Laserfiche WebLink
_ see what positive results could come of sending the letter to the County and urged the <br />Commission not to send it. He suggested entering into a meaningful dialogue so that <br />everybody's interests could be met. He did not believe that the County could revoke the <br />permit for the asphalt plant. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Boreston confirmed that they <br />had not been able to obtain the building permit from the County. He believed that it was <br />related to this controversy and the fact that they planned to hold a hearing. He added that <br />they had not received a formal answer regarding the reason. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Boreston advised that they applied <br />for the permit on March 5, 2004. There were no representatives from the County <br />available to speak. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Boreston confirmed that the plant <br />was not portable. He noted that they did operate a portable plant at one time for a <br />CalTrans project. The permanent plant was constructed at a later time. He noted that <br />they were operating under their land use permit. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan whether there was an expiration date <br />for a CEQA finding for a use 27 years later, Ms. Nerland replied that the 1977 application <br />was for a different location on the property. She noted that reliance on prior <br />environmental reviews depends on whether there were changes in circumstances, <br />"' impacts, or the project. <br />Commissioner Sullivan believed that the CEQA document should have been updated <br />with the addition of 180 houses and a school. <br />A discussion of the County's role in the CEQA permitting process ensued. <br />Bill Hanna, General Manager, Associated General Contractors of California, <br />1310 Willow Pass Road, Concord, noted that he represented the professional organization <br />for engineering and building contractors in the State and added that Granite Construction <br />was one of their major members. He spoke positively of their reputation, business ethics, <br />and community participation, and urged the Commission to not send the letter in <br />question. <br />Mike Dunlap, 1620 South Loop Road, Alameda, Director of Safety Training and <br />Enforcement for the Operating Engineers, Local Union Number 3, noted that he <br />represented the members that work that Granite Construction. He noted that it was his <br />job to ensure that the applicant made every effort to provide a healthful workplace. He <br />noted that there had been no evidence that any action by the plant was injurious to <br />anyone's health, and he did not believe that the plant constituted a nuisance, as defined <br />by Ms. Nerland. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2004 Page 19 of 24 <br />