CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Sullivan said that was what he was trying to identify. Is there a way to identify what services are provided to those residents to see if it looks like a pure assisted living facility. Mr. Fialho commented that there is nothing to compare to locally. He believed the developer was the one to answer the question. Rick Ashenbrenner, Continuing Life Communities, indicated the main thing that distinguishes this project under the law from the other projects being discussed is that they'are subject to the Health and Safety Code, are specifically defined, and all the units are operated under an assisted living license. That means the developer is required to provide various assisted living services. The construction is different and has to meet different occupancy codes, fire codes, and there must be constant monitoring. This is very different from independent living. The people who occupy the units have to qualify healthwise because there is an insurance part of the program. It is different for those in the duets as well because it makes a better project and looks better. Some people prefer to live in the houses rather than apartments. The services provided to the people in the houses are the same as those in the apartments. Mr. Sullivan asked if there was a typical profile of people who occupy other projects that range from completely independent to requiring skilled nursing. Mr. Ashenbrenner said the residents are completely independent when they first come into the development. They are completely dependent when they are moved to skilled nursing. His company is required to care for them all the way along, whether they are independent or not. He noted the average age when a person comes into the project is 79 years and the average time of residence is 12-15 years. He said people come to the facility because they have needs for the services, such as food, security, housekeeping, etc. but they want to appear to live independently. Mr. Sullivan had two questions for this: is it true to the precedent being set and is it true to the intent of the housing cap? He did not feel he had enough information to say one way or the other. He thought the 65 units should count against the cap, but he was not sure about the rest. He wanted a profile of the levels of independence that residents have in these types of units to get some kind of formula to equate to numbers of units. If 50% of the residents are independent, then 50% of the units should be counted. He was not comfortable saying all or nothing. He was still not agreeing to 766 units and wanted further discussion about affordability. He agreed with many comments from the Planning Commission about growth management. When it was first enacted, there was a real need, but now construction is not even meeting the allocation of 350 units a year. He wanted to keep that 350 limit because there may be some project in the future, such as Hacienda, which wanted to build many units quickly. That could impact infrastructure and quality of life. He agreed with the staff recommendation that an annual growth management report is not necessary, but he wanted to keep the 350 goal which can be modified based on what comes forward. He believed the jobs/housing balance was irrelevant because of the housing cap. What was more Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 14 11/29/05