Dutra gets breathing space, for now

Dutra Group’s plans for a riverside asphalt production plant got a reprieve Tuesday afternoon when three county supervisors postponed a final decision until a scaled-back version can be evaluated.

The asphalt plant has been the center of a storm of protest because of its siting — on county property next to the Petaluma River and directly across from the city-owned Shollenberger Park. Critics assail the proposed plant for potential noise, toxic emissions and health hazards to nearby residents, workers, park patrons and wildlife nesting in the park. To approve the project, the county would have to amend its General Plan and rezone the 38-acre property.

South county Supervisor Mike Kerns asked his colleagues to consider continuing the process at the request of the Dutra Group because he considered the request “reasonable.”

“The community is split on this issue,” Kerns said. “It’s reasonable that we consider the reduced project.”

The deciding vote was cast by new supervisor Efren Carrillo, who previously indicated his inclination to deny the project after an exhausting three-hour public hearing last month.

“I’m not saying I will support the revised project,” Carrillo admonished, “but I do believe in the open, democratic way. We need to keep open minds.”

Dutra spokesperson Aimi Dutra said afterward, “A good project just got better.” She expects the company could come back to the Board of Supervisors in the next two or three months.

Dutra proposed reducing peak asphalt production from 400 tons per hour to 300 tons per hour to reduce air emissions. They would also forgo crushing and stocking recycled asphalt at the site to eliminate a large part of the noise element and reduce the number of truck trips to the site.

A smokestack would be reduced in height from 76 to 62 feet, and a pair of 200-ton silos would be reduced in capacity (and size) to accommodate 100 tons of materials. These actions are intended to reduce visibility of the plant.

Supervisors Valerie Brown and Shirlee Zane both voted to deny the project “without prejudice,” which means it could have been brought back through the planning process without delay.

The continuation approved by the supervisors will not require the project to go back through the planning department. It will go directly to the board when it is ready.

The item was not a public hearing, so the public was not allowed to speak, as it was on June 9, when the supervisors listened to five hours of testimony and then three of the five supervisors said they would not support the project.

Proponents and opponents packed the supervisors’ chambers, with supporters slightly outnumbered by those who don’t want the plant.

While backers were pleased that the project got a reprieve, opponents were none too happy with the outcome.

Petaluma Mayor Pamela Torliatt was among those who wanted to see the project turned down. “I think we as a City Council as well as residents of the south county are disappointed in the fact that this project could still continue to come to fruition. I wish, and I think the community wishes, that the Board of Supervisors had voted to deny the project today,” she said.

She and others think that merely scaling back the project won’t cure its fatal flaws.

“There are significant issues that are not going to change even if the plant proposal is going to change in size,” said Cat Canto. Canto is vice president of Moms for Clean Air, a group opposed to the plant. She cited “the county’s General Plan amendment, health risks, proximity to Shollenberger Park, emissions, those kind of things. I understand those things will decrease, but I am a nurse with a clinical consulting business. There is no level of emissions that is safe.”

Others feel that extensive environmental violations at other Dutra sites in Marin and as far away as Miami don’t speak well for the project owner.

“Dutra cannot be trusted,” said Susan Ivy Herman, a Petaluma resident. “They have created their history of violations. It’s not just here in California; it’s all the way back to Miami.”

Kerns asked that all the parties to the controversy sit down and discuss Dutra’s plans to revise the project.

“Dutra has had four years to come up with something that might work for the community,” said former city councilman David Keller. “Now, at the last minute after the hearing is closed, they come up with a single-page, vague letter asking for a continuance with no details and, unfortunately, Supervisor Kerns decided that was good enough for him.”

(Contact Jay Gamel at argus@arguscourier.com)