Is the Petaluma City Council doing any thing to stop this plant, or has this company donated to their campaign's also?

For those who don't know... this project is on county land but is obviously very important to Petaluma. It borders on some environmentally sensitive areas and is the type of heavy industry most of us would rather not live adjacent to. But as a user of our city streets, the asphalt must be made somewhere and why should we expect that to be at another community's expense? Even if you don't own a car, you likely ride your bike on paved roads or have kids who play on paved playgrounds. And you likely have an expectation for their maintenance.

I watch the Council meetings and there is at least one Council Member that has been attending all of the public hearings on the matter (Sonoma County Planning Commission and So Co Board of Supervisors). I don't think there's a single Council Member that has shown a lack of interest or concern. A couple of months ago, the Council spent the better part of a meeting drafting a list of concerns to contribute to the process. It's a complex issue as there are several river dependent industries as well as a lot of tourism in Petaluma that rely on federally funded dredging to make the river navigable for their vessels. I think the region needs to demonstrate a threshold dollar level of river dependent industry revenue to continue qualifying for those funds which greatly exceed what this handful of river dependent businesses could afford on their own. This project may be part of the trade off we need to make in order to enjoy the river as we know it today. If we lose the dredging... and the industries that depend on it... I think the fear is that the "river" will eventually revert to more of it's original slough which means that even the type of recreational craft we see in the downtown turning basin won't be able to get here. It sounds dramatic, but I'm just trying to explain the complexity of the issues and don't claim to have all the info.

I've also read that Dutra, the plant owner, is exploring state of the art technology in order to minimize the impact of the plant. David Keller stated at the November 1st City Council meeting that he is travelling to Southern California to see one such plant. I think there is actually a lot of work being done to ensure that, if this is a compromise we need to make with all these things in the balance, that the City exerts as much pressure as it can to do it right. The City needs a certain amount of asphalt to make things work. Not everyone can forego their automobiles completely and put food on the table for their families or provide jobs for Petalumans without them. We have to be willing to accept some of the downsides that go along with it. I don't think stopping the plant is the most constructive way to approach the challenge. Advocating for the most environmentally sensitive plant possible and conditioning its use are more likely will have a better outcome than trying to stop it. Sensing that this thing is going to be built here whether we like it or not, why not focus on making it a leading edge plant that can start to change the face of an industry? This is a tough issue. We can be part of a bigger solution by using careful strokes instead of worn out broad brushes.

WOW, very...VERY well said Frank.

At the last meeting on this, an environmental expert weighed in on the impact this would have. It's not good.

The next hearing has been postponed until February.

WHEATHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT? SOUNDS LIKE A G. BUSH THING OR? THE LAST TIME THAT WAS SAID IT WENT DOWN TO DEFEAT OR HAVE WE ALREADY FORGOTTEN THE LAST ELECTION THAT SOMEONE TRIED TO FORCE FEED THE PUBLIC.
THIS IS A MAJOR MISTAKE AND THE FUTURE OF PETALUMA IS IN THE BALANCE. THE RIVER IS A WONDERFUL THING AND NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED BUT AT WHAT EXPENSE, I HAVE LIVED HERE 35 YEARS AND THE OVERALL CONDITION OF PETALUMA AS A PLACE TO RAISE CHILDREN IS GONE.SCHOOLS, GANGS, YOU NAME IT.WHEN IS THE LAST TIME THE CITY DID SOMETHING FOR THE KIDS AND NOT RELATED TO MORE TAX INCOME FOR THE CITY TO WASTE. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE SMALL SHOPS AND BUSINESS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PETALUMA FOR THE PAST 15 TO 30 YEARS THAT HAVE CLOSED, BIGGER IS NOT BETTER, BETTER PLANNING AND KEEPING THE FUTURE IN SIGHT FOT THE NEXT GENERATION IS WHAT WE NEED NOW, NOT A POLLUTING PLANT ON THE RIVER FOR MORE TAX DOLLARS.
SONOMS CO. PLANNING >>>>>>>>WHAT PLANNING.

Per the other posts, apparently the public and expert testimony resulted in a postponement of this decision so the Board of Supes could examine the new information. No doubt, the input from the Petaluma City Council was key. I would think you'd be thrilled with this outcome. It's about the best one you can expect.

Instead, you're lambasting the public officials who did listen to all the public input with an ALL CAPS TIRADE of accusations. Do you really think that helps those who are championing your point of view to be more effective?

I've been here 25 years. Petaluma is not "gone". The city does tremendous amounts of good things for kids... and residents of all ages. There are tough choices to be made. You might not agree with them all. Throw your name in the ring and give it a go. The first step is getting people to listen to you, then agree with you. Ditching the caps and being respectful to those who volunteer hundreds of hours a year would be a good start.

Like many I am very concerned with the proposed plan to build a Asphalt Plant near Shollenberger Park and the community. We can not lose site of the down side to having a asphalt plant near the community and wetlands and the wild life that lives there. • Check it out, is this what you want for you and your family?

Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities produce a significant amount of hazardous air pollutants. These pollutants could be hazardous to infants, children and the elderly --especially if they have respiratory problems.

• The plant will release harmful emissions. The (fugitive emissions) are released as the asphalt is moved around in trucks, conveyor belts and stockpiles. When the trucks are waiting to be filled (even in a idling gear) they are releasing toxins.

• Hot mix asphalt contains gravel and sand mixed with asphalt cement obtained from crude oil. Hydrocarbons are released into the air by asphalt as it is loaded into trucks and hauled from the plant site. Volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and condensed particulates are just a few of the pollutants these plants emit. These and other toxins could be very harmful to people, wetlands and plant life.

• Healthy wetlands are important to our ecosystems. They provide habitat, and cover, to wildlife for feeding, breading, and nesting. .
It's your community, take care of it.

There weren't any public forums on this project in Petaluma during the planning process. You can thank mike kerns for not caring about the people. But so what else is new? The EIR on this project states that problems are significant and unavoidable.

There are other environmental issues that the letter from the City of Petaluma (an action driven by Mayor Pamela Torliatt and councilmember Teresa Barrettt) addresses. Although in the county, the plant would violate Petaluma's noise ordinance. They plan on treating (desalinization?) river water to continually spray over the site to keep dust down. There is no real fresh water supply on site so they have to do it this way. Anyway, they plan on just letting this water run back into the river without treatment and taking all matter of debris, oil and other toxic components with it. That's an environmental violation right there. The site is flood prone during heavy winter storms. What's going to happen then?

Many are crying out "why not locate this on the old Pomery site on Hopper Street". After all, that site is zoned precisely for this kind of operation, where the Haystack Landing site is not. The answer that they give is that there are other plans for the Pomery Site for development. That answer is pure hogwash. The real answer is that the county will let Dutra get off with far less environmental controls on noise and pollution than the city would. Dutra has been in the Marin County courts for a decade or more due to violations at their operation in San Rafael. Their plan to model this after a "state of the art" facility in Southern California is a joke.

Regardless of where they build this asphalt plant, Dutra must be held to a higher standard of construction than they are seeking.

What about (do not burn nights), will they be able to process 24/7 regardless of air quality.
What about heavy fog nights,when the fog comes in just like lite rain, where will the fumes go, into the fog and right back to the river, down stream and surounding area.
The rock quarry they left behind now looks like strip minning, is the city working on a plan to develope that site if the developer bailed out.

To Whole Story-

SOME ELDERLY PEOPLE TYPE IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE OF FAILING EYESIGHT AND IT IS HARD TO SEE THE SMALLER CASE LETTERS. I'M SURPRISED THAT WITH YOUR ATTENTION TO DETAIL YOU DIDN'T PICK UP ON THIS. IF YOU ARE BLESSED WITH PERFECT SIGHT, GOOD FOR YOU!

Does this asphalt plant have anything to do with that historic Victorian mansion that mysteriously burned down on the site where they want to put said asphalt plant?

Thanks Boopity for your thoughts.

Assuming that DP> is really just trying to make is point of view easier to read (some of the time... he doesn't always use caps), my input is this: If his/her objective is to influence other readers to his/her way of thinking, it's common convention that using all caps in internet forums in perceived as shouting at other readers. I don't have perfect vision and actually think all caps are harder on the eyes. I think he/she would be more effective without them. For example, his last post above focused on some very good issues that got me prowliing around the Sonoma County Website looking for the project DEIR to try to find some answers.

Asphalt Plant, but not near community and sensitive wetlands, do you want to live right next to a Asphalt Plant, google danger of asphalt plants, and you will see why it is so harmful,

Link
BLUE PRINT OF AN ASPHALT PLANT, WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE ACROSS THE RIVER.

January 2016>>>Future of Petaluma

Salmon and Steelhead fail to return to Adobe Creek

The United Angler of Casa Grande High School have reported that no Salmon or Steelhead returned to Adobe Creek this year. After thirty three years of work it seems that the contamination from the Asphalt plant across the river has taken its toll on the stream and surrounding creeks.

Asphalt plants mix gravel and sand with crude oil derivatives to make the asphalt These plants release millions of pounds of chemicals to the air during production each year, including many cancer-causing toxic air pollutants such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and cadmium. Other toxic chemicals are released into the air as the asphalt is loaded into trucks and hauled from the plant site, including volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and very fine condensed particulates.
Samples taken show the contamination to be wide spread, the tides in the river have moved the petroleum byproducts, heavy metals from the area to the grass along the bank and deep into the river bed.
Asphalt Fumes are Known Toxins.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states "Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities are major sources of hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene. Exposure to these air toxics may cause cancer, central nervous system problems, liver damage, respiratory problems and skin irritation." [EPA]. According to one health agency, asphalt fumes contain substances known to cause cancer, can cause coughing, wheezing or shortness of breath, severe irritation of the skin, headaches, dizziness, and nausea. Animal studies show PAHs affect reproduction, cause birth defects and are harmful to the immune system. The US Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs may be carcinogenic to humans.