PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

park. She noted that the seniors relied on people to help them and supported this project if the size could be mitigated. She noted that in the past, no building was allowed on the hills and that there were now buildings all over the hills. Jill Salmanca noted that she had not received a notice. She stated that she did not have problems with a senior center in her neighborhood; however, she was not in support of a building of the size and mass of the proposed project. She expressed concern about traffic around this development and noted that Foothill Road was too close to this site. She was concerned about parking congestion on Pleasant Hill Road and asked the Planning Commission to not make a finding of substantial conformance. Lou Ellen Casell noted that she had also submitted a letter and added that there were two creeks near the site and was very concerned about the environmental impacts, particularly on Gold Creek. She inquired how the statute of limitations could have expired for appeal if it could not be demonstrated that the public was notified about this plan. She believed that the applicant's mission was honorable. She did not oppose having a senior facility nearby but opposed the impact it would have on their quality of life. She requested clarification on the number of external staff that would travel to the facility on a daily basis. Chair Blank invited the applicant to reply to the public comments. Mr. Rockwood stated that the 2006-07 proposal did not go through the full proposal and that they had withdrawn it when the difficulty of having a dialogue with the neighbors about modifying the proposal became apparent. It had been their intent to bring this back with a legally binding document and have adjusted their proposal accordingly. They were open to working with the neighbors, providing they could find a framework in which to have the dialogue. Dave Gates, landscape architect, stated that there appeared to have been a miscommunication and that they had been restricted by the process in working with a product created in 1985. He noted that Sunrise did an excellent job in working with communities and that they manage their facilities well. He noted that it would be very important to work with the community and fully express the nature of the project properly. He believed the applicant team was a good one and was willing to work with the community and the City. Mr. Gray noted that with respect to the floor area ratio (FAR), this Planned Unit Development was very specifically designed to the project site and did not require design review. The General Plan stated that where there was an existing approval via PUD, it was deemed to be in conformance with the provisions of the General Plan. He emphasized that they wanted to be responsive to the neighbors and would like to have an opportunity to use a mediation process. He believed the most sensible way to make that work was to affirm the determination PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 21 of 28