Watch Sarah Gibson represent P4C at a City Council meeting

Sarah did a terrific job during the public comment period at the Feb. 23rd City Council meeting, informing councilmembers of our upcoming Petaluma Spring Cleaning Day event on Mar. 21st.

To watch her presentation, click on this link, and then, under Archived Videos, click on the video link to the right of Regular City Council/PCDC Meeting, Feb. 23, 2009. Fast forward to about 30:54 for her 2:12-minutes-long announcement.

Our local Petaluma water situation

It's obvious that the writing is on the wall for water rationing in Petaluma. Unless we experience a Noah's ark-like weather pattern between now and the summertime, it's unlikely we won't be hit with either a reduction mandate based on prior usage, or a per capita allotment. There are no other alternatives to a water shortage of the magnitude of our current one.

On Mon. Feb. 23rd, Mike Ban, Petaluma's director of water resources, gave a report to our City Council on Petaluma's upcoming water outlook. Many water-consumers weighed in with our councilmembers before that meeting. You can read about our anticipation of this meeting at this link, where you will find another link to read some of the responses given by Councilmember Glass, Mayor Torliatt, Councilmember Healy, and Vice Mayor Barrett.

P4C member Sarah Gibson attended Monday's meeting to listen to Mr. Ban's report and to our Council's responses to that report, as well as to inform the Council of our upcoming Petaluma Spring Cleaning Day event/project. To watch a video of the Council meeting, click on this link, and then, under Archived Videos, click on the video link to the right of Regular City Council/PCDC Meeting, Feb. 23, 2009. If you're extremely wonkish, by all means watch the entire video. If you aren't, you can forward to about 10:00 to listen to Ban's excellent report. To hear David Glass' remarks following the report, forward to about 28:00. Don't be put off by the fact that the video starts out identified as being from Feb. 18; it is not.

Here are Glass' comments:

I think that every councilmember has received e-mails ... from various people, but the concern that I get overwhelmingly ... is that [those water consumers who have] done everything they can to conserve on their water, they're in the lowest possible tier, and they're concerned that with either voluntary or mandatory water cutbacks coming on a per capita basis, that they're going to be unduly impacted. I don't think that it's designed to work that way. Could you address that?

Mike Ban:

We've been getting similar calls, and what we've been explaining to our customers is that what we'll be doing in a stage 1 is reminding people about what they can do to be efficient, make sure they irrigate and the water doesn't run down the sidewalk, but basically to be efficient with their water use. At this point, we're not talking about water rationing or going to per capita usage. It's really to remind people of what they can do to be efficient with their water use.

This was a clear explanation of what we're being asked to do "at this point." What we still don't know, however, and what we want to make sure is addressed equitably and with the health, safety, and welfare of all water-consumers in mind, pertains to what we will be asked to do at the point where a stage 1 voluntary conservation effort leaves off and the peak summertime flow picks up, where we will potentially be required to reduce our water consumption by a stated 22% below last summer's usage, keeping in mind that, since our water situation is very dynamic, it is not unreasonable to predict that that 22% could become 30-50%.

An across-the-board water use percentage reduction mandate works great for those who over-consumed last summer, who conserved marginally or not at all, for those who maintained grassy lawns and backyard swimming pools, but it most certainly unduly impacts those who conserved last summer to the maximum extent possible.

The next date to keep on our calendars is April 6, when our water resources officials will revisit this issue with our City Council and introduce an emergency water resolution based on their water forecasts at that time.

If you are so inclined to e-mail our city councilmembers about Ban's water report and/or Councilmember Glass' comment at its end, you may easily do so by clicking on the Petaluma City Council link on the right-hand side of this blog.

Petaluma's water resources director to give water outlook report to City Council

We notice in the Feb. 19th Argus Courier that on Mon. Feb. 23rd, Mike Ban, Petaluma's director of water resources, will give a report to our City Council on our city's upcoming water outlook. With cutbacks forecasted to be between 30% and 50% this summer, now is the time to weigh in on this issue with our City Council members.

