 |
 |
Aimi Dutra, left, and Bill Dutra, CEO of The Dutra Group
By AIMI DUTRA
Aimi Dutra is community affairs director for Dutra Materials
The Dutra name has been a part of Sonoma County for more than 20 years, providing a local source of aggregate and asphalt throughout the North Bay. On Tuesday, before the Board of Supervisors, we will present our plan for a new and environmentally superior asphalt facility in southern Sonoma County.
Over the last year, since our last hearing before the board, we have listened carefully to comments and suggestions provided by the community, and our new proposal is significantly different from our original application.
To start with, we eliminated the construction of a new barge off-loading facility, so that navigation on the Petaluma River will not be affected.
We dramatically reduced noise and visual impacts by removing the on-site crushing of recycled material, reduced the height of the silos by 14 feet and reduced peak production by 25 percent.
With the removal of the barge off-loading operation, Haystack Landing will now purchase aggregate from the existing Landing Way facility at the property immediately to the north and will transport the material from Landing Way to Haystack Landing either by truck or by electric conveyor.
As a mother to three young children, I understand concerns related to health. As a family-owned company, we believe we have a social responsibility to go to extraordinary lengths to thoroughly analyze both the short- and long-term impacts of this project.
In doing so, the experts have determined that air emissions are well below all regulatory thresholds designed to protect public health. If approved, the facility will also be subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District permits and inspections, as well as random inspections by the county to ensure compliance.
Importantly, the Haystack Landing plant will be a state-of-the-art facility, providing clean and efficient operations while reducing environmental impacts. The proposed plant’s asphalt production will be fully enclosed to reduce noise and emissions. Moreover, air from contained areas will be filtered before being released to the atmosphere.
Astec, the world’s leading manufacturer of asphalt plants, has stated that the proposed Dutra plant includes more components for protection of human health than any plant it has designed, anywhere in the world.
Because health is such an important issue, it’s fundamentally important to emphasize that this project will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by shortening diesel truck routes. If a south county source of aggregate and asphalt is not made available, continuing to import these resources from more remote locations will dramatically increase emissions.
The proposed Haystack Landing Asphalt Plant Project relocates Dutra’s asphalt facility to a 37-acre industrial site one-half mile away from the original plant on Petaluma Boulevard South, on the east side of Highway 101. The location is situated in an area that has been zoned commercial/industrial for decades. It will border an existing aggregate facility operated by Shamrock Materials and an existing recycling facility operated by Novato Disposal to the north.
We are also excited by the prospect that of the 37 acres at the site, more than 50 percent (19 acres) will be permanently preserved and devoted to open space and wetlands/brackish marsh habitat.
Finally, a portion of the property will be used for a new fire station for the San Antonio Volunteer Fire Department. The firefighters are in need of a new home, and this location will also provide for immediate freeway access.
We are committed to providing southern Sonoma County and the region with a much-needed asphalt resource. We have listened carefully to the community and believe our project will make a significant positive contribution to southern Sonoma County.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
I’d say follow the money, but now we don’t know who’s funding campaigns.
Perhaps we should follow Facebook friends instead? For instance Damon Calegari is pro Dutra asphalt plant. He’s also pro quarry.
A quick check of Calegari’s friends and guess which supervisor candidate is “friends” with Calegari, along with Aimi Dutra Krause? Aimi also “likes” Sarah Palin.
David Rabbitt.
Rabbitt may be a registered Democrat, but he’s more aligned politically and environmentally with Republicans. But then, there are still more registered Democrats in Sonoma County, aren’t there? So it makes sense that he’d register Democrat but vote like his “friends,” who are Tea Partiers.
bear says:
October 8, 2010 at 3:23 pm
“This one is likely to “slip through the cracks.” Mike Kerns is retiring, so I suggest that opponents of this project consider delaying the approval process in any way legally possible.
Either the current or next 2nd District Supervisor will control this decision.
Who has your vote? Who would best reflect your opinion on this project?”
A VOTE FOR RABBITT IS A VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF DUTRA’S APPLICATION. Don’t be fooled by his campaign literature that states in one word that he “opposes” the asphalt plant. There’s a reason why his large campaign signs are located at sites that are pro Dutra.
On every occasion he’s been questioned about his position on the asphalt plant, he says he opposes it, but as it stands. Meaning that if another 100 conditions were added, he’d vote to approve. I’ve never seen nor heard him stand up w/microphone in hand and state without equivocation that he will vote to deny Dutra’s application.
Torliatt, on the other hand, has taken the time to attend related Forums and Board of Supervisors meetings to voice her strong opposition to Dutra’s asphalt plant. If her position doesn’t sit well with those who disagree w/her, so be it. We know where she stands, and she has earned my vote.
“Why should the rest of Sonoma County be burdened with Petaluma’s lack of accepting some of the consequences of there [their] needs with asphalt and gravel?”
SOME of the consequences? Don’t you mean MOST/ALL of the consequences? Have you considered the consequences of the loss of tourism and other businesses in Petaluma and Sonoma County should Dutra have their way with the Board of Supervisors?
Would you propose siting an asphalt plant adjacent to Court House Square in Santa Rosa? Is this any way to welcome visitors to one’s City? To one’s beautiful County?
Anybody can place a website that shows that their opinion has support.
scrutinize the grape growers/winerie’s the same as this asphalt plant.
why is it that vineyards continue to clear cut land for more grape planting. tunneling into mountains side’s to store wine barrels, increasing the level of diesel emissions, exceeding noise thresholds, pesticide’s sprayed, propellers running at night to dry off grapes. oh and lets not forget the hiring of illegals, providing zero tax base. Sonoma County no double standards here
This one is likely to “slip through the cracks.” Mike Kerns is retiring, so I suggest that opponents of this project consider delaying the approval process in any way legally possible.
Either the current or next 2nd District Supervisor will control this decision.
Who has your vote? Who would best reflect your opinion on this project?
David Keller is “right on”. This act is the very same being staged in Mendocino County as they try to add an asphalt plant to an existing quarry. Due to overwhelming opposition, the applicant is also trying to shuck and jive with yet another application trying to make the pieces fit. Another case of trying to add lipstick to a pig.
Petaluma would be crazy to approve this project. It literally “stinks”!
Dutra would have us believe that they can make an asphalt factory without any releases of toxins or noxious fumes and dusts. Ms. Dutra’s p.r. pitch is ‘everything is wonderful’. Tragically, this is not the case.
Having visited Ms. Dutra’s earlier version of what she called their ‘state of the art, ideal Astec plant’ in Ontario, I know first hand of the leaks, the smells, the noise and the dusts coming from not only the plant itself, but also from the trucks hauling in rock and leaving with un-tarped asphalt loads. During peak production, when they are running 24/7 to fill government contracts, that means heavy trucks every 3-5 minutes, all day and night.
And if you want to get to Hwy 101 in the morning or afternoon rush hours, they predict stop and go traffic waiting for trucks at the Landing Way/Petaluma Boulevard So. intersection.
The Dutra Companies have a terrible legal and environmental record, stretching from the Port of Miami (FL) to the Gulf of the Farralones National Marine Sanctuary, filled with illegal dumping, dredging, huge fines and settlements, and bankruptcy. While Dutra has pitched their perfection to the community, the reality is unfortunately way short of their rosy pictures.
Now that Dutra’s fabrications here trying to hide their blocking of the Petaluma River’s navigational channel, and their having falsely mapped PG&E’s high pressure gas pipelines – the kind that just blew up in San Bruno – out of the way and onto their neighbor’s parcel (pipelines marked on Dutra’s parcels with 4×8 signs, “No anchoring. No dredging”), both of which we uncovered (no thanks to Sonoma County’s planning department), Dutra has eliminated their barging of materials.
The operations are not ‘river-dependent’, and Dutra will not bring one ounce of new shipping tonnage to our river. So much for their claims to help with river dredging.
In fact, had the county done their due diligence 6 years ago when Dutra proposed the barging scenario, we would have been able to move this operation to a more suitable location, away from Shollenberger Park, with the residences, businesses and tourists who use it and work near it.
All along, Dutra has fabricated information about their proposal. Why would they stop now?
Those who have recently posted here saying, ‘Petaluma has to take their share of asphalt pollution, and not increase pollution at Santa Rosa’s asphalt plants’ are just echoing Dutra’s perversion of environmental justice. You don’t spread pollution around. Instead, the right thing to do is to clean it up.
Dutra doesn’t get that.
This remains the wrong plant, in the wrong place.
I credit the good dialogue that helped make this a better project than originally proposed. Now that the project has made major concessions to it’s design, and it’s relationship to the sensitive environment, let’s approve this project and make the needed A.C. product in a safe and environmentally responsible manner and lessen the trucking hours on our highways!
In addition to the project not being appropriate for our gateway scenically, increasing the level of diesel emissions, exceeding noise thresholds, providing zero tax base to Petaluma, and undermining property values for homes and businesses in proximity, Dutra has a history of non-compliance with regulatory agencies – that should be enough to not merit an overriding statement of considerations in order to approve this project (requires several zoning amendments to the Sonoma County General Plan).
Dutra bought the property knowing it wasn’t zoned appropriately – after their previous plant was shut down for operating without a permit and emitting noxious fumes. They couldn’t get a permit because the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) required them to use “best available control technology” (BACT) but they didn’t want to spend the money to upgrade the plant.
They were sued by the EPA in SF from illegal dumping off the Farallones, as well as off Florida. They illegally expanded their Quarry in San Rafael – at great cost to homeowners and the local environment. Petaluma simply can’t take the risk from a company with a history of non-compliance and ethical lapses.
I recall Amy Dutra being asked if they ever had complaints about their previous plant in Petaluma – she said “no”. Not true, complaints of smoke and noxious odors are what led to the inspection resulting in their previous shut down for non-compliance with air quality standards.
http://www.saveshollenberger.com/2009/10/dutras-track-record-history-in-miami.html
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_11955932
http://www.nopetalumaasphaltplant.com/dutrapetalumaasphaltviolations.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/bec8d497be2773a7852571cc006b7385!OpenDocument
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/GJ/main/cvgrjr/2000gj/ssrq/srrqrept.pdf
http://www.sprcoalition.org/committee_quarry/subtopics/background.html
Let our Supervisors know Petaluma doesn’t need nor want this project at Haystack Landing by writing to them and/or showing up and/or speaking up at the hearing:
Tuesday, Oct 12, 1:30 PM
575 Administration Drive, Room 100A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
http://www.saveshollenberger.com/2010/10/public-deserves-better.html
Is there more risk from nitrous oxide and other pollutants going into the air from a state of the art plant downwind of Petaluma, or from an antiquated plant in the midst of the poorest residential neighborhood in Sonoma County in West Santa Rosa? This is where Petaluma is getting it’s asphalt.
Is there more green house gas and other pollutants created from trucks hauling aggregate and asphalt from North and West Sonoma County down to Petaluma than if these materials were mined and created in Petaluma?
Why should the rest of Sonoma County be burdened with Petaluma’s lack of accepting some of the consequences of there needs with asphalt and gravel?