My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 071404
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 071404
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:45:49 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 1:15:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/14/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 071404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
_ 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.