Mostly sunny

Court rejects lawsuit over Petaluma asphalt plant

  • 1/25/2009: B5: The proposed asphalt plant would have barge-docking facilities along the Petaluma River, while the plant itself would be away from the river's banks.

    PC: The barge docking facilities will be where the pilings are in the photo and the asphalt plant will on the left away from the bank of the Petaluma River. January 21, 2009 The Press Democrat / Jeff Kan Lee

A state appellate court on Friday rejected on all counts an appeal by the city of Petaluma and environmental groups that challenged county approval of the Dutra Materials asphalt plant just south of Petaluma.

The unanimous ruling, signed by a three-judge panel from the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, affirms the 2011 judgment of Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Rene Chouteau, who ruled that the county's environmental analysis was adequate and that open meeting laws had been followed.

The court fight extended what has been one of the county's most high profile land-use battles over the past decade.

In 2004, Dutra Materials, based in San Rafael, proposed a plant on 38 acres just east of Highway 101 and south of the Petaluma River. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors ultimately approved an environmental analysis, rezoning and construction of the facility in late 2010. The approval came on closely watched 3-2 vote by supervisors.

Aimi Dutra said Friday that her family's company will forge ahead quickly in making the plant a reality.

"We're pleased to have successfully won at the court of appeal on all fronts," she said. "It was nice to get a ruling across the board in our favor, and not a split vote."

Opponents, who had rallied community support and at least $10,000 in donations toward legal costs, were disappointed in the ruling.

Petaluma attorney Lawrence King, who wrote a friend of the court brief on behalf of the city and environmental groups, said it hadn't been determined whether to pursue an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"They rarely grant those, but whether the parties will decide that, I'm not sure," he said.

The state Supreme Court generally only accepts cases that have had split decisions at the appellate court or that create legal uncertainties, said Deputy County Counsel Jeff Brax, who represented Sonoma County in the case. Those decisions are typically published, meaning they can be used as legal precedent.

comments powered by Disqus
© The Argus Courier |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View