 |
 |
Dale Axelrod shows his opposition to the proposed Dutra Asphalt plant during a hearing by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Tuesday. CHRISTOPHER CHUNG/PD
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A divided Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Tuesday tentatively approved the proposed Dutra asphalt plant near Petaluma in a lengthy hearing that served as a debate and referendum on different ways to shape the county’s economic future and oversee its environment.
Supervisors Mike Kerns, Paul Kelley and Efren Carrillo voted for the project, while Supervisors Shirlee Zane and board chairwoman Valerie Brown voted against it.
The vote came after more than three hours of public testimony from supporters and opponents who numbered in the hundreds and formed an overflow audience at the board chambers in Santa Rosa.
Carrillo, the swing vote, gave an impassioned defense of his decision, saying it stemmed from his upbringing near a Santa Rosa asphalt plant in a low-income neighborhood where opposition to such industrial projects was either unheard or unwarranted.
“I can’t understand the distinction between wanting certain things, needing certain things and not understanding where they come from,” he said.
“We’re discussing preservation of local roads, ADA-accessible parking lots, bicycle and walking trails.”
Zane and Brown said they had lingering concerns about the plant’s impact on public health and scenery. “I can’t in my heart go with a project that may have deleterious effects,” said Brown.
Dutra supporters, who wore green stickers promoting the plant, said it would be a vital local source of both construction material and jobs for the recession-wracked building industry.
“Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. We need jobs,” said Chris Snyder, a representative of the Operating Engineers Local 3.
Opponents who held signs and wore their own stickers sought to persuade supervisors that they were not against asphalt plants in general. Rather, they said, the Dutra site, on 37 acres along the Petaluma River near Shollenberger Park, is ill-suited for industrial activity that could harm the environment and undermine another another economic base: tourism.
“Petaluma is the gateway to Wine Country. Why would you want to add an asphalt plant there?” asked Connie Madden, a Petaluma resident.
The proposed plant would replace the former nearby Dutra asphalt facility on South Petaluma Boulevard. It has been in the planning pipeline for five years and had been before the board of supervisors several times.
Revisions to the project sought to address concerns about potential impacts on scenery, noise levels and air and water quality.
Silos height limits were lowered 14 feet to 62 feet, a recycled-material crushing operation was eliminated and a barge off-loading site moved to a nearby industrial dock operated by Shamrock Materials. Aggregate from that location will be moved to the asphalt plant by conveyor belt under the proposal approved Tuesday.
Dutra representatives said the new design would lower plant emissions and reduce truck traffic.
“We worked really hard to put together a project that addressed community concerns,” said spokeswoman Aimi Dutra. “It’s been a lengthy process and we’ll be happy to close this chapter at the end of the year.”
Supervisors are set to formalize their vote at their Dec. 14 meeting.
Opponents suggested that a legal challenge is likely. They had asked for a postponement of Tuesday’s hearing to allow for more time to review the project’s environmental documents.
“The county failed to do its due diligence and find a location where an asphalt plant should be located,” said David Keller of the Petaluma River Council.
The project was opposed by several city councils, including those in Cotati and Petaluma. Petaluma Mayor and south county supervisorial candidate Pam Torliatt spoke in opposition to the project Tuesday. Her rival, fellow city councilmember David Rabbitt, also opposes the project.
Kerns, who represents the area and is retiring at the end of this year, called the vote “the most difficult decision of my nearly 12 years on this board.”
“We have studied this issue to death,” he said, acknowledging points made by both sides. Nevertheless, he added, “it’s a smaller project, the impacts have been reduced and the use is consistent with facilities in the area.”
The tentative 3-2 decision approved the project, a general plan amendment, a use permit and the environmental impact report.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@NOTUTOO,
I admit that I’m not an expert on this, but Wikipedia states that “crude bitumen is a sticky, tar-like form of petroleum,” and that “Most natural bitumens contain sulfur and several heavy metals such as nickel, vanadium, lead, chromium, mercury and also arsenic, selenium, and other toxic elements.” Ami Dutra used the term “asphalt”, so I also used it. I have always assumed that it was petroleum based, not coal based. “Not a health hazard” is relative. Drinking too much pure water can be a health hazard.
I do wish to continue living in a modern world. Although my Prius is very good, it still emits some toxins in the air, but I’m not willing to give up driving completely.
As for “local produttion” of the asphalt (bitumen), Syar Industries Asphalt plant is 11.8 miles north of the proposed Dutra site. Do we know that most of the asphalt use over the next couple of decades will be closer to the Dutra plant than the Syar one?
I also do not buy your anti-recycling argument. Given that the recycled materials contain toxins, it is probably better to get further used from them (roads) than to put them in our landfill. The recycling means that we use less raw materials in the long run.
@Robert Plantz, If the jobs argument doesn’t stand up to logic then neither does the enviromental argument. Bitumen (asphalt) is not a health hazard, nor does it damage the environment. Bitumen is not made from coal tar, and while both materials are black, the similarity ends there. (They use it in Holland to seal their dykes.) If the enviroment was the issue you would think that enviromentalists would embrace the idea of local production, having less trucks on the road, embrace the use of barges for material transportation and DEMAND that a percentage of the asphalt that came from Dutra come from recycled asphalt, But no, the enviromentalists DEMANDED that he recycling process be removed from the project.(asphalt is 95% Recyclable) In fact, in many communities it’s been the enviro’s who have committed the sin of pollution by calling for items such as shredded tires, glass, porcelin, shingles, contaminated soil and other materials be included in the production of asphalt. A true enviromentalist whould not be as concerned with the building of an asphalt plant but with the concern that the plant was managed efficiently and that the asphalt was being produced with the proper materials. There has to more to being a enviromentalist than just saying no…
The “jobs” argument does not stand up to logic. We have learned previously that there are other asphalt plants in Sonoma Co. If the needed/wanted asphalt is produced at them, the jobs will be there.
Aimi Dutra says that the Schollenberger Park location would reduce trucking mileage, thus reducing pollution. That depends on where the asphalt is going. But assuming she is right, that would mean a reduction in truck driver jobs.
Dutra’s only interest is in making money. We elected the Board of Supervisors to protect the quality of life in Sonoma Co. There is no evidence that the Schollenberger Park location will have any significant effect on jobs in Sonoma Co., nor that it will add significantly to our tax base. And there is considerable evidence that it will affect health (human and other species) and aesthetics in the area. If the Board of Supervisors approves this, they are not doing what we elected them to do.
I just remembered that Efren assured me in person at a tour of our local sewage treatment that he would not vote to approve Dutra’s plan. This was a couple years ago.
So much for such assurances.
I say…we don’t need more roads…we don’t need better roads…we don’t need more paving. We need less of all these things. Asphalt is a toxin. Paving destroys the ability of watersheds to recharge and causes runoff, flooding and polluted waterways.
Municpalities, cities, counties had better find some more creative & better ways to create revenue than the constant selling off of more pieces of the environment and “undeveloped” places. We need wild, green, unpolluted places not wall to wall “development” which is just another word for destruction.
This is INSANITY!
Wrong Plant, Wrong Place. Twelve new jobs does not warrant the pollution and blight that will be created by this plant.
Shame on you Mike Kerns!
A sad, sad, very sad day for Petaluma.
Do you know for whom the bell tolls? It tolls for us, for Shollenberger Park, for the wildlife, and for our health and well-being.
I am thoroughly disgusted!
At least I know for sure now, whom to vote for…and NOT!
I am going to go cry now.
The more I think about Efren Carrillo’s quote, the more it troubles me.
While it’s important to understand that we need resources and that those resources have to come from somewhere, this doesn’t justify Dutra.
Imagine a supervisor supporting a plan to dump excessive amounts of waste into the Russian River, sidestepping the plan’s health risks and environmental consequences, and stressing that we need to dump our waste somewhere. The fact many folks don’t think about our need to put our waste somewhere wouldn’t justify this plan; and the fact we need materials for our roads doesn’t justify Dutra.
I continue to be hopeful about Efren Carrillo’s leadership, and I hope to find ways to support some of his efforts; but when he makes public comments like this, we need to speak out.
He behaved shamefully!
@Paul Smith. Torliatt’s campaign and literature have not resorted to the distortions of the facts and lies of omission Rabbitt’s mailers have.
For instance, his slick “manilla file” mailer that insinuates Mayor Torliatt is responsible for the Recession and subsequent reduction in property taxes due to reduction in value and numerous foreclosures. As if? She can’t squeeze blood out of turnip, and neither can Rabbitt/”()()”.
This same literature also states that Rabbitt opposes Dutra’s asphalt plant, but he left out the qualifier, the equivocation that he opposes it, “as it stands.” Meaning that with 100 more conditions tacked unto their application, he’d vote for approval.
I tried in vain to get Rabbitt to state w/o equivocation, that he will vote to deny. He can’t. He lacks Mayor Torliatt’s courage, integrity, and conviction.
Rabbitt has consistently been a no-show at all Dutra-related forums and Board of Supervisor meetings. He’s so gutless, he couldn’t at the very least send a letter or email to the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, to state for the record that the Board should vote to deny Dutra’s application.
Follow the money, Paul.
If you are concerned at all about jobs lost, think for a minute about the businesses across the river in the industrial parks and how many will move away from the stench.
Shahn! I whoelheartedly agree! The key to good local governance is getting past misleadingly oversimplified accounts of business versus the environment. Expecting some environmental protections is NOT anti-business. Expecting businesses to be able to make a profit is NOT anti-environment. The key rests in the details, though. And it seems that this project failed to address those detail adequately.
Jeff Mayne, along with the other Board of Directors of the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce have been strong advocates of the Dutra Asphalt Plant and went so far as to write a letter to the Sonoma County Supervisors and published it in their newsletter:
http://www.petalumachamber.com/NewsPaper/9-09PB-web.pdf
“….The Board of Directors of the Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce strongly urges you to reconsider your vote against the proposed Dutra asphalt plant in Petaluma……
When members of the Chamber of Commerce expressed concern for the position taken on their behalf, the Chamber (again with Jeff Mayne on board) issued another statement:
http://www.petalumachamber.com/NewsPaper/11-09PB-web.pdf
“…The 15 members of our Board are elected by a majority of the membership specifically to represent the membership as advocates for a thriving economy and a pro-business community.Your Board did not take the Dutra position lightly, but did so because they did not find that contentions about severe environmental effects were supported by fact….”
While Jeff Mayne is quoted in his response to the Argus questionnaire as saying that clearly the people in Petaluma don’t want the plant, neither he nor the Chamber ever publicly reversed their position on supporting it. Notice however they are quiet on Dutra now in advance of the election because they know how unpopular it is.
We need honest, positive, and wise leadership on our council that protects the public interest for the longterm. If you love the idea of an asphalt plant at our gateway and next to Shollenberger Park, vote for Mayne and the other Herb Williams slate of Republicans who support and are financed by the special development interests looking to sell us out.
http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2010/04/featured-articles/williams-turns-eye-toward-petaluma-council-races/
“Mayne won’t be Williams’ only Petaluma candidate. He also is heading up the Nov. 2 re-election effort of Councilman Mike Harris. And he confirmed Wednesday that he is also managing the campaigns of former councilwoman Karen Nau and Ray Johnson, a former telecom executive”
If you want leadership that protects the public interest, preserves the character of Petaluma, and promotes responsible development, vote for Glass, Barrett, and Davies.
@ Robert&Sherry Madrone
Compared to 30 years ago what happen to Logging and Lumber Mills in the state of California?
please tell me one thing you do in your daily life that does not come from mining?
Car you drive, Mining
Road you drive on, Mining
Solar panels, Mining
Windmills, Mining
Toothpaste, Mining
Electricity, Mining
Water to your Home, Mining
Please just one thing
I don’t know why people insist on this “Us against “Them” mentality…
“Environmentalists” Vs. “Business”
I believe we can and must have it both ways if we are to thrive as a community. There must be a balance between protecting our environment and providing a friendly operating environment for businesses.
People wonder why companies pack up and set up shop elsewhere. We need jobs! We need to stop chasing those willing to provide jobs away.
The Supervisors got this one right. They looked at the hard facts and listened to reason. They looked beyond emotion and fear mongering.
At the end of the day it is a win-win for Sonoma County. Petaluma will get a local asphalt resource (and the jobs that come with it), San Antonio Fire Dept. will get a much needed new station, there will be a new wildlife sanctuary, and Petaluma will set the standard for all new asphalt plants by having the cleanest and safest plant around. Maybe other communities will tear down the old time polluters and use the Dutra plant as a Model.
More lies, more false insinuations from the pro-Torliatt people on Twitter and WSC today. Absolutely running scared.
She must be so proud of how her supporters have adopted her politics-as-usual, spin-like-Fox campaign tactics.
It’s right out of the playbook of her slick out-of-county $170,000 Whitehurst-Mosher consultants, who tout the fact that they also represent lobbyists – so when the candidates they help elect are in office, they’ve already got a “relationship” with them to grease the skids for their lobbyists clients.
Is that “protecting the ratepayer” and “speaking for the people of Sonoma County,” Pam?
Paul – What makes you think KB Homes would care about Torliatt. Torliatt and Glass were the only two of the council that voted against their project moving forward on what was a purely administrative vote.
Have your forgotten that KB Homes is on the location of the original Dutra plant and it was sold for homes so they could move to a modern plant at Haystack.
