PC 121102 - Laserfiche WebLink

experience with finding an assisted living facility out oftown for her mother. She believed it was necessary and valuable for Pleasanton residents to have such a facility in town that provided a continuum of care. Commissioner Sullivan inquired whether any residents from Mercy Retirement & Care Center would relocate to this facility. Ms. Hertel replied that approximately 20 residents may move to Pleasanton, and added that another program in Oakland may be preferable for them. Their initial marketing would be focused on Pleasanton residents, and that they anticipated it would be a Pleasanton resident program. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Ms. Hertel noted that they would continue to fundraise in order to increase their endowment fund. The fund would provide affordable units for low income seniors, and their own operational funds would be used for that purpose as well. The pro forma demonstrated that a certain amount of market rate units were needed in order to support the affordable units. She estimated that a minimum of 15% of the units would be affordable units. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson replied that staff was still working out the details with regard to a firm commitment for affordable units, and hoped that it would become a firm condition of approval. He noted that the applicant seemed strongly committed to providing affordable units. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Ms. Hertel replied that their charitable care policy was not based on religion, but was based on income and assets. Ms. Randolph emphasized that they did not discriminate by religion in any way. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan regarding grading, Mr. Ivelich displayed the details of the grading plan, the access road, and the green space. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson replied that the 67% FAR was due to the fact that the building was partially three-stories. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Ivalich confirmed that the facility in Oakland was nondenominational. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Ms. Hertel replied that their license stated that a resident must be age 60 or above, or have like needs. She noted that a person younger than 60 who required assistance with physical or cognitive needs would certainly be able to live there. She noted that admission was first come, first serve, and that if an apartment was available after an assessment was performed, they would move in. She confirmed that a younger person would not be considered a lower priority if their needs were consistent with the facility's services. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 2002 Page 8