What you can do:

• Attend Monday's City Council meeting. Mr. Ban is scheduled to present his report at 7pm. Listen to what is said, and provide your own public comment. City Hall, 11 English St.
• Write a letter to our City Council members. Links to get their e-mail addresses located on the right-hand side of this blog. Read one of the letters already sent. At the end of the letter, you will find the responses by councilmembers received so far. All have responded positively to it.
• Ask your friends and neighbors to attend Monday's meeting, and/or to send their own e-mail.

Now is when we need to let our public officials know how we feel about this important issue that will affect all of us especially during the upcoming summer months.

From Torliatt:

The City of Petaluma purchases its water from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) which is the Board of Supervisors. The Sonoma County Water Agency delivered 58,000 acre feet of water last year to the 10 contractors including the City of Petaluma. SCWA is proposing to only deliver 45,000 acre feet this year. The City of Petaluma does not really have a choice when the Agency reduces the amount of water consumed. Petaluma is working with the other contractors to increase the amount of water up to the 58,000 acre feet again this year.

Let's do all we can to make sure that whatever water rationing program is handed down for us to follow is one that addresses effectively those who are using more than others by choice, and not out of any real need during a critical drought season. Otherwise, those of us who currently practice strict water conservation practices may find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to give up safe hygienic practices in our homes, while those who do not currently practice these strict measures are required to give up their private pools.

Reinforcing CHANGE. . . .

NOW is the time that we make sure we are enforcing the values which we HOPE will dominate our Government and our Country. Sure, there may be plenty left for us to work on towards the path to CHANGE, but how about these simple action items you could complete in five minutes of your day that promote some of the positive steps made right here in our county:

1. EMAIL the PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL and tell them Thank You for SUPPORTING the FIGHT AGAINST DUTRA.

2. EMAIL SHIRLEY ZANE and thank her for VOTING AGAINST the General Plan ammendments made for the Dutra Asphalt Plant.

3. Send Second District Supervisor MIKE KERNS a photo of your favorite local bird, flower, or animal which calls Shollenberger Park or our local Riverways home. Remind him that he still has the time to CHANGE HIS VOTE in support of the Dutra Asphalt Plant.

4. Learn how our local voting process works at an informational lecture this week! Sign up here.

Our positive actions will help this next Administration find the courage to continue to create the CHANGE we need .

HOPE WON!

A personal message re Petaluma City Council meeting & Dutra Asphalt Plant

P4C member Joan Cooper speaking at a Petaluma City Council meeting to protect Shollenberger Park from the Dutra asphalt plant:





More videos of Petaluma citizens speaking out on behalf of the fragile wetlands environment protected by Shollenberger Park can be viewed here.

After attending the City Council meeting on Mon. Jan. 26th, a meeting which lasted until 11:30pm due to public discussion of this issue, here's what Joan had to write:

Our community's finest hour(s): We stand united against the Dutra asphalt plant proposal

From 9 PM to well past 11 PM, the Petaluma City Council heard testimony from regular citizens, technical experts, naturalists, rowers, teachers and docents, environmentalists and birders – all raising their voices to defend and protect the health, education, economic viability of Petaluma. It’s unanimous – the Dutra Asphalt Plant located at Haystack Landing is a bad idea. It’s a legal battle waiting to happen. Our Council asked for additions and comments on the strong letter they are sending, signed by all seven members, urging the Sonoma County Supervisors to deny Dutra a Use Permit to operate this huge Asphalt Plant at the gateway to Petaluma and the entire county.

When was the last time our Council spoke with one voice? This is serious - this plant would impact our health and viability as a community and it seems like we can’t control our own fate. But we can! Yes we can!

One speaker recalled that Petaluma has a history of leadership in environmental progress, that our former Mayor, Helen Putnam took our zero growth quest all the way to the Supreme Court. Joan Cooper, Friends of Shollenberger Park member said: “There’s a new wind blowing, now that President Obama has been inaugurated, and this wind doesn’t have cancer causing PAHs in it.”

Although counties all over the US are looking hungrily towards “Obama money” coming down the pike for their infrastructure projects, would President Obama be happy to hear this money is being used to pollute and degrade open space, go against the will of the community, and invest in old polluting technology with greedy, questionable owners?

Teachers and Docents spoke about the thousands of children who learn about nature and science with Shollenberger as their natural laboratory. These children would be at risk with polluting Path’s and diesel exhaust pumping out of Dutra’s site across the rive. A chemist spoke about the stupidity of placing a plant with these toxic by-product across from public open space. “It would be as stupid as taking a tube from the exhaust pipe of your truck and sticking its other end into the cab.”

A father talked about Shollenberger as a place where parents go for respite, quietude, and for those who believe a sense of God. Chief Docent of Shollenberger Park and Heron and Egret Colony Official Observer, Bob Dyer spoke about the impact of loud noise, lights, truck on the viable and growing nesting place of these birds in the trees on site.” Egrets and Herons choose their nesting place,” he said and if disturbed they will choose to leave. David Keller, Friends of the River spoke about the underestimation of the toxic air and water quality impacts of the plant. He warned that Dutra Co. will say that their proposed plant will be safe, and these impacts mitigated, but actual observation of a working plant in Irvine by Keller, showed how toxic, unfiltered and unsupervised the release of PAHs (Blue smoke and particulates were as trucks entered the so called negative out flow tunnel and how intense the diesel exhausts of trucks lining up to pick up loads of hot asphalt was in the surrounding area.

Most bone-chilling was the testimony of a San Pedro Road Alliance member, who detailed the decades long struggle against Durra Co.s practices at their quarry site in Marin Co. The subject of a Marin Co. Grand Jury Investigation, Dutra ‘has failed to comply with court orders to modify their hours of operation and has made the neighbors and homeowners’ lives a nightmare of blasting, diesel truck traffic, and lawsuits to protect themselves from this company’s activities. He warned the Council of Dutra’s tactics of delay, failure to produce documents that detail their operations, deep pockets. “You are just at the beginning!”

Citizens urged the Council “to put some teeth, preferably canines” onto their letter to the County Supervisors and to meet with them personally to carry the voice of the Petaluma Community to their ears. Major Pam Torliatt urges the citizens to stay involved, contact their supervisors, and attend the 2 PM Feb 3, 2009 Hearing in Santa Rosa. She directed us to focus our comments not only on the toxic impact of the Asphalt Plant and its wide net of influence, degrading business, education, and health in Petaluma, but also on the newly adopted Petaluma General Plan and its goals of sustainability
An Asphalt Plant in this location does not meet health, environmental, and aesthetic goals for Petaluma as stated in the General Plan.

Five Supervisors will determine the fate of over 60,000 Petaluma residents. We only need three “NO” votes.

Petaluma has always been an environmental leader, and we will lead in this arena as well. Yes , Sonoma County needs asphalt. But it is the responsibility of the Sonoma County Supervisors to “Preserve and protect the tranquility” of their citizens. An asphalt plant must be operated by an ethical company, who will act in good faith to preserve and protect the quality of life in Sonoma . It must be a truly state of the art facility with maximum enclosure and filtration of toxics. It must be located at a site that does not impact our most vulnerable and defenseless populations: the sick, the elderly, babies and children, wildlife and wetland ecosystem. There is a new wind blowing against greed and for Green. YES WE CAN!

Come to our Fund and Consciousness Raiser
Art Music Energy
Bring Artwork to Wetlands
SAT JAN 31 4-6 PM
322 Western Ave Petaluma (next to Tea Cafe)
Music by Gabby Lala Wine Cheese Conversation

Joan Cooper
Friends of Shollenberger Park and Clean Air

A personal message re Petaluma City Council meeting & Dutra Asphalt Plant

From P4C member Elaine Larson, after attending the City Council meeting on Mon. Jan. 26th, a meeting which lasted until 11:30pm due to public discussion of this issue:

My husband ... and I went to the City Council meeting last night and came away totally outraged at the proposed asphalt plant and the process that has allowed it to proceed so far ... I will be composing a passionate letter to every Sonoma Supervisor that I will share later today.

Thanks,
Elaine

Here's Elaine's subsequent letter, which she sent to Supervisor Kerns on Wed. Jan. 28th:

Dear Supervisor Kerns (and all other elected and appointed officials, public interest groups and media representatives receiving a copy of this email),

We, both native Californians, are new residents of Sonoma County, having just purchased a home for our retirement years in Petaluma in 2008. We first heard of the proposed asphalt plant next to Shollenberger Park and the Highway 101 entrance to Sonoma County on January 26 and attended the Petaluma City Council meeting that night to learn more.

The facts presented by dozens of experts, residents, business owners, and other interested parties are overwhelming and totally negate any possibility of the use of the proposed site for any 'heavy industrial' purpose, let alone a smelly, polluting, carcinogenic rubberized and recycled asphalt plant. Each one of the factors below, on its own, is more than sufficient cause to have discarded this proposal much earlier in the exception, permitting and approval processes. Taken together, they represent a major failure of multiple government agencies to act in the public interest.

1) Impact on Tourism and the Sonoma 'Brand'
Many government agencies, businesses, groups and citizens have worked very hard and invested millions of dollars for many years to grow Sonoma County into a world class tourist destination. Putting an asphalt plant between 101 and the stunning vista of Petaluma, the river, yacht harbor and wetlands that one now sees upon entering Sonoma County is throwing this investment down the drain and limiting the inflow of future tourist dollars.

2) Impact on Local Businesses
There are many office buildings and a yacht harbor easily within smelling and severe-health-impact distance of the site. This includes the magnificent Sheraton Hotel complex, a jewel of Northern California. Imagine putting an asphalt plant next to the Awahnee Hotel in Yosemite Valley or the Del Coronado Hotel in San Diego to get the picture. Imagine having to work with the overpowering smell of rubberized asphalt in your nostrils every day of every week of every year. It is likely these business will take appropriate action to protect their employees, customers and income, including suing, moving or both.

3) Impact on River Traffic
The size of the barges planned to service the proposed asphalt plant would create a blockage of the Petaluma River that will not be allowed by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard or be tolerable for businesses upstream from the site dependent upon river traffic. One of the opportunities for process improvement is not to wait until County permitting is complete to have the ACE and Coast Guard say it can't be done anyway.

4) Impact on Wetlands and Bird Sanctuary.
Shollenberger Park is the largest wetlands in the Bay Area and attracts hundreds of thousands of birders a year. To our surprise, we learned birders spend more tourist dollars than football, basketball or baseball fans. Even more important than the economic impact of lost birder dollars, the fact is heavy industry such as a asphalt plant within 200 meters of nesting sites in and near the sanctuary will have negative impact on the survival rate of the birds and their use of the area.

In addition to the above evidence of the unacceptable consequences if the proposed site is put to heavy industrial use, there are other factors to consider before approving an asphalt plant at an appropriate site elsewhere in Sonoma County.

5) Sonoma needs a state-of-the-art asphalt plant that does not pollute or harm
No matter where located, the plant must be 100% contained, with all air, water and particulate emissions being scrubbed and processed to contain no or insignificant temperature changes, pollution or carcinogens. All employees and users of the plant must be adequately shielded and protected at all times. Our workers, elders and children deserve no less. Such plants are already in operation in other countries, so this represents an opportunity for Sonoma to lead the way in the US.

6) The asphalt plant needs access to fresh water, not salt water
The inappropriately located plant would have used Petaluma River salt water in making asphalt. Use of salt water instead of fresh creates an inferior grade of asphalt that has to be replaced more frequently than asphalt made with fresh water. This is not economically or environmentally sound.

7) The EIR must pertain to the plant that will become operational
The 'fantasy' EIR that was prepared for the unallowable project addressed the production of standard asphalt. The intent for the plant was to produce rubberized asphalt and recycled asphalt, both of which have much more dire environmental consequences.

