager
Attest:
_________________________________
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Approved as to form
__________________________________
John Bakker, City Attorney