Asphalt plant's fate in county supervisors' hands

<p>The ongoing battle over a proposed asphalt plant near Petaluma’s southern boundary resumes at 2:10 p.m. this Tuesday, Dec. 8 at the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ chambers.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>Four supervisors will take a straw vote after reviewing Dutra Materials’ downsized plans and the county planning staff’s new report.</p><p>A final vote is expected in early January, after Supervisor Valerie Brown returns from a European ecology conference.</p><p>Dutra, which operated an asphalt plant on Petaluma Boulevard South for 20 years, filed an application five years ago to relocate its facility to property located between Highway 101 and the Petaluma River, just south of the Shamrock Materials aggregate facility and across the river from Shollenberger Park.</p><p>Over the last year, opponents have cited air pollution, noise, traffic, visibility and proximity to Shollenberger Park as reasons to deny the application. Dutra says a Petaluma plant is necessary to provide low-cost asphalt to area road projects with minimum transportation costs and lessened greenhouse gas emissions.</p><p>According to the project’s spokesperson, Aimi Dutra, the project has been modified in the following ways:</p><p>n Peak production has been decreased from 400 to 300 tons per hour to reduce air emissions, which have been recalculated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to show no significant environmental risk;</p><p>n There will be no crushing and stockpiling of recycled asphalt on the site, which will reduce the total amount of materials handled at the site to 554,000 from 664,000 tons, which will reduce both traffic and noise. Recycled materials will be prepared elsewhere and trucked into the site;</p><p>n Silos for the plant will be reduced from 76 feet to 62 feet by reducing the silo storage capacity from two 200-ton silos to two 100-ton silos. This is designed to reduce short- and long-term air emissions. Tall trees will be planted alongside the silos to reduce visibility.</p><p>The property is outside city limits, but the city of Petaluma’s primary General Plan land-use map shows the property as “industrial.” A goal of the city’s plan deals with Petaluma Boulevard South, and says that the city should “Create a strong sense of entry into the community,” but should also “Preserve and expand river-dependent industrial uses, while improving appearance from Petaluma Boulevard South with landscaping.”</p><p>Geoff Bradley, planning manager for the city, said that although the Dutra property is outside city limits, it is inside the city’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and inside its Sphere of Influence. As such, the city can comment on proposed development in the area, but does not have any decision-making authority over the site.</p><p>The Petaluma City Council has expressed opposition to the project, while County Supervisor Mike Kerns, who represents the south county, has been an advocate.</p><p>In previous public hearings, the county placed more than 150 conditions on the proposed plant’s operations, including a requirement that the plant enclose all production processes that emit gases. The submitted plans call for a closed system that will automatically shut down if gases are emitted through operational failure.</p><p>By eliminating the recycling component of the proposed plant and reducing the production per hour from 400 to 300 tons, the project’s projected air quality impacts have been lessened.</p><p>The air district’s revised assessment of emissions shows all cancer-causing emissions levels at below significant impacts.</p><p>Some opponents disagree with the rigorousness of the health standards applied by the BAAQMD, but they are the applicable standards accepted by the EIR process in play for this decision.</p><p>Independent consultant Christopher A. Joseph & Associates also found that, while the cancer risks were less than significant, the overall air quality impact “would remain significant and unavoidable.”</p><p>The visual impacts of the plant have been a major objection by opponents, who say that the 62 foot silos constitute a “visual blight” inappropriate for the gateway to Petaluma.</p><p>An independent review of the modified project by a county-retained consulting firm concluded that “the aesthetic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.”</p><p>The number of truck trips generated by the project go to the heart of whether the plant should be built, considering that there is enough asphalt generating capacity available from regional plants in Santa Rosa, San Rafael and Vallejo to meet projected demands, according to the EIR.</p><p>Dutra, however, points to a report showing that without the plant, greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from additional truck traffic to transport aggregate and asphalt) will be two-and-a-half times higher than without a local plant.</p><p>Dutra also states that both the city and the county will save money by not having to pay transportation costs to truck in asphalt for local projects.</p><p>Perhaps the most passionate issue for project opponents is the proposed plant’s proximity to Shollenberger Park. Highway 10I traffic noise already dominates the area, and opponents point out that adding asphalt production and attendant truck and barge traffic will exacerbate that situation.</p><p>How disruptive the plant would be to wildlife and recreational enjoyment of the park is mostly subjective, though noise is certainly an issue. Removing the recycling component, deemed the single loudest element of the project, will help mitigate noise. Expected noise levels fall just below the ordinance limits, according to the Joseph report.</p><p>(Contact Jay Gamel at argus@arguscourier.com)</p>