I wonder how KB Homes feels about this project being approved. Their new development on Petaluma Blvd. S will overlook the asphalt plant. What a great selling point :| So much for “planning.”
I think it’s really sad how the County and Dutra jammed this through before the election. They didn’t have a problem delayoyg and delaying but when it came down to crunch-time it was rushed through without any real ability of the public to review the final product.
Apparently, the County has not learned the lesson of Marin County when it comes to Dutra facilities. The quarry in San Rafael took years to be mitigated because of their stalling tactics.
I find it disturbing that Rabbit and his cronies running for City Council couldn’t even be bothered to show up for something as historic and important for this community. Easy to see where they stand and who’s lining their campaign pockets.
It’s like that same group (Rabbitt, Mayne, Johnson, Harris, Albertson) not showing up for the groundbreaking at the new Petaluma Health Center location — which will likely bring in more money and do more good for this community than this stupid asphalt plant.
Anyone who thinks Rabbitt is opposed to the Dutra plant need only go look at his latest finance statement to see that 60% of his money has come from gravel, asphalt and development interests. he’s played both sides of this issue like the most crass politician he really is.
Also disappointed with Efren Carillo. Not surprised though. Who didn’t really know he’d be a shill for development interests? If Rue Furch had won that election, this plant wouldn’t have gotten approved.
Remember that when you go to vote this year. A vote for Rabbitt is a vote for another four years of Mike Kerns — or worse.
When the issue of the Dutra asphalt plant came before the Petaluma City Council, it voted against the location of the plant on the Petaluma river, across from Schollenberger park. The vote was unanimous – David Rabbitt’s vote counted just as much as Pam Torliatt’s, NO LESS. On Tuesday, County Supervisor Valerie Brown voted against the Dutra plant, which is the result that I, as a resident of southwest Petaluma, support. On Wednesday, Valerie Brown endorsed David Rabbitt, NOT Pam Torliett, because she believed that he was the right person for the job. On November 2, I will vote for David Rabbitt for county supervisor.
Again and again the supes support environmental disasters, all in the name of “jobs”. They are elected by the people but work for the corporations. Money talks. The rest of us just have to put up with it.
Monique: Whatever Rabbitt’s excuse is, it doesn’t excuse him from the numerous other Dutra-related Forums and Board of Supervisor meetings that he couldn’t be bothered to attend and take a stand to deny Dutra’s application.
I’ve communicated with Rabbitt regarding his stance on the asphalt plant, and he never stated that he would vote to deny.
Furthermore, if he’s truly opposed to the asphalt plant, he could have very easily sent a statement to the Board, and it would be on record that he opposes it. He could have requested Mayor Torliatt read it before all of the attendees yesterday.
When I see Rabbitt’s campaign “ears,” I’d usually think ‘wolf in rabbitt’s clothing.”
Snake is more like it.
Passions run high on this issue. My personal belief is the same as my professional one-this is a good project and will benefit the community, the environment, and the job situation. Those that oppose it are entitled to their opinions. People are looking at the same set of facts, but coming to different conclusions as to what they mean. To me the important thing is that this project got plenty of public vetting and modifications were made to the Dutra proposal that made it a better project. Both sides should feel good that their efforts were effective.
FYI David Rabbitt visited my neighborhood the other day looking for votes, and I specifically questioned him about his position on the Dutra plant, he did the political shuffle and completed waffled on the subject without committing one way or another.
Swell….
Olivia….get of your high horse! David Rabbitt wasn’t there based on his twitter that he took his daughter to UCSF for medical care…which is definitely more important than whether he attended the Dutra hearing. I’m opposed to Dutra’s project but wish to separate myself from those who response with such negitivity and resort to personal attacks when they don’t get ther way!
Saddened and disgusted.
A vote for Rabbitt is a vote for a Kerns clone.
Rabbitt’s conspicuous absence yesterday confirms his allegiance to Dutra-Barella cronies.
If/when Petaluma becomes a ghost town, don’t blame Torliatt. Rabbitt will be long gone, probably living in Marin County in Aimi Dutra’s neighborhood.
Rabbitt’s absence yesterday speaks volumes about his courage and integrity, or lack thereof.
Mike Kerns just threw Petaluma under the bus. He approved this project based on Dutra’s factoid that this project has less impacts from their previous proposal, which is not true on many levels. When asked if a health risk assessment was done for this project the County said no and asked why not, they said “we don’t know”. When asked about the impacts they said things like “well probably it would be less” and “we think” and “maybe” but no analysis was done to conclusively determine this so how can any of them make a decision based on no information. Efren claimed environmental justice, saying how Petalumans need to know and pay for where their resources come from, meaning asphalt. So I guess every town should have their own refinery, natural gas plant, smelting plant etc. Purely political and purely shameful! Thank goodness Kerns in on his way out, and Efren too with any luck, and we have Torliatt to elect who is not be funded by these people and will speak for us and not the resource extraction and destruction giants.
how aggregate is used and affects Sonoma County
Aggregate is used as a road base.
aggregate is used in foundations.
aggregate is used in ground pipes
aggregate is used as hardscape
aggregate is used to fill potholes
aggregate is used to make pavers
aggregate is used for bricks, cinderblocks.
aggregate is used for drainage
aggregate is sand for playgrounds
aggregate is used for driveways
aggregate is used for a fence post
The Dutra plant is going in, plain and simple. So when Torliatt is up at the County, Glass is Petaluma Mayor and the Dutra plant is up an running, you’ll be kicking yourselves for having made the decision to vote for them based on an issue they don’t have any say in; because then it will be too late and we’ll have to endure things like unnecessary road diets, litigation settlements, flip flopping on issues, no more jobs, no progress, no local resources, more regulations-oh except for illegal immigrants ……shall I go on?
Avoid that mistake!
Its about time this plant was approved….Dutra was part of Petaluma for over 20plus years….welcome back!
What was interesting was to see who wasn’t present at the hearing – none of the candidates for council that have been endorsed and/or receive contributions from the groups supporting Dutra:
David Rabbitt – absent
Mike Harris – absent
Ray Johnson (Mr 24/7) – absent
Jeff Mayne – absent
Chris Albertson – absent
Karen Nau – absent
If you are opposed to the Dutra plant, don’t vote for these people.
In contrast, Pam Torliatt, David Glass, and Jason Davies all spoke up – as they have consistently – for the defense of Petaluma and urged the Supervisors to reject the project at the proposed location.
This asphalt factory brings zero tax revenue to the city of Petaluma, but all the impacts. It remains the wrong plant at the wrong place and we need leaders who respect our community – not ones ready to sell it out to powerful developer interests backing their campaigns.
At least Shirlee Zane and Valerie Brown listened to the concerns of our community in voting to reject this project -noting the significant increases in NOx and other emissions as well as Dutra’s history of violations.
Effren made a serious error on this. In turning this into a class issue – essentially, ‘I had to live next to an asphalt plant growing up on a poor community so now it’s your turn’, he too ignored the will of our community. It’s unfortunate an inferior plant is near downtown Santa Rosa – but that’s a good reason to improve it, not locate a new one at our county gateway, in a scenic corridor, across from a wetlands park, and in close proximity to schools, residents, and other businesses. It’s a perverse sense of environmental justice from Efren and folks need to remember that when he runs for re-election.
Camelback – one of Petaluma’s most successful businesses opposes this. RNM properties, owner of business parks near Shollenberger opposes this. At a time when we need to be doing our best to retain businesses while attracting tourism, the County chose to ignore our concerns – promoting a few operating jobs (10 people max) and short term construction jobs, while undermining far more important segments of the economy for Petaluma.
Baseball Analogy for DUTRA vote:
Give one to the “SONOMA COUNTY ALLIANCE”.
EFREN CARRILLO’s tortured vote FOR DUTRA PROJECT pushed them over the top.
Final score (Baseball Game Analogy):
DUTRA 3 runs over “PEOPLE OF SONOMA COUNTY 2 runs.
Gee! I hope this is, at least, a FIVE GAME SERIES.
You can now see why it is so very important that PAM TORLIATT wins the south county supervisors race!
DAVID RABBITT, Pam’s competitor in the south county supervisor’s race and MIKE McGUIRE, who has already wrapped up the north county supervisor’s race; GUESS WHAT?
They were both endorsed by the SONOMA COUNTY ALLIANCE and I truly believe that they will have to fall in “LOCK STEP” with the “ALLIANCE’s IDEOLOGY”, “BUILD BABY BUILD”.
EFREN’s vote in favor of the DUTRA PROJECT, probably had more to do with the pressure, put on him, by the SONOMA COUNTY ALLIANCE, to do the the right thing, in their eyes.
A question for Dutra; Why would your company force your plant on a town that clearly doesn’t wasnt it? That is not good business.
How extremely disappointing. Time will tell just how well Dutra will treat Petaluma, the environment and how many people it will employ. I am extremely saddened by this decision.