As soon as a few anti-Dutra activists walked in waving sticks with cut-out images of Sonoma County supervisors? heads and fabricated quotes in speech bubbles, it was pretty clear that rational debate Tuesday about the proposed asphalt plant had walked out the door.
Studies detailing equipment noise levels, air quality monitoring and reduced greenhouse gas emissions from use of barges got short shrift during what many observers called the most contentious public hearing in years.
About 200 people attended the crowded hearing on whether to grant Dutra Materials a General Plan amendment to allow an asphalt plant on Petaluma?s south side.
?Not since the 1970s debates when the General Plan was being discussed have I seen launched so many divisive, personal attacks on people?s integrity,? former west county supervisor Eric Koenigshofer said Wednesday. ?What is totally bizarre is that this issue has been in the works for five years and then it explodes with all this intensity.?
Longtime observers of supervisors? public hearings called the tone of debate churlish, disrespectful and downright counterproductive.
The issue pitted environmentalists, many based in Petaluma, against Dutra supporters, many also from Petaluma. Invective and hyperbole were flung in equal measure as opponents affirmed they?d move out of Petaluma while supporters contended the ugly spectre of NIMBYism had risen to new heights.
Supervisor Valerie Brown admonished Dutra opponents for sending some of the most vitriolic e-mail correspondence she?d ever received and she pointedly cautioned them for the future, saying ?don?t piss off the people that are voting for you.?
And Supervisor Efren Carrillo acknowledged he was troubled when ?I was confronted in my neighborhood grocery store about this project.? He said he was offended that Petaluma opponents called for situating the asphalt plant west of Cotati, at the county landfill.
?It is irresponsible to simply flop it somewhere else? when concerns about public health, environment, noise and production of airborne toxins are common everywhere, Carrillo said.
The opinions of Brown and Carrillo turned out to be crucial at conclusion of debate because they announced they?d changed their minds since a Feb. 2 vote. Back then, they?d been in the majority on a 4-1 tentative vote supporting the Dutra project.
Carrillo and Brown said they?d join Supervisor Shirlee Zane in opposing the project, which effectively kills it as only supervisors Mike Kerns and Paul Kelley favor it. The asphalt plant issue returns for a final vote July 21 with the addition of several conditions that Kerns hopes make it more palatable.
Aimie Dutra, whose family owns the San Rafael-based company, said Wednesday that her company intends to redouble efforts to craft permit conditions meant to address public health issues. She said the company would not withdraw its proposal.
?We remain committed to the county of Sonoma in our efforts to build an asphalt plant,? she said.
Dutra had, for 23 years, operated an asphalt plant along the Petaluma River not far from its proposed site. That plant closed in 2007.
Brown credited Dutra Materials officials with an impressive effort to surmount regulatory obstacles. Among Dutra?s proposals that received little note were plans to build a firehouse for the San Antonio Volunteer Fire Department, creation of an onsite wetlands, erection of a soundwall and tree barrier to screen aggregate piles and funding dredging on the Petaluma River.
In opposing the plant, Brown and Carrillo cited public health concerns about asphalt plant ?blue smoke? and diesel emissions from trucks and barges.
However, the county planning staff report cited calculations done by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District that levels measured by the cancer index, chronic hazard index and acute health risk index ?are all below the adopted significance levels established by the air district.?
In addition, the planning staff report calculated that sending aggregate by barge is, by far, a more environmentally sound practice than hauling it by truck.
Trucking asphalt and aggregate from plants in Sonoma and Solano County would generate from 112 percent to 123 percent greater greenhouse gas emissions than the Petaluma project. And, the staff estimated that construction projects would save about $2.3 million annually in transportation costs if the Petaluma site were used instead of quarries at Todd Road in south Santa Rosa or the Lake Herman Quarry in Vallejo.
Carrillo acknowledged the asphalt plant made sense in south Petaluma, but he said his qualms about public health remained unresolved.
?I don?t think there is a better place when it comes to transportation, yet this project is not perfect,? Carrillo said.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: