CCMIN080304 - Laserfiche WebLink

neighborhood. One of the conclusioas by the noise consultant was that Granite Construction Company was not in violation of an ordinance. Granite Construction Company did implement certain meaSures to reduce the noise. Granite Construction Company placed mufflers on all pneumatic valves and constructed a dirt berm between the Plant and Vineyard Avenue. He noted that the other issue relates to odors from the rubberized asphalt, which has been detected by surrounding neighbors. Granite Construction Company took steps to ~reduce the odor in the Plant by installing odor control systems and by installing an odor control system implemented for the top of stlos. The Company has also added asphal! aroma additives during rubberized production and has purchased a new odor control system for the truckload out area. The County of Alameda has yet to issue a building permit for this system. Granite Construction Company believes that this system will go to significant lengths to reduce any remaining odor concerns. Granite Constructioa Company will be sensitive to any potential health effects on the neighboring school; however, the School Districts own consultant provided an analysis of the potential health effects of the asphalt plant on the children in school and concluded that there is no significant impact. He believed it was difficult to come to the conclusion that the asphalt plant stands out above all of the other operations that are located in this area. The property is permitted for mining and ancillary uses, including asphalt plants. The Plant was appropriately permitted and Granite Construction Company went through the proper p~°cess. Granite Construction Company meets all of the minimum requirements, but it has gone above and beyond the minimum requirements by responding positively to the community concerns and addressing them. Granite Construction Company does not believe that sending the proposed letter to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors will serve any positive purpose. Granite Construction Company believes the Board of Supervisors need to discuss what can be done to identify the real issues and concerns, and what can be done to address them. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ayala, Mr. Boraston said that he has not seen the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Ms. Ayala suggested that Mri Boraston obtain a copy of it to become familiar with Council's direction. Andrea Matarazzo, legal counsel representing Granite Construction Company, pointed out that Granite Construction Company has not and will not be dismissive of any legitimate concerns. Granite ConstruCtion Company believes it is entitled to legal processes that it has not been afforded, in addition to common sense principles of fairness and procedure. She believed sending the proposed letter to the County would be premature for several reasons. The most important reason is that Granite Construction Company's rights to operate this facility are vested, and it is constitutionally protected. In order to remove this Plant, the City needs to find, based on a preponderance of the evidence that supports a factual conclusion that the facility is a nuisance. She noted that this is not a matter of exercising the City's discretion in the typical land use form that Council is generally able to exercise! The County never issued any order or directive to Granite Construction Company to re!ocate the asphalt batch plant. Granite Construction Company asked the County to hold a hearing because it wanted certainty as to the Pleasanton City Council 5 08/03104 Minutes