Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Boykin indicated one of the materials alluded to by Ms. Hopkins was considered an <br />acutely hazardous material, but there is only one-half gallon on the premises. If there were a <br />spill, it would be totally controlled within the clean room. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if the operations were expanded, would the amount of chemicals change <br />significantly. <br /> <br /> Ms. Boykin asked that question of Thoratec and was told it would not. The room that <br />is being proposed is designed for the expansion and the use would be at the low end of the scale <br />when the building is first occupied. Notice to the Fire Department is required anytime there is <br />a change in the chemicals or an increase in chemical quantities. She also indicated the hazardous <br />materials management plan is a public document. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated she has spent a lot of time talking to Mr. Garrett about his <br />concerns. Her only concern is in regard to the long term use of the building and the parking <br />for future tenants, if Thoratec did not stay there. A new tenant may have more intense uses and <br />require more parking. She felt it might be appropriate to add a condition regarding the number <br />of employees and require a review of the PUD if a more intense use of the building is ever <br />proposed. She commented on the graffiti issue raised by Mr. Garrett and felt this was a <br />situation of attacking the victim. Berkeley is a very different environment than Pleasanton and <br />requires different responses. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti said she had spent a considerable time with the planner discussing the <br />building site, orientation of the buildings, and reviewing the concerns raised by Mr. Garrett and <br />the statements in his flyer. Her question was whether the neighbors had access to the staff <br />report and understood the application, not just what was in the flyer. She appreciated the <br />thorough presentation of the applicant, because she had not had a chance to meet with them <br />before the meeting. After talking to the planner, personally viewing the site and the amount of <br />screening on the site, and the parking available, she felt this orientation was the best for the site <br />and that the building screens the parking lot. This company provides an important function and <br />brings a new use that has been encouraged by the Economic Development Plan. This will <br />provide employment for people who have had to commute out of Pleasanton. She indicated she <br />had been on the Planning Commission when the LA Glitz project was approved for this site and <br />she believed that application with massive retail would have had night time and weekend traffic, <br />lighting that would affect the neighborhood and other impacts that are not present with the <br />current application. She supported the extended testing condition and pointed out that if any <br />other use were to use that site a full review by staff and Council would be required regarding <br />the proposed chemical use. She also supported a public hearing at the time the testing is turned <br />over to Thoratec for self-monitoring. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico indicated this has been a long meeting. He shared Ms. Dennis' comments <br />about the graffiti. That is not a relevant issue in this decision. He has worked in difficult areas <br />of Oakland. He did not agree with the solution, but understood the issue. He also worked for <br />a company that was looking for a research and development facility in Pleasanton. That <br /> <br />09/03/96 -19- <br /> <br /> <br />