http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=113


Town Square

City manager comments on Weekly's editorial on asphalt plant, PR position costs

Original post made on Aug 24, 2007

In a 525-word commentary emailed to the Pleasanton Weekly, City Manager Nelson Fialho took exception to an Aug. 10 editorial in this newspaper that said taxpayers would pay $500,000 to move an asphalt plant away from Vineyard Avenue neighborhoods, and that a Public Information Officer is a vital position needed by the city government.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, August 14, 2007, 5:33 PM

Comments

Posted by Tom, a resident of California Reflections
on Aug 24, 2007 at 10:27 am

It seems that this is par for the course for PW research. Misinformation and quotes given by other people and just taken as gospel without being verified are more suited for the tabloids.


Posted by Sylvia, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Sep 4, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Can anyone give us a explaination where is the new asphalt plant
location ?
We live in new vineyard hills community, we suffer the noise everyday, the new location seems even closer to the community.


Posted by john, a resident of Donlon Elementary School
on Sep 5, 2007 at 7:23 am

Public Information Officer is a vital position ????
Sounds phony.
Don't we have a council who can handle disseminating information?
They are by the nature of the job, expert communicators!!
I would much rather another policeman, teacher, school or city improvement.


Posted by Steve Brozosky, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Sep 5, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Sylvia, the plant will either be located off of Stanley, across from the existing asphalt plant at Vulcan, or it will be moved completely offsite. I was the one who initiated all the processes to do something about this asphalt plant that appeared without any public notice or even a hearing in the county. They handled it over the counter. This forced me to research the whole project and I found all the documentation going back to the 1950's which allowed a plant at its existing location (which was off of Stanley). Clearly it was wrong to have the plant where it is now and I have been working with the City and County to take care of this problem that start 5 or 6 years ago. In addition to this, the plant was placed within a few hundred feet of the Neal Elementary School Site was already approved by the State. There are state laws about locating a plant this close to a school site without noticing the school district (which was not noticed) and the community, and then making some findings.