Dutra retools asphalt plant plan

Dutra Materials returns to Sonoma County supervisors Tuesday with revised and reduced plans for a controversial asphalt plant, presenting its case in a public hearing where all eyes will be on the pivotal vote wielded by west county Supervisor Efren Carrillo.

Carrillo holds the swing vote because he is the only one of the five supervisors who has indicated he remains open to considering modifications to the company's original plan for locating an asphalt production facility on the banks of the Petaluma River, across from Shollenberger Park.

Two supervisors maintain the bigger plant was just fine, but two others think it's wasted effort to sit through yet another Dutra debate.

Carrillo said Friday he wouldn't deliver an opinion on Dutra's revised proposal until he's heard what the company and the public have to say Tuesday.

"There are still questions to be asked on the project and that's what Tuesday's hearing lends itself to," he said.

Carrillo said he will be particularly interested in how Dutra addresses public concerns about aesthetics, air quality, public health, hydrology, water quality and noise.

If previous knock-down, drag-out debates on the asphalt plant are any indication, both sides are gearing up for another lengthy duel that could last several hours. Board sources say the public hearing may end in a straw vote, but not in a final decision because Supervisor Valerie Brown will be absent and she wants a final vote postponed until sometime in January.

Supervisors Mike Kerns, who represents the Petaluma area, and board Chairman Paul Kelley have voted in favor of previous incarnations of the asphalt plant and are likely to support the newest version.

Brown and Supervisor Shirlee Zane have said they are opposed to it. In July, they voted to cut off further negotiations between the San Rafael company and the county's Permit and Resource Management Department over use-permit conditions.

Brown, who will be attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that runs Dec. 13-18, said she would listen to recordings of the public hearing before making a final decision.

Carrillo said it has been difficult for the board to reach a decision because proponents and opponents are using the same analysis of environmental impacts and reaching very different conclusions.

"The people of Sonoma County have demonstrated strong views on both sides of the project," Carrillo said. "Without a doubt, they have worked diligently in participating in the democratic decision-making process to do their best to address the issues and concerns at hand."

Over the past year, Carrillo has steered a middle path on the Dutra plant, initially indicating support and later casting the key vote that sent Dutra back to the drawing boards. Carrillo supported the project when the board gave preliminary approval on a 4-1 vote in February, and then in June, he joined Zane and Brown in voting against the project, citing health and environmental concerns.

Aimi Dutra, whose family owns the construction materials company, said the scaled-down proposal is not merely aimed at winning over Carrillo, but is also designed to allay the concerns of Brown and Zane.

"It is not just the one supervisor, it is the concerns of several supervisors that we are aiming for," Dutra said. "And we are aiming for the support of the community because we think we have worked hard to bring down the numbers (on projections of cancer, chronic disease and acute health risks)."

Zane, however, said last week that she doubts she'll hear much Tuesday that will resolve her concerns about the effect of plant emissions on air quality and health.

"I will listen with an open mind because every job matters in this county," Zane said. "There have been a few things that Dutra has changed, but nothing has changed in terms of the unavoidable impacts on air quality, the scenic corridor and the environment. Dutra may meet the standards, but it is not by much and that is not good enough for me."

Dutra's latest proposal calls for:

Shorter stacks on the asphalt plant, down from 76 feet in height to 62 feet.

A lower peak production level, down from 400 tons an hour to 300 tons.

Elimination of the aggregate recycled materials facility.

"We reduced the height of the stacks to address the visual impacts, we removed the recycle recovery facility so that it takes 23,000 truck trips off the roads and we dropped our peak production by 100 tons per hour," Dutra said. "All of that drives down the projections on impact on air quality so that we are well below the margin of error. It addresses the sentiment that it was too close to acceptable levels."

But former south county supervisor Bill Kortum, one of the leading Dutra opponents, said that no amount of changes in project scope or addition of use permit conditions will make it acceptable.

"The revision does not remove the basic problem of putting an asphalt plant that close to human activities like Shollenberger Park," Kortum said. "The supervisors should not put a unit like this at the entrance to the county when the public has expressed itself over and over again that it wants to protect the landscape and not run roughshod over our scenic corridors."

Over the past year, the asphalt plant project has become a rallying point for environmental groups opposed to its riverfront location. But it also has attracted wide support from people in the building and trades industries because it would provide jobs as well as a local source of asphalt for road projects and pothole repair.

Whatever the ultimate decision, the project is certain to remain an issue in next year's election in the 2nd Supervisorial District because Kerns is not running for re-election and four candidates have already filed for the post.

For 20 years, Dutra operated an asphalt plant at an upriver location and then for another three years nearby until the county shut it down last year because its use permit had expired. The new site is zoned for commercial use. Approval of supervisors is needed because production of road construction material is an industrial use not allowed under the general plan.

You can reach Staff Writer Bleys W. Rose at 521-5431 or bleys.rose@pressdemocrat.com.