CCMIN080304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Construction Company the opporturflty to obtain the building permit to install a system to eliminate the odor first, and then if the issue is not resolved and the odor does not meet the cornrnunity's standards, Council ~ould then send a letter to the County Planning Commission recommending that the aSphalt plant be removed from its current location. Ms. Ayala pointed out that all Council is doing is providing a recommendation to the County Planning Commission. Ia her mind, the odor is not the only issue. Mr. Campbell suggested changing the language in the letter to recommending that Granite Construction Company be allowed to obtain the building permit to install the odor system and if it does not work, Council could then recommend asking the County to remove the asphalt plant from its current location. Ms. Ayala said she is looking for due process. She pointed out that the staff report mentioned that the plant took approximately one week to construct. She is not looking to give Granite Construction Company any more leeway to put any more money into the plant until due process has o~curred. Mr. Campbell defined due process differently. He would prefer to allow Granite Construction Company the opportunity to obtain a building permit to install a system to eliminate the odor first, and then if t~e issue is not resolved and the odor does not meet the community's standards, Council ~ould then send a letter to the County Planning Commission recommending that the aSphalt plant be removed from its current location. Ms. Ayala asked Mr. Campbell if he was aware that the County had asked Granite Construction Company to remove the asphalt batch plant? Mayor Pico was not sure thatlhe had seen anything officially from the County in requiring Granite Construction ComI~any to remove the asphalt batch plant. He suggested minor modifications to the letter. He suggested modifying the first sentence of the letter to read "The City Council 6f the City of Pleasanton requests that the Commission initiate action to compel the relocation or removal of the hot mix asphalt plant that Granite Construction operates on property owned by RMC Pacific Materials." He also suggested modifying paragraph four by removing the last two sentences from the letter, as he was not convinced that the statements were factual, nor were they relevant to what the Planning Commission's action would be. Ms. Hosterman did not oppose the modification to the first sentence of the letter. She asked staff about the accuracy on the content of the last two sentences in paragraph four, as it is important to fully frame,the City's argument and if that is a part of the story, it should be included. Mr. Roush recalled that he had seen a letter directed to RMC Pacific Materials in October 2003. He was not certain iflGranite Construction Company had been copied on that letter. This letter did state that the County wanted the asphalt batch plant removed because its current location was a nuisance. Pleasanton City Council 12 08/03/04 Minutes