8) The plant operators must have an unassailable record of good corporate citizenship and environmental protection.
The record of the Dutra Group is abysmal and continues to be so to this day; they were just sued by the residents near their rock quarry in San Rafael. Over the past two decades they have been fined $740,000 by the EPA for illegal dumping in the ocean; they have been indicted by the San Rafael Grand Jury; they have ignored court orders to cease operations and produce records; they have built structures without any permits; they have consistently lied about hours of operation, noise levels, dust levels, and pollution levels. Before another application is accepted from them, they should be required to clear all outstanding matters to the satisfaction of the aggrieved parties and then maintain a clean record for three years to show they have changed their ways.

9) The public must be involved from the beginning
We were shocked that many of the people who spoke to the Petaluma City Council said they had just found out about this proposed project. This indicated an unacceptable lack of disclosure to and involvement of the public in vital matters of concern to all. The public needs to be involved at every stage of locating and permitting the new asphalt plant.

This list is nowhere close to being exhaustive, but it does give a flavor for what we are dealing with. We will close by asking how can we help see that the lessons learned from this fiasco will improve the operations and processes of Sonoma County government? The home page of the Board of Supervisors includes this most encouraging statement: 'To insure that the public is heard on issues of concern, the Board of Supervisors provides a forum for problem solving as it relates to government agencies and processes.' Supervisor Kerns, please tell us how we can participate in this forum, and thank you for this opportunity to comment. We expect your NO votes February 3..

Best Regards,

Elaine and Lars Larson
Petaluma, CA

First-hand account of Petaluma City Council meeting re Dutra Asphalt Plant

From P4C member Sarah Gibson, after attending the City Council meeting on Mon., Jan. 26th, a meeting which lasted until 11:30pm due to discussion of this issue:

The City Council hearing on the proposed Dutra Asphalt Plant centered its attention on a letter currently being authored by our City Council members to the Board of Supervisors. Signed by every member of our Council, Mayor Pam Torliatt and our representatives wanted to hear from Petaluma citizens on what to include in the letter they will present to the Board. Chemistry professors, biologists, high school and elementary school teachers, senior citizens, the Petaluma Mother's Club, the Petaluma Rowing Club, the Audubon Group were just a few of the many groups who are against the proposed plant. Listening to the chemist and biologist explain in plain English just how grossly carcinogenic and toxic the bi-products of the proposed Dutra plant are is enough to make you hold your breath in disbelief.

As if anything could be more terrifying than scientific testimony ... Joe Carnucci of San Rafael, who has been fighting Dutra since 1986 on environmental, air, and noise violations, listed legal case after legal case in which Dutra was found in violation of code. The most disturbing part of Carnucci's 9-minute presentation was the fact that, in spite of a 2005 ruling by the Attorney General in favor of a lawsuit presented against Dutra by Carnucci, the plant still operates 24/7 pending another EIR to be released next week. Even though the 2005 suits were also filed in conjunction with the State of California, Dutra has yet to pay fines, upgrade equipment, or cease operations.

The good news? Mayor Torliatt and Council Members have pledged to put "more teeth" into the letter. Mayor Torliatt has also made it known that she will personally stand with us on Feb. 3rd at the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors hearing. She has also met with two of the five Board Members already. We have a City Council standing with us.

For those of us considering that an enclosed plant will meet our standards - consider Dutra's track record above on broken promises. Then also consider these three stunning facts:

1. There are only two fully enclosed plants in the world. Neither are in the U.S.
2. Dutra wants to use 20,000 gallons of river water from the River to mitigate dust. As it turns out, the river water will not meet the needs and therefore Dutra will use plan B: Your drinking water.
3. The chemicals/gases, known carcinogens, that will be released into the air from the recycling part of the facility are some of THE MOST carcinogenic industrial fumes.

Check out the meeting on our local cable channel. You won't want to miss the many wonderful people who presented stunning documentation and testimony to preserve the river, Shollenberger Park, and our health.

Additional suggested reading by Sarah:

Dutra dredging fined $735,000, Marin Independent Journal, 8.17.06