PC 08/14/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . Mr. Garrett then stated that he does not believe this "showcase intersection" should have the back side of a building located there. It presents the wrong image for Pleasanton. Mr. Garrett noted that the staff report states only 15 % of parking lot vehicles will use the Stoneridge driveway, and that 80% of the employees are not Pleasanton residents. He then questioned the statement that this application will be good for Pleasanton jobs. Mr. Garrett stated that he does not believe the parking calculations used will provide adequate parking for Thoratec and the BofA. Mr. Garrett questioned the quantity of plastics to be stored on site; he is concerned that a fire could be toxic depending on the amount of plastics stored. Mr. Garrett then mentioned a lawsuit brought against Thomas Properties a few years ago, and questioned if the City really wanted Thomas Properties handling a project with sensitive issues for the City. He also said that his "ace in the hole" relating to community values will be brought up with the City Council. Briefly summarized, Mr. Garrett feels other properties in the Hacienda Business Park would be better suited to this type of land use and size of project; he can't understand why Thoratec needs this particular parcel; he is afraid of lowered property values with a manufacturing plant across the street instead of a smaller in height retail center and high-end sit-down restaurants; once the zoning is changed, there is no going back. Mr. Garrett is also concerned with the additional amount of traffic on Stoneridge Drive generated by the Thoratec employees, the vehicular noise, the noise caused by the building's HV AC system, the insufficient amount of employee and bank parking, and the amount of plastics to be stored in the Thoratec complex. Commissioner Cooper asked if Mr. Garrett would be as equally concerned with the noise at night coming from a retail center and restaurants, believing the vehicular noise would be greater than the noise generated by a office/laboratory building at night. Me. Garrett advised that he had heard that Thoratec would have a second shift at this location. Me. Garrett ended by asking the Commission to uphold Thoratec to the project conditions of approval. Kathy Hopkins, 6106 Allbrook Circle, is concerned for her property values, and she does not believe that a manufacturing facility will aid in holding up her property value. She was aware of and happy with the BofA building and the retail zoning for the property. If the Commission changes the PUD, it can never revert back to the commercial/restaurant uses; it will always be light manufacturing with all the exemptions. She feels a 40 foot bobcat truck will have difficulty maneuvering in the parking lot. Ms. Hopkins is also concerned about the proposed landscape and the time it will take for mature growth and the influx of more insects/pests. Ms. Hopkins is also concerned about the visual appearance on Stoneridge Drive when viewing the back of the building, why isn't the front of the building facing Stoneridge? She is also concerned about traffic and the lack of adequate parking for BofA customers. Further, Ms. Hopkins would like to see the building be only one story in height. She also inquired if the other business park property owners were consulted about giving excess floor area to the applicants. Mr. Iserson clarified that the square footage is allocated to the business park as a whole, and this project would take about 10% of the excess footage. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 14, 1996