PC 071404 - Laserfiche WebLink

or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use in a customazy manner of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance. A public nuisance is one that affects, at the same time, the entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal." She noted that given that definition and the comments received by staff regarding the odor and visual impacts, staff has drafted a letter for the City Council to consider sending to the County Planning Commission, encouraging the County to follow through on the 2003 statement that the use is a nuisance and needs to be removed or relocated. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the County had the ability to levy a fine if the plant was not removed as required, Ms. Nerland replied that she was not certain of the specifics of the County ordinance. Under State law, a civil action, injunction, or abatement may be pursued. Commissioner Sullivan noted the conditions for Air District Permit were fairly strict and noted that some of the information provided with the application was questionable. He inquired whether the City could approach the Air District with concerns about the permit and requesting its review and, if the permit application was not accurate, whether it could be revoked. Ms. Nerland replied that the City would be able to take that action. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas regazding the portability of the plant, Ms. Nerland confirmed that the plant was built in one week. She noted that representatives of the plant were in attendance to answer technical questions about the plant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN. Jeff Boreston, Environmental Manager, Granite Construction, 535 West Beach Street, Watsonville, submitted a packet of materials to the Planning Commission, including the letter referenced by staff. He noted that the letter addressed many of the items included in the staff report and that it explained why the facility is a legally permitted facility. He explained the permitting process with the Air District and noted that the County had not been aware of a school in the vicinity. Upon further research, Granite's attorneys stated that the question on the application checklist referred to an actual school, not a proposed school. He noted that they measured a difference greater than 1,000 feet by GPS measurement to the school property anyway. They had also checked the yes/no item on the Air District application indicating that the project had gone through the appropriate environmental review. In retrospect, he believes that they should have included an explanation regarding how the land use was permitted and added that they had gone through the appropriate reviews and hearings with the County to allow for an asphalt plant on this piece of property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2004 Page 17 of 24