Nearly three out of four people (73.8 percent) who responded to an Argus-Courier poll Jan. 22, 2009 do not want Dutra Materials’ proposed asphalt plant south of Petaluma to be approved by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
More than three-fourths (77.8 percent) said they are concerned about potential impