CCMIN090396 - Laserfiche WebLink

medical device. He alleged that the initial notices were changed to say the applicant assembles parts in order to allay the fears of the neighbors and believed this was done at Mr. Hirst's suggestion. He related numerous incidents of people thanking him for his efforts in opposing this project. He showed a number of slips given to him from people, including children, opposing the project, but declined to make them part of the public record. He urged Council to reject this application for three reasons. He had questions about the trustworthiness of Thoratec. The factory has no benefit to the neighborhood and the neighborhood expects the Council to stick to the approved plan. He presented photographs of the current Thoratec building in Berkeley which has painted on it a mural of graf~ti done by "gang" members in the Berkeley area. He questioned the judgment of the company in allowing this. The solution to graf~ti is to remove it, not glorify it. He then described the meaning of various parts of the painting. There was also graffiti on the front door of the building which had not been removed by the company. These are not the kind of people he wants in Pleasanton. He read a newspaper article regarding the mural. He felt this influences children to join gangs, paint on wails and use drugs. He also showed photographs of the garbage container for the Berkeley facility. He noted the refuse container in the Pleasanton site is situated near the employee gathering area. He had questions about the inconsistencies in the figures for the number of employees as stated in the staff report and from Mr. Grossman. He noted 10% of the building will not be filled and surmised that when it is used, the number of employees will exceed the parking allocations. Mr. Garrett related a statement from Mr. Neilsen that there was no manufacturing facility in Canada, which was refuted by a press release that said there was one in Ottawa. He referred to articles describing the two competing companies and felt it was not certain this company would survive. If there were a mandatory donor card, this company would be out of business. Mayor Tarver asked Mr. Garrett to conclude his remarks. Mr. Garrett refuted the sales figures presented by the applicant. However, he indicated he had purchased stock in the company. He then read a letter he wrote to Thoratec. Mr. Tarver indicated it was now 11:00 p.m. After discussion among the other members, he announced that the remaining items on the agenda may need to be continued. Terrilynn Johnson, 3611 Cameron Avenue, indicated she was very much in favor of welcoming Thoratec to Pleasanton. She has worked in the medical device industry for 16 years and for several years in a Class 3 industry. She is familiar with silicon manufacturing operations and agreed that Thoratec is not a "major factory". This kind of industry has very stringent regulations and are audited more than any other type company, except for the drug industry. She felt there has been a lot of misunderstandings this evening. She felt Thoratec brings diversity to Pleasanton's economy and additional professionals to the area. It is a safe company and definitely not a "factory" with tremendous emissions. It will bring revenue to the community and support local businesses. In rebuttal, Mr. Grossman indicated he was offended by the allegations of untrustworthiness. He indicated Thoratec is now in a difficult neighborhood and until now could 09/03/96 -16-