PC 121102 - Laserfiche WebLink

explore ways to address those concems. She noted that some aspects of the program had been made in response to previously expressed concerns. She added that this program was urgently needed in Pleasanton, as well as across the country. She emphasized that ElderCare was committed to being a good neighbor to the residents of Pleasanton. Paula Hertel, ElderCare Alliance, urged the Planning Commission to keep the human component of this project in mind. She described the continuum of care, including assisted living, dementia care, in-house rehabilitation, and skilled nursing services. She noted that this continuum of care provided a higher quality of life for the residents than if they were forced to move to use the same services in different facilities. George Ivelich, project architect, HKIT, introduced his partner, Rich Caldwell. He noted that they had examined the site very carefully, and added that their firm has had extensive experience with senior housing. He added that they had designed the senior facility on Case Avenue in Pleasanton. He displayed the site and described the immediate boundaries to the property. He noted that a topographic survey of the property showed that there was a fairly flat plateau in the upper third, which sloped to a drainage swale. He described the anticipated grading of the property, and noted that the access road from Bernal also served the church. He pointed out the main features of the plan, and noted that the parking would be distributed through the front of the site. He expected all traffic to utilize the Bemal access point. It was deemed necessary to design a loop road around the site would be for emergency access only. Mr. Ivelich noted that they intended to retain as many of the existing trees as possible, to serve as buffer planting. Because they intended to lower the building, the back end of the building would be graded by ten feet. He described the attributes of each building, and acknowledged the neighbors' concerns about the three story building. He added that they incorporated mitigations to those concems, and believed that it made for a better building. He noted that each unit always has a view to a garden, which was essential for aesthetic appeal from the neighbors' points of view and to the residents. Rich Caldwell described the land use, including footprint, open space, and paved areas for parking. He noted that the building would take up on 37% of the site, and added that there would be extensive landscaping on the site. He noted that 48% of the site was retained for landscape open space. Ms. Hertel noted that the project was more than bricks and mortar, and added that the programs for the seniors were essential. She described the floor plans and highlighted the design features. She noted that there was a central dining room, a private dining room for special events, an arts and crafts room, and a multipurpose room for larger assemblies. A chapel was designed in the central courtyard. She noted that there were many exterior gardens, and emphasized that it was very important to design the building so that people had indoor and outdoor space. She noted that the social aspects of the property were very important to the residents' quality oflife, and added that the walking paths throughout the property enabled people to access the gardens. Seniors they interviewed emphasized the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 2002 Page 6