Asphalt plant showdown looms

<p>Is it a state-of-the-art upgrade of an industry that’s been operating in town virtually unnoticed for 20 years?</p><p>Or an environmental disaster just across the river from one of Petaluma’s cherished open spaces?</p><p>Those views — and an untold number of others — are headed toward a showdown next week when the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors votes on a proposed asphalt plant south of Petaluma.</p><p>Dutra Materials, which operates the San Rafael Rock Quarry and formerly operated a quarry and asphalt plant on Petaluma Boulevard South, is proposing the project for 38 acres of land across from Shollenberger Park.</p><p>The project would include a concrete recycling facility, where rubble is crushed for use in new asphalt; a plant to produce that new asphalt; and a barge off-loading site to bring raw materials from San Rafael and San Francisco Bay.</p><p>About 225,000 tons of asphalt would be produced each year, part of 664,000 total tons of material to leave the site annually, according to the county’s environmental impact report.</p><p>Dutra is planning to operate the asphalt plant during daytime hours most of the time, with 24-hour operations only needed for emergency operations and large projects, the company said.</p><p>The company is seeking a county use permit and General Plan change for the land at Tuesday’s 2:10 p.m. hearing, during the supervisors’ regular meeting in Santa Rosa.</p><p>But in addition to hearing from Dutra, the county is expected to get an earful from members of the public who are either outright opposed to the plant or want to see it fully enclosed inside a large building.</p><p>Opposition to Dutra’s plans grew this week when all seven members of the Petaluma City Council voted to send supervisors a letter that says the current proposal should be denied.</p><p>The vote followed comments from more than 20 speakers who said they opposed Dutra’s plans.</p><p>“Dutra should be required to do it right,” said Gerald Moore, chairman of the Petaluma Wetlands Alliance. “The only reasonable answer is to go someplace else.” Otherwise, “the only other choice is complete and total containment of their operation.”</p><p>A draft of the letter discussed at Monday’s council meeting warns of the “massive visual impact” of the project and says the plant must be completely enclosed to contain emissions.</p><p>“The current proposal is not designed appropriately for an important gateway both to Petaluma and Sonoma County,” the council’s draft letter states.</p><p>“The visual impact of this thing is stunning,” Councilmember Mike Healy said. “To have something like this be the first thing you see as you come into the region is just disheartening.”</p><p>The EIR for the project found that it would have a “significant and unavoidable” impact on the scenic vistas around the area, known as “Haystack Landing” from its days as a port for river commerce.</p><p>“The proposed project would dominate the views in the area, standing out against the setting and attracting attention away from the surrounding landscape,” the document states.</p><p>To address those concerns, the company must limit its piles of aggregate sand and rock to 20 feet in height, plant landscaping along a 10-foot-high berm to shield the plant from the highway and preserve as many trees along the western edge of the property as possible, the EIR said.</p><p>The company says enclosing its entire site inside a building is not warranted, given the other steps they are taking to reduce the project’s impacts, and would create an even greater visual impact than the current plan.</p><p>There are also concerns about emissions and odors from the plant.</p><p>Former city councilman David Keller, who toured a Southern California asphalt plant with Dutra officials earlier this year, said failure to adequately contain “blue smoke” from fresh batches of asphalt will cause severe odor problems.</p><p>He contends that the only way to ensure odors won’t be carried across the river to Shollenberger Park is to contain the entire plant inside a large building.</p><p>“If you’re going to have an asphalt plant, get it right,” he said. In an enclosed building, “all the noise, all the activity, the dust and the fumes will still be indoors.”</p><p>Dutra says such a building is not necessary because of the odor controls planned for their plant.</p><p>Fresh asphalt would be loaded into trucks inside an enclosed tunnel from which no air escapes, said Brian Peer, Dutra’s materials general manager.</p><p>That air is then treated through filter controls “that should eliminate nuisance odors and complaints” to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the EIR states.</p><p>“A lot of thought and ideas have gone into this,” Peer said. “It’s a carefully engineered project that is designed with emissions in mind.”</p><p>A “significant and unavoidable impact” related to air quality listed in the EIR is the creation of nitrogen oxides in an amount that would exceed the air quality district’s “threshold of significance,” primarily from truck emissions.</p><p>Those emissions — known as “ozone precursors” — would contribute to the San Francisco Air Basin’s violation for ozone, the EIR found.</p><p>However, future emissions are expected to decrease with new heavy-duty diesel engine regulations, low-emission fuels and retirement of older vehicles, the EIR suggests.</p><p>Since some of the plant’s visual, air quality and noise impacts are deemed “significant and unavoidable,” the Board of Supervisors will have to adopt “overriding considerations” in order to approve the project, said Jennifer Barrett, deputy director of the Permit and Resource Management Department.</p><p>“The board will need to find that there are overriding considerations that justify dealing with those effects,” Barrett said.</p><p>Noise is also a concern. At two locations along the Shollenberger walking path that parallels the riverbank, noise from plant operations would exceed county standards, the EIR found.</p><p>To reduce that noise, the company is proposing an additional berm around its concrete recycling facility — which would only run a few times a year during the day — and a soundwall between loud machinery and the river, Peer said.</p><p>“It’s a mitigation that is wholly designed to reduce operational noise and the nearby residences and at the park,” he said.</p><p>Company CEO Aimi Dutra said a new report is being developed this week to examine how those additional protections will reduce noise from the plant.</p><p>“It should address the concerns,” she said.</p><p>Meanwhile, south county supervisor Mike Kerns says he hasn’t made up his mind about the plant and will wait until hearing from county staff and the public Tuesday.</p><p>“There’s a lot of misinformation and hysteria being spread around town about this project,” he said. “Fear is sometimes much greater than reality. We required a very comprehensive and thorough EIR, and we’re doing everything we possibly can to mitigate the impacts.”</p><p>Petaluma Mayor Pamela Torliatt said she would appear at next week’s hearing to deliver the council’s letter.</p><p>“We need to make sure City Hall is fighting for you and fighting for what we want to see in the community,” she told the audience at Monday’s meeting.</p><p>(Contact Corey Young at corey.young@arguscourier.com)</p>