Write your own caption …

Every week, we’ll post a new cartoon on Watch Sonoma County and invite you to write the caption. Enter the contest by posting your caption below. Vote for your favorite by clicking “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” on each entry.

PD staff will select several winners and publish them every Friday on the Forum page in the Empire News section. Want a shot? Leave your real name and your email address for verification.

The cartoons are drawn by Gary Varvel, who has served as political cartoonist for the Indianapolis Star since 1994.

Click here to see last week’s winners

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

With four cities down and four to go, Sonoma County officials this week enter the second half of their roadshow to convince cities to take part in the county’s planned public power agency.

The presentations are intended to tout benefits and answer questions about the effort to displace Pacific Gas and Electric Co. with an alternative that offers a higher share of energy from renewable sources.

Sonoma County supervisors have voted to launch the agency on Jan. 1 encompassing — at a minimum — the unincorporated areas of the county.

So far, they’ve successfully enlisted one city — Windsor — while two others, Rohnert Park and Sebastopol, could decide to join next month. The Cloverdale City Council has decided the city will sit on the sidelines for now.

Next up are the two largest cities, Santa Rosa and Petaluma, which together account for nearly 48 percent of the electricity use in the county. Alone, Santa Rosa’s share is nearly 35 percent.

The public presentation before the Petaluma City Council is Monday evening and Santa Rosa council members are to hear the issue Tuesday afternoon.

Participation by the cities — and power bills from their residents and businesses — are a key if not critical part of the county’s plan, which aims to serve 80 percent of PG&E’s local customers. The higher the participation — customers would be allowed to opt out and stick with PG&E — the sooner the program will have a positive cash flow and be able to plow money back into rate stabilization, energy efficiency programs and local generation projects.

“You work with the revenues you generate,” said Cordel Stillman, deputy chief engineer for the county Water Agency and the lead staff member on the proposal. Without Santa Rosa and Petaluma, he said, “we may not be able to do things we would have been able to do with all of the cities’ participation.”

Santa Rosa and Petaluma also would add political momentum to the program, which is set to begin serving homes and businesses Jan. 1. County officials and supporters insist it would be viable without urban customers, but they want all cities, and especially the biggest ones, onboard.

“We can have this going without any of the cities, but that’s not what we want,” said Ann Hancock, executive director of the Climate Protection Campaign, the main advocacy group behind the power proposal. “We’re looking for a nod from all of them, and we’re putting a lot of work into Santa Rosa.”

Supporters, including environmental and business leaders, have been lobbying council members heavily in recent weeks, honing a message that focuses on consumer choice, shrinking the county’s carbon footprint and the promise of economic development through construction of local energy projects.

They’ve sent out notices that signal they intend to pack council chambers this week.

Opponents, including fiscal watchdogs and critics of government, argue that many of the touted benefits could be illusory. In emails and newspaper opinion pieces, they have been getting their points across, too.

The tug-of-war means the proposal could face a stiff challenge in the remaining cities. After the presentations in Petaluma and Santa Rosa, the roadshow rolls on to Cotati on Wednesday and Sonoma on June 3.

Some city officials have been vocal about their desire to see final numbers on customer rates and greenhouse gas emissions before they sign on.

Those answers are not expected prior to a county-imposed decision deadline of June 30, leaving some officials saying the process is being rushed.

“I think it’s going too fast,” said Santa Rosa Councilman Jake Ours, who has served on a public-private steering committee providing input on the plan. “We’re not going to have time to make a decent decision.”

County officials have begun negotiations with a final group of four companies competing for the initial energy supply contract. They’ve also begun a search for an interim chief executive to lead the power program and started work on a branding and public relations campaign.

In the meantime, they have reiterated initial figures they say would make the program competitive if not cheaper than PG&E and immediately greener, drawing 33 percent of power from renewable sources such as solar and wind versus the 20 percent portfolio projected for PG&E next year.

Program skeptics have questioned those numbers, disputing especially the emissions comparison because about half the public power would initially come from renewable energy credits packaged with conventional power sources, a tool they deride as “greenwashing.”

But city officials have focused most on the rate implications, both for their residents and businesses and for City Hall.

In Santa Rosa, the county’s largest city with almost 170,000 residents and 97,360 electrical meters, city government is the biggest power user, with more than 700 PG&E accounts.

Some of those accounts, such as the city’s wastewater treatment plant on Llano Road, pay wholesale power rates that are “dirt cheap,” Ours said, while others pay far higher rates.

That’s why the initial rate range provided by the county is insufficient to help the city understand implications for its bottom line, Ours said.

“I think everyone in the city wants it to work, but we don’t know how it’s going to work,” he said. “The devil is in the details.”

Supporters cheered Windsor’s decision last week to formally join the county power agency. The move gives them a seat on its governing authority, alongside county representatives. The entity is designed to have nine voting members — one from each of the eight participating cities, plus the county.

Healdsburg is not a candidate for the system because it already has a municipal power agency.

County officials have touted that seat at the table in their pitch to cities.

But the bigger cities, especially, have lingering questions about governance, including how much sway they would have on the authority board.

“I don’t want to be taking part in something that hasn’t had all the wrinkles run out,” said Petaluma Mayor David Glass, discussing a number of questions he has about the program. “The prudent thing is to wait and see how it plays out.”

Politics could be a significant factor in the larger cities’ decisions. Support for the power venture now cuts across the county’s main camps, shaped by environmental and business interests that commonly duel over elected seats in Santa Rosa and Petaluma.

But that assessment made one politician uneasy last week.

“We need to spend less time on politics and handicapping whether a city is going to come on board or not,” said Supervisor Mike McGuire, one of the four-member majority that last month backed the program’s launch for the unincorporated area; Supervisor David Rabbitt was the lone no vote.

Politics, McGuire said, should take a back seat to the program’s business plan, which he repeatedly called “solid.”

“There’s no doubt we’d want Santa Rosa and Petaluma to join now,” he said. “But because we have this solid business plan, if they join later, we’d welcome them.”

Staff Writer Kevin McCallum contributed to this report. You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or brett.wilkison@pressdemocrat.com.

By CLARK MASON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Healdsburg soon will reap extra revenue from a half-cent sales tax increase approved by voters. But how should that million bucks or so be spent?

The answer from a survey of residents was overwhelmingly clear: fix the streets.

Taking direction from the 428 responses in the survey, City Council members agreed last week to spend half the new revenue on street maintenance.

Fixing potholes, repaving roads and constructing sidewalks rose to the top of the suggestions from citizens.

Downtown Healdsburg (PD FILE)

“It was the resounding response we got not just in the survey but (in) conversations with people,” Mayor Susan Jones said.

Public Works Director Mike Kirn said that Healdsburg’s 45 miles of streets are considered to be in good condition overall. But some are in poor to very poor shape.

“We do have some that are in worse shape than others,” he said.

He said the city currently spends about $200,000 annually on streets, but there is a $10 million backlog of maintenance.

In a survey, almost nine out of 10 respondents favored spending some of the new tax money on roads or sidewalks.

Asked how much of each dollar should pay for streets, the weighted average was 44 cents, according to Kirn.

Healdsburg voters in November approved Measure V, the half-cent sales tax increase to help bolster the city’s general fund.

The increase, which is good for 10 years, took effect April 1 and raised the sales tax in Healdsburg to 8.75 percent.

In promoting the measure, city officials said the extra revenue would be spent according to City Council funding priorities including public safety, street and sidewalk repair, economic development and deferred maintenance of city facilities such as the senior center, Villa Chanticleer and the library.

Jones said the proceeds from Measure V won’t be spent until the 2014-15 fiscal year, even though the council has decided now that half should go to streets.

“Over the next several months, public works will put together a plan on what streets are in most need of being repaired,” Jones said. “They’ll bring that to the council with estimates of what it will cost, and we will decide on direction.”

Along with half for streets, council members tentatively decided that 20 percent of the new tax revenue should go to police and fire, 20 percent to economic development, and 10 percent to deferred maintenance of public buildings.

Councilman Gary Plass said the economic development could be a $200,000 annual subsidy of the the Chamber of Commerce.

The city previous funneled redevelopment money to the chamber for its programs before the state eliminated that source.

You can reach Staff Writer Clark Mason at 521-5214 or clark.mason@pressdemocrat.com.

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Santa Rosa’s City Council is planning to tackle some thorny issues in the next two years, including the annexation of Roseland, requiring labor agreements on public projects and relaxing the city’s medicinal marijuana ordinance.

The council this week wrapped up its effort to set goals for the next two years, giving council members, particularly new ones, the chance to add issues to the long list of council priorities.

The former Albertsons supermarket sits empty in the heart of the Roseland business district

In addition to supporting long-running goals such as the reunification of Old Courthouse Square and gang-prevention efforts, council members added a number of new issues they felt should be “strategic objectives” for the city.

The one that got the most support from the public was the annexation of Roseland, the 400-acre county island in southwest Santa Rosa that many now say finally must be annexed into the city.

Resident Bill Haluzak told the council that it is ridiculous to have one side of Hughes Avenue in the city and the other in the county.

“Everyone’s just jammed up with the fact that half of it’s in the city, half of it’s in the county,” Haluzak said. “We need some real direction.”

Even vocal opponents of annexation say they have had a change of heart.

“I support annexation of Roseland. Twenty years ago, I didn’t,” said Duane DeWitt, who said he organized opposition to annexation in 1995 and again in 2005.

That effort petered out when the economy tanked in 2008. But there is renewed interest on the council in revisiting the issue. Gary Wysocky pushed for Roseland to be specifically named, instead of a more general goal of supporting annexation of all county islands in the city.

But city officials cautioned the task won’t be easy or inexpensive.

“Roseland is a very large, complex project that will, if it comes to fruition, go over a number of years, not just a couple years,” City Manager Kathy Millison said.

The effort is so complicated and potentially costly that Chuck Regalia, director of community development, said it will take a year to even put together a plan.

“I want to organize the city’s thinking on what we have to do to consider an annexation of that magnitude,” Regalia said.

The council agreed that Regalia should return by next April with a plan that includes cost estimates for annexation.

Another issue certain to stir controversy involves the adoption of two measures opposed by the building industry. One is requiring development projects to conduct community-impact reports, which cities including Petaluma require, but Santa Rosa does not.

Tony White, a member of the Living Wage Coalition, urged the council to consider adopting such reports, known as CIRs. He noted that when the city considers annexing Roseland, it will undoubtedly examine the social, economic and political impacts on the entire city of such a move.

“Why shouldn’t major construction projects of a certain size also be held to the same scrutiny?” White asked.

A report on CIRs is due in December.

In the other construction issue, Vice Mayor Erin Carlstrom proposed exploring whether project labor agreements were something the city should support. She suggested holding a study session on them by 2015.

Carlstrom is a former member of the Accountable Development Coalition, which advocates for such agreements. They generally require union rules, benefits and oversight for all workers on larger construction projects.

The county considered requiring such agreements for all county projects over $25 million, but the effort fell short last fall. Critics say they drive up costs, cause delays and exclude nonunion contractors.

Keith Woods, chief executive officer of the North Coast Builders Exchange, has been a sharp critic of such agreements for years. He questioned why the council would consider them at all, especially as part of its goal of promoting a sustainable economy.

“In terms of being good for contractors and the general public, your taxpayers, they are not good at all,” Woods said.

Council members were all over the board on the issue. Jake Ours said he’s long been against project labor agreements. Robin Swinth said she has higher priorities, like the budget and pensions. And Ernesto Olivares, who when he endorsed Carlstrom during the election agreed to consider supporting them, said he’s willing to listen.

“I would like to hear what they have to say,” Olivares said.

Another issue that received significant public support was revisiting the city’s restrictions on medicinal marijuana dispensaries. Craig Litwin, former mayor of Sebastopol, urged the council to lift the patient cap on dispensaries and loosen restrictions on business hours.

Carlstrom urged revisiting the ordinance more quickly, pushing it up from June 2014 to January.

She called for the Medicinal Marijuana Committee to reconvene and volunteered to serve on it. She said the committee’s work “is all but done” and it just needs to renew and formalize its recommendations.

Other issues added to the list of council priorities include: ensuring safe access to future SMART stations; increasing enforcement of trash and graffiti rules; strengthening local purchasing preferences; developing a funding plan to address various ongoing fiscal headaches, including unfunded pension liabilities, the expiration of Measure P’s sales-tax increase and the ever-increasing funding requirements in Measure O.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @citybeater.

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The state political watchdog agency Thursday fined two recently retired Santa Rosa parks and recreation department officials for accepting thousands of dollars in free golf rounds, lessons and merchandise discounts from the operator of the city-owned Bennett Valley Golf Club.

As expected, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission voted 4-0 to approve a $6,500 fine for former department director Marc Richardson and a $3,000 fine for former parks development manager Rich Hovden.

Bennett Valley Golf Course.

Both men had struck settlement agreements with the agency. Neither appeared at the hearing, but afterward Richardson issued a written statement.

“I apologize for what happened,” Richardson wrote. “I didn’t realize the trouble my actions caused at the time and should have; however, looking back I can see the violations and accept responsibility.”

Richardson retired in December after 27 years with the city. Hovden retired in February after 41 years with the city. Their departures followed an investigation by City Manager Kathy Millison prompted by an anonymous letter pointing out that Richardson golfed at the course nearly every Saturday and never appeared to pay.

“If this is true, it just doesn’t seem right, since he must have a pretty good salary with the City, and the rest of us, who are probably not as fortunate, always have to pay, and have seen the fees go up a lot lately,” states the letter, signed only by “Golfer.”

The city hired a private investigator, whose report confirmed that Richardson and Hovden had been accepting the free course access and other gifts for years from course operator Bob Borowicz.

The city asserts the entire report is a secret document, citing an exemption to the state’s public record act for “personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Both men repaid Borowicz in December and retired shortly thereafter. Richardson repaid $5,324, and Hovden repaid $4,479.

Since neither had disclosed the gifts as required on state financial disclosure forms, both were required to file amendments listing all the gifts. City Clerk Terri Griffin alerted the FPPC’s enforcement division to the potential violations. The amended filings formed the basis of the FPPC’s charges.

Richardson faced three charges. One was failing to disclose gifts over $50, which is required for all top city officials. He was fined $1,000 for it.

He also was fined for accepting gifts over the annual limit, which was $390 in 2007 and 2008 and $420 for 2009 to 2012.

The FPPC noted that in the year ending June 12, 2012, Richardson accepted $1,496 in gifts from Borowicz and was fined $2,000.

The most serious offense was the conflict-of-interest accusation. The FPPC noted that Richardson was receiving the free golf and other gifts from Borowicz during the time that Richardson negotiated a 10-year contract with Borowicz. He also negotiated an amendment to the contract increasing green fees in June of 2012, according to the FPPC.

Richardson told the FPPC he believed the two actions saved the city $1.6 million and that he “did not consider free course access a gift given his supervisory responsibilities” in the department. For this charge, Richardson was fined $3,500.

In his statement, Richardson also cited the savings to the city.

“I do want folks to know that the contracts we negotiated with the golf course operator were reductions to his compensation for course maintenance that saved the city $1.6 million,” Richardson wrote. “At this juncture I have made my amends, paid the fine and will count my blessing and move forward.”

Hovden was charged with failing to report gifts over $50, for which he was fined $1,000, and for exceeding the annual gift limit for four years, for which the fine was $2,000.

He, too, told FPPC officials that he did not consider the free golf, cart access, driving range access and merchandie discounts to be gifts because the course is city-owned and under the management of his department.

In its decision, the FPPC stressed the need for accurate reporting of such gifts.

“Failure to report all required information … deprives the public of important information about a public official’s economic interests and it has the potential to conceal conflicts of interest,” the FPPC said.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @citybeater.

By CLARK MASON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Windsor on Wednesday became the first city to join the Sonoma Clean Power Authority, created as an alternative to PG&E to provide a greener product at competitive, if not cheaper rates.

On a 3-2 vote, the Town Council adopted a resolution to join the county in the program that allows local governments to consolidate buying power and sell electricity to a local customer base.

“I’ve been waiting for this day for a very long time,” Councilwoman Debora Fudge said, adding that Sonoma Clean Power will provide residents a choice, go further in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and provide jobs to boost the local economy.

“It’s a way to make a big difference,” she said noting that the program intends to start with power that is 33 percent from renewable sources, a greater proportion than PG&E’s 20 percent.

The divided council vote came at the urging of more than a dozen speakers, including climate protection advocates, business owners, residents and county supervisors Mike McGuire and Efren Carrillo.

“By breaking the (PG&E) monopoly this will introduce competition where there has been none,” McGuire told the Town Council.

He said the county has completed a “significant amount of due diligence” over the past two years, including focus groups and market surveys to measure demand prior to deciding to launch the program and ask cities to join in.

But he acknowledged doubts persist, including some cities that have heard the county sales pitch, but not immediately signed on.

“This is a bold proposition and there is some fear and uncertainty,” McGuire said.

“I invite you to join in what could be a clean energy future,” Carrillo told the Windsor Council. “It can be something that transforms what this county looks like when it comes to local power and choice.”

Fudge, a retired PG&E employee, was joined in the majority Wednesday by council members Sam Salmon and Bruce Okrepkie who emphasized the alternative it will provide residents and businesses, who can still “opt out” if they wish and keep PG&E as their utility.

But Mayor Robin Goble and Councilman Steve Allen had doubts about the county program and voted again the resolution.

