CCMIN061504 - Laserfiche WebLink

recommending will allow Valley Care to proceed with the purchase of the existing building. Veto Brown, 2378 Hampton Road, Livermore, Vice President of Valley Care, said that Valley Care made a decision to focus on medical/surgical acute services in Pleasanton and redevelop the Livermore campus for outpatiem services. Valley Care needs additional space for its physicians to continue to serve the Tri-Valley area and having this facility two blocks away from the hospital, allows Valley Care to utilize physicians in the Tri-Valley area in a shorter time period. Valley Care did negotiate the long-term lease agreement with the provision to pumhase the building that it currently occupies. He encouraged Council to approve staff's recommendation because if Valley Care has to wait until some of the uses are determined for this property, it could keep Valley Care from developing relationships with physicians who want to make major investments and the tenant improvements in the building. Ruth Haber, 3040 Flora Court, a Verona property owner, was concerned about rumors that the Verona property owners have heard about what is going to be developed on the five-acre parcel of this site. She expressed her concern about the future proposed density and how it would affect the traffic and the value of her property. If there is a proposal for high density, low-income units, she noted that the Verona residents would like to be allowed some input prior to a decision being made. Joe McAdams, 5754 Belleza Drive, a Verona resident, spoke in opposition to the subdivision. He believes there is a basis for linking this proposed development to the Bay Rock apartment proposal, which he believes is in some stage of development. He noted that the Verona residents are concerned and would like to be given the opportunity to have some input. He could not understand the logic behind subdividing this property and asked Council to deny this application until a decision is made with respect to the General Plan. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ayala, Mr. McAdams stated that the Verona residents are not opposed to Valley Care purchasing the building. He believed the application to subdivide the 10.5 acre lot into two lots should wait until the General Plan update has been completed. Diane Birchell, 5715 Belleza Drive, a Verona resident, shared Mr. McAdam's concerns. She believed that Mr. Perino and Mr. Brown made very good cases for splitting the parcel to serve their purposes. She mentioned that Mr. Periuo and Mr. Brown informed the Verona residents that their proposal docs not change the zoning, however, the two smaller parcels still need to meet the current requirements of zoning for offices. In her opinion, splitting the parcels opens the door to changing the zoning of the currently unoccupied portion. She pointed out that the proposed parcel map and existing conditions map clearly shows several smaller structures on the blank area, which she believed were not office structures but apartment units, which is why the adjacent property owners oppose this proposal. If the parcel were being separated into two "would be" office owners, the adjacent property owners would not be objecting to the Pleasanton City Council 12 06/15/04 Minutes