PC 071404 - Laserfiche WebLink

,-. Mr. Boreston indicated that they had discussed this issue with the Air District and that the Air District had sent letters to all residents within 1,000 feet of the school. At that time, they responded to the letters but did not deny the permit. He noted that many allegations had been made about the plant and believed that some did not have a factual basis. He did not believe that the applicant had not been found in violation of any ordinance or rule and that no formal abatement process had taken place; he added that there had been no factual findings. He stated that if they had been required to shut the asphalt down, it would have been shut down. He emphasized that Granite Construction was not the kind of company to defy legitimate authority. He believed that this process had become political and that several actions had been taken without due process. Mr. Boreston advised that Granite had taken measures to improve the plant to be a better neighbor, such as removing and redirecting the lighting as well as conducting a noise survey. The noise specialist found that the company did not violate any noise ordinance; Granite also implemented several noise reduction measures. Mr. Boreston noted that the staff report reflected three remaining concerns: 1. Odor: Anew odor control system has been proposed, consisting of a tunnel that the trucks drive through when loaded with asphalt; the system captures and filters the odors out of the air. The system has been delivered, but they have not been able to obtain a building permit from the County. He noted that they were trying to mitigate the odor issues, but that they cannot proceed without the building permit. "- 2. Health effects: The school district hired an air quality expert to perform a study, who concluded that the asphalt plant would not pose a significant risk to the children. 3. Visual impacts: A berm has been constructed between the plant site and the Vineyards Avenue property, and the plant has been painted. The plant comprised a small part of the overall industrial view. Mr. Boreston noted that this had been an industrial site since the 1950s and believed that this was an example of urban growth encroaching on an existing industrial area. He noted that the school had been proposed for a piece of property that was reasonably close to industrial property that could have had a similaz piece of equipment constructed on it at any time. He noted that this was a permitted use for this property and that Granite had invested in excess of $4.2 million on it. He added that Granite would not have made that investment without the certainty that the use was legitimately permitted. Mr. Boreston noted that he appreciated the concerns raised by the community and would like to continue the dialogue to address the continuing concerns. He did not believe that removing the asphalt plant was an appropriate remedy. He noted that the staff report suggested that the plant be removed and did not believe there were any factual findings to support that recommendation. He noted that the applicant worked through the CEQA process frequently and believed that the suggestion of removing the plant was essentially rewriting the rules. He believed that the communication had broken down and added that it was important to identify what should be done to satisfy the community. He did not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2004 Page 18 of 24