CCMIN090396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Hopkins did not believe this project was in the best interests of public health and safety. She referred to toxic spills in places where she had worked. She also related an incident where gasoline was dumped down a drain and fumes came up in a school site. She was concerned about the chemicals being used on this site and the fact there is no evacuation plan set up or a list of hazardous materials used on this site. She questioned whether this plan was compatible with the current General Plan and the previously developed properties in the vicinity. She objected to the building designs and heights. She complained the residential area will lose the view of Mt. Diablo. She does not think adequate public safety measures have been taken with regard to the hazardous materials. There are 82 conditions for this project. The other two projects, PeopleSoft and Boehringer Mannheim, had far fewer conditions. This project is different because of the hazardous materials and the changes to the PUD, employee to parking ratio and changes to the infrastructure. She felt basically the same conditions are in effect. The report was written to appear that Thoratec is doing more compromising, but they are not. As to Condition//3, she wanted the design review approval to lapse in one year, not two; Condition //15, she did not want Thoratec to use the parking structure of the adjacent building; Condition //38, she wanted the hazardous materials management plan submitted at the time any building permit application is submitted; Condition//42(d), she wanted the name of the certified toxic waste company included; Condition//56, add "and they (portable toilets) shall be kept as far as possible from existing residences." She wanted all work stopped if any archeological findings are uncovered during grading and appropriate agencies notified. (This is a condition in the Boehringer Mannheim approval.) She wanted a condition from the PeopleSoft approval regarding fire sprinklers and alarms included for this development. Additionally, she wanted all metal roofs finished with rust inhibitive paint. Finally, she did not think this application should be entertained at all for this location. She believed this was an intimidating process and did not like having her name and home address repeated in staff documents. She did not oppose the company, Thoratec. She opposed the changes in the approved PUD, the building height, etc. She urged Council to support the community and to reject this proposal. Debra Rodandi, 4461 Addison Way, Pleasanton, felt this was wonderful company that wants to come to Pleasanton. She objected to the use of an HVAC system 24 hours a day. She is concerned about the noise. She has also heard that some of the chemicals are the same used in making explosives and she does not want that in her neighborhood or near her daughter's school. This is a good company but it should be in another location away from residences. Mark Garrett, 6106 Allbrook Circle, referred to the volunteer work performed for the City by Brad Hirst and urged Council not to let that be an influencing factor for this application. He presented a copy of the flyer he sent to his neighbors regarding this project. He felt he was the only person who contacted the City staff because of concerns. Any telephone calls received by Council were a result of his flyer. He reviewed the various responses he has received from his neighbors, including 180 people who signed a petition in opposition to the application. He showed a drawing of the area that indicated all lots across the street from the project had signed his petition opposing the project. He has spent a great deal of time in the Berkeley public library researching this company and talking to Councilmembers. He stated this application was a "factory" that manufactures parts which are then added to other parts and assembled into a 09/03/96 -15-