HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4ALate1 12/21/2009LQ+e 4'.P~
1Vlickles Enterprises
P® Box 2598
Petaluma CA 94953
Ph: 707-766-6680
December 18, 2009
Dear Petaluma City Council,
a~ ~~~~
r
~ ~\,
~~~
re5 ~f'
l !J ~~'tiy; , -Aj
x
t ~~ ~$,
~r
~,
,,;
,:>
~, -: z
~~ f r
Soon, the Board of Supervisors will be tasked to vote on whether a proposed asphalt
plant, permitted to produce 650;000 tons of asphalt-and operate 24 hours per day should
be placed within a quarter mile and upwind of apopular-(152,000 visitors per year)
public park. The park is a wildlife refuge and bird sanctuary, home to many species of
birds and semi-aquatic mammals. Around the parks perimeter is a 2.2 mile jogging path
and contiguous to the. south lies many acres of recently .acquired fragile wetlands, part of
the same ecosystem.
The issue is not whether asphalt plants are necessary but whether this is a proper location
for one, and if so, whether or not Dutra Materials will prove a.good and reliable steward
of the trust placed upon it by'the supervisors should you votes to approve this application.
As to the first question, whether this is a proper location for any plant emittin noxious
g
and poisonous fumes, the staggering stupidity of such a question answers itself. One does
not place slaughterhouse next to a fine restaurant or a brothel next to an Boy Scout camp!
As to the next question, Dutra's history of reliable and trustworthy stewardship of the
public's welfare is instructive:
1n'F'etaluma, Dutra's temporary asphalt batch operation was shut down
(November 2007) by B~AQNID for operation without permit, and failure to
use Best Available Control Technology. -11~ayor Pam Torliatt, Chairman
BAAQI~®
In Niarin County, Dutra`s .quarry and asphalt plant was the subject of a
Grand Jury Investigation. They built buildings w-ith'out permits, operated in
excess of their permitted volume and hours, and created a noxious and
noisy nuisance o the surrounding homes and school:
From the nflarin 1J
In August 2006, ®utra was fined .$735,000 fo.r ocean :dumping violation in
the protected waters of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
Enuff said?
The proposed location•of Dutra's plant places special urgency upon the need to protect
the public as the fumes, stench, and noise will immediately effect the public-with neither
space nor time to buffer the effect. Park goers, birds, animals, office tenants and residents
of the East side of Petaluma will be immediately and continually affected.
What is in Dutra's past local record (cited above) is to convince us that Dutra is that
trustworthy steward such a location demands?
Marro County could not protect its residents; how can we, facing a far greater danger,
protect ours?
We beg that you unanimously convey to the supervisors The City of Petaluma's demand
that they disapprove the proposed placement of this project.
No Spewing Stacks at Sonoma's Gateway!
Yours
say M. M
aluma CA.
•