My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 061108
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 061108
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:37:33 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 11:58:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/11/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 061108
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
would be more socially based than medically based. He added that regular <br />participation in activities was very important. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired whether the applicant was concerned about the <br />presence of the creek next door with respect to the Alzheimer's patients. Mr. <br />Rockwood replied that while they envisioned the community to have many <br />residents who would be able to walk around freely, their Alzheimer's residents <br />would not be walking freely to the park and the creek. He noted that the <br />Alzheimer's patients would be highly supervised and that staff took all hazards <br />seriously. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether any tenant above the first floor would <br />be required to be ambulatory and able to manage the stairs. Mr. Rockwood <br />replied that the facility would be built to a very high fire standard and would be of <br />anon-wood, non-combustible structure. He added that in terms of evacuation, <br />that would be worked out in the building-permitting phase, in cooperation with the <br />Fire Marshal. He noted that they regularly met these challenges. <br />Chair Blank inquired whether a flag had been raised with respect to the <br />applicant's due diligence when the two to three stories had been referenced in <br />the 1985 documents. <br />Bill Lindstrom, Sunrise Senior Living, noted that they had met with staff and the <br />Planning and Community Development Director as well as with the City Council <br />and that there had been some confusion regarding this matter. He added that <br />they also consulted with an attorney, who came to the same conclusion that it <br />was afour-story. <br />Chair Blank asked Mr. Lindstrom if Sunrise initially preferred athree-story <br />project. <br />Mr. Lindstrom replied that they thought athree-story project would be a more <br />attractive alternative. <br />Chair Blank requested clarification that they did not propose three stories but that <br />they thought the initial approval was for three stories. <br />Mr. Lindstrom replied that as Mr. Rockwood had stated earlier, they thought that <br />they believed the three-story design would be a design that would be both more <br />attractive and superior and that the neighbors would embrace it; however the <br />neighbors did not and so the applicants went back to the original design. <br />Chair Blank inquired if staff had advised them that four stories was the <br />appropriate number of stories. <br />Mr. Lindstrom replied that staff told them that consistently, all the way. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 15 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.