CCMIN080304 - Laserfiche WebLink

the City in terms of asking that certaia things are done. The decision as to the fate of the asphalt batch plant, at least in the initial stage, will be up to the County to decide. He noted that the County would hold a tmmber of hearings prior to anything happening with respect to the asphalt batch plant. It appears that Granite Construction Company is interested in holding a dialogue with the County and the City to move the process along. Mayo Pict asked if the Coun!y has the ability to require amoratizing the use permit for the asphalt batch plant prOPerty like the City did earlier with the nuclear laundry use? Mr. Roush said that amortizing a non-conforming use is not unique to the City of Pleasanton. The County would need to conclude that it cannot cause the particular plant to be relocated and it could take certain actions to render the use a non-conforming use and then set up an amortization schedule by which it would need to be removed over a certain period of time. He noted tha~ there would be a good-faith dispute over what the length of it should be, but it is an option that the County could consider. Ms. Ayala was interested in ereating a forum to allow for discussions as Supervisor Haggerty has been very receptive. She believed the proposed letter is initiating the process. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roush said that the area in question is not within the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Although there were certain County areas that were in Plan, this area is not one of them. Mayor Pict asked if the area in question is within the City's sphere of influence? Mr. Roush believed that the area is within the City's sphere of influence. Ms. Ayala pointed out that her reference to the Specific Plan was the gateway to the vineyards of the Valley. She believed this issue would have been addressed if there had been a public process before the iplant was approved. She believed that RMC had been a part of the review process during the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. It was moved by Ms. Ayala~ seconded by Ms. Hosterman, to authorize Mayor Pict to send a letter to the Alamed~ County Planning Commission expressing the City's position that the asphalt plant be removed from its current location. Ms. Hosterman seconded the~motion for several reasons. She believed it was the Council's job to watch dog for the best interests of the people of Pleasanton, residents and businesses alike. This asphalt batch plant has presented a real nuisance issue for a number of Pleasanton residents in th{it part of town, and based upon that, she believed this was the next logical step for the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Campbell believed the a~gument is compelling, but he believed sending the letter expressing the City's position is jumping the gun. He would prefer to allow Granite Pleasanton City Council 11 Minutes 08103104