My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
090407
>
18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2007 5:19:51 PM
Creation date
8/30/2007 5:19:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/4/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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).
View images
View plain text
inaccurate; it appears that the Air Quality Management District did not confirm with the <br />County the existence of any CEQA documents.) <br />The plant took approximately one week to construct (Granite disputes this point) and <br />once it started operation in the summer of 2002, it had an immediate, negative impact <br />on the area, most significantly as to odors, noise, and lights. Because oil derivatives <br />are used in producing asphalt, the plant produces a smell similar to that produced by oil <br />refineries. When the plant produces rubberized asphalt, the odor intensifies and has a <br />smell similar to roof tar. Initially, the plant's pneumatic valves made a loud hissing <br />sound which could be heard some distance away. Also initially, the lights on the plant <br />had no deflectors and during darkness lit up the surrounding area. In response to <br />complaints, Granite took steps to reduce the noise and to deflect the lights; the <br />smell/odor, however, remained. There are also aesthetic issues with the plant, as many <br />consider it to be visually obtrusive within the Vineyard Avenue Corridor. <br />Residents and City staff contacted the County on several occasions to ascertain how <br />this plant was allowed to be constructed without a public review process. Over the <br />course of a year, a number of meetings were held between residents, Supervisor <br />Haggerty, County planning staff and City staff in an effort to determine what could be <br />done to address the plant's location. In October 2003, the County Planning Department <br />sent a letter to the then property owner RMC Pacific Materials notifying RMC that the <br />plant needed to be moved in that its current location constituted a nuisance. RMC was <br />advised that unless the plant were moved, the matter would be brought to the County <br />Planning Commission for consideration of revoking RMC's Surface Mining Permit, its <br />Quarry Permit, or both. <br />There followed a number of hearings before the Alameda County Planning Commission <br />but there was no resolution concerning the relocation of the plant. <br />In January 2005, representatives from the City, the County, Granite and RMC Lonestar <br />met in an effort to resolve the matter. Agreement was reached in principle that the plant <br />would be moved by the spring of 2009 assuming certain conditions were met (e.g., <br />another site on the RMC property could be prepared, the City would contribute toward <br />the relocation cost, Granite could produce rubberized asphalt on a limited basis, etc.). <br />The City insisted on some type of public review process concerning the relocation, not <br />wishing to impose on others in the County the same surprise that our residents <br />experienced when the plant was put up almost over night. <br />Over the next two and a half years, negotiations over the details were off and on. <br />Recently, the County planning staff indicated that the County and Granite were close to <br />reaching an agreement on the timing of the plant's relocation, and that the Board would <br />be taking action at its July 31 meeting. The Board approved the MOU unanimously on <br />July 31. <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.