PC 071404 - Laserfiche WebLink

.- Tomi Van de Brooke, Director of Land Use Policy, California Alliance for Jobs, noted that they were alabor/management partnership representing 2,000 construction firms and more than 50,000 union workers in Northern California. She urged the Commission to consider the proposal made by the applicant to open the dialogue on this issue. She noted that Granite invested more than $4 million at this site because they believed they had vested rights and historical recognition that this was an appropriate land use for asphalt. She noted that they provided the asphalt for the area, paid high-wage union jobs, and generated nearly $500,000 in tax revenue for the area. She believed that they were working in good faith to resolve this issue. Courtney Barnes, 71 Renown Drive, Tracy, was called but was not in attendance to speak. Joss Williamson was called, but did not wish to speak. Eric Buckles, Phantom Avenue, San Jose, was called but was not in attendance to speak. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, asked the Commission to recommend that the Council send the letter and asked the Planning Commission to send its own letter. She noted that this had been a very messy planning issue and added that she wrote a letter in September, 2002 to the East County Planning Commission immediately after the plant was constructed and received no response. She noted that the smell from the plant wakes her up at 4:30 a.m., making it impossible to sleep or take a walk outside. She noted that while it had been lessened this summer, it is still noticeable. She noted that the complaint process with the Air District was cumbersome and ineffective. She disagreed that the applicant had vested rights for this use, and when the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan was created, an EIR was circulated for comment in January, 1999. Responses were received from Zone 7 and the City of Livermore. One of the longest responses was from RMC Lonestar, who wanted to ensure that all the new residents would know that they had mining operations in the area and a disclosure statement for noise and dust from mining operations. She noted that there was no mention of smell. Ms. Roberts noted that the response to Comment 81 stated, "Mining on the project site would be required to comply with the 1981 Livermore Amador Valley Quarry Reclamation Specific Plan, the Alameda County Surface Mining Ordinance, and the Surface Mining Reclamation Act; existing individual permits are subject to periodic review by the Alameda County Planning Commission." She expressed concern that this asphalt plant was not reviewed, that there was no heazing, and that the City of Pleasanton was not notified. She believed that the Negative Declaration was filled out in a perfunctory manner and strongly urged the Planning Commission to send this letter. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas whether her complaint was with the County, Ms. Roberts replied that RMC Lonestaz also bore some responsibility. She added that the residents were not informed of this operation and added that there were visual impacts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2004 Page 20 of 24