“There needs to be a stronger, fleshed-out business model before I choose to commit,” Goble said, adding that she would like to see it in existence for a year before deciding.

Allen said competition usually brings lower rates, but the county power agency has not been able to assure a decrease. Instead, it projects residential rates in 2014 would be 1.8 percent lower to 1 percent higher than PG&E’s and for commercial customers 3 percent lower to 0.5 percent higher.

“There’s a lot of things I like about this program. I still have some concerns,” said Allen. He questioned the fact that residents and businesses would have to opt out of the program if they wished to stay with PG&E.

He also had questions about how truly green Sonoma Clean Power will be if it intends initially, at least, to purchase “renewable energy credits,” or power from distant wind or solar farms, for example, that does not actually involve physically moving the electricity across state lines.

On the other hand, Allen also expressed concern that Sonoma Clean Power could cause the proliferation of solar panels in agricultural zones in the county, with vineyards “wiped out by a sea of photovoltaics.”

But Okrepkie said everyone wants the ability to choose, whether it be a supermarket, gas station or utility.

And despite council members receiving numerous emails both for and against joining the county power agency, he said “those who are so adamantly against didn’t show up tonight. That definitely bothers me.”

Woody Hastings, a manager with the Santa Rosa-based Climate Protection Campaign, noted that in 2010, 70 percent of Sonoma County voters were against Proposition 16, the PG&E-backed initiative that would have denied community choice aggregators such as Sonoma Clean Power.

“It paved the way to make this choice,” he told council members, adding that Marin County operates a program along with its cities.

Deputy County Counsel Steve Shupe said the $180 million that is now paid to PG&E in Sonoma County would no longer go to that company’s shareholders. Instead, net revenues from Sonoma Clean Power can be used to reduce rates or for ancillary programs, he said.

Shupe acknowledged risks, but said they are “minor and small,” such as misjudging power needs and or potentially committing to purchases that are not competitive.

The county has narrowed the list of potential power suppliers to four companies.

Even if Sonoma Clean Power failed, Shupe said customers could return to PG&E.

Under the new enterprise, PG&E would continue to provide all electricity delivery, repair and billing services.

You can reach Staff Writer Clark Mason at 521-5214 or clark.mason@pressdemocrat.com

By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A new Sonoma organization describing itself as a broad citizens group opposed to a voter initiative to cap hotel development is getting its seed money from the developer whose controversial project could be blocked by the proposed ballot measure.

Nancy Simpson, the campaign coordinator for Protect Sonoma, which is being formed as a political action committee, said the ballot measure is not needed because the city already has adequate controls on hotel development. “This is not about any particular project,” Simpson said. “This is about Sonoma as a whole.”

The revised plan for Chateau Sonoma Hotel & Spa. Key changes include shrinking the total project by 7,000-square feet, removing the Lynch building from the project and including one restaurant instead of three.

She acknowledged, however, that Darius Anderson and his firm, Kenwood Investments, are paying her to manage the organization. Anderson is the developer of a proposed 59-room hotel near the city Plaza that has become a flashpoint in the debate over hotel development.

Neither Anderson nor Kenwood Investments was identified in last week’s press release announcing the new committee and its members, nor are they referenced on the group’s website or Facebook page.

“This is seed money to start a group that was starting anyway,” said Simpson, co-owner of a wine consulting business. She would not disclose her compensation or the amount of Anderson’s contribution.

Neither Anderson nor Bill Hooper, the investment firm’s president, returned calls seeking comment this week. Anderson also is a principal of Sonoma Media Investments, which owns The Press Democrat.

The proposed ballot measure would cap any new hotel, or expansion of an existing one, at 25 rooms unless the city’s hotel occupancy rate over the previous calendar year exceeded 80 percent. In 2012, the rate was just under 65 percent.

Simpson, who is Sonoma Valley’s designee to the county Landmarks Commission, said residents already have a say about what kind of hotel development they want in town. “We have a process in place that evaluates every project that comes into the city of Sonoma on a case-by-case basis. It’s based on the general plan,” she said.

Other critics have said the measure would stymie economic growth in Sonoma and result in a de facto ban on most hotels by setting an impossibly high occupancy standard.

Sonoma has never experienced an annualized occupancy rate of 80 percent, according to City Manager Carol Giovanatto. She cited a national travel survey that found only three U.S. locales have achieved that rate — San Francisco, New York City and Waikiki Beach.

The initiative effort is driven by a group called Preserving Sonoma, which is led by Larry Barnett, a former bed-and-breakfast owner and mayor of the city.

He said Wednesday that Preserving Sonoma has gathered about 600 signatures in support of the ballot measure. That’s about half the number of registered voters’ signatures needed to qualify the measure for a special election.

Barnett said disclosure that Kenwood Investments is assisting the opposition group “furthers my opinion that this really doesn’t represent a true grass-roots effort if it’s being funded by someone who is building a hotel that is outside the size and scale of what is being contemplated for our initiative.”

Barnett described Preserving Sonoma as a “100 percent genuine grass-roots group” that has no paid staff.

Campaign finance reports filed with the city show that Barnett loaned the group $20,000.

Barnett said the group also has taken in about $4,000 in donations, the largest of which — $1,000 — was contributed by Sonoma psychologist Barbara Sachs-Senn, reports show.

“Quote, progress happens, but I’d rather it be slow than too fast,” Sachs-Senn said. “It bothers me every time I want to cross the Plaza now and there’s so much traffic at times, especially between Whole Foods and the Bank of America.”

Barnett said Preserving Sonoma owes the San Francisco law firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger about $35,000 for legal services related to the drafting of the proposed hotel ordinance.

The retired innkeeper and web designer said he expects he’ll have to loan the campaign an additional $15,000 of his own money to cover that expense.

“I hope to get some of that back, but if not, it’s for a good cause,” Barnett said.

Barnett said he has received no funding from Sonoma lodging owners.

“Not even a dollar,” he said.

Simpson said she submitted paperwork to the California Secretary of State to register Protect Sonoma, which is required before the committee can start to solicit donations. The group’s full name is Protect Sonoma: Sonomans for a Sustainable Future.

State campaign laws generally don’t require a developer to disclose his role with a PAC, other than if he or she were to contribute to the committee, according to Tara Stock, a spokeswoman for the Fair Political Practices Commission.

David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University, called Anderson’s involvement with the committee a potentially risky move that could alienate some Sonoma voters.

Anderson is a Sacramento lobbyist in addition to his work with Kenwood Investments.

“You don’t want there to be an appearance that you are directly funding a spokesperson or a campaign against something,” McCuan said.

But McCuan said Protect Sonoma gives Anderson a platform to mount an opposition campaign, which he said usually are successful in contested local ballot measures.

“It’s easier to block, than it is to propose and pass,” he said.

Barnett alleged that the Protect Sonoma name was deliberately selected by initiative opponents to create confusion on the issue.

Simpson denied that.

“I don’t think it’s that similar,” she said of the group’s name.

Protect Sonoma’s initial members are: Jeff Bundschu, Saul Gropman, Jean Arnold, Chip Allen, Gary Saperstein, Ethel and Gene Daly, Steve Burns, Gary Magnani, Mark Danon, Dana Adams, Lisa Cavalli, Tina Shone, Nancy Cline and Mike Marino.

You can reach Staff Writer Derek Moore at 521-5336 or derek.moore@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @deadline derek.

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A judge on Wednesday refused to block construction of three new storage silos at a Santa Rosa asphalt plant.

Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Elliot Daum denied a request by neighbors to halt construction of the 82-foot-high silos at the BoDean asphalt plant north of Railroad Square.

Bodean Company plant operator Anthony Boyle runs the batch plant from the control room on Monday, April 23, 2012. (Christopher Chung / PD)

The judge ruled Citizens for Safe Neighborhoods failed to show that halting work on the silos was in the public interest. He noted that BoDean has the right to move forward with its project while the group’s lawsuit is pending, albeit at the company’s own risk.

The neighborhood group is suing BoDean and the City of Santa Rosa, whose City Council narrowly approved the project in April, in an effort to force more environmental study of the $2 million project.

Neighbors have raised a number of health and land-use concerns about the project, which they characterize as a significant expansion of the Maxwell Drive plant. They worry about increased noise, traffic and emissions, and argue the City Council should never have exempted the project from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The company denies the three silos and related equipment would expand the plant’s capacity. It says the upgrades would help it operate more efficiently and will lower greenhouse gas emissions.

BoDean general manager Bill Williams said the company has spent nearly $500,000 preparing the site for the new silos. It expects to have the new equipment up and running by July.

The neighborhood group had argued the project would “irreparably damage the environment” if allowed to be constructed. Allen Thomas, a vocal opponent of the project, said the group decided not to challenge the judge’s ruling because its lawsuit is set for trial in August.

“We are confident we will prevail in August,” Thomas said.

But the judge doesn’t sound convinced, finding in his ruling that the group “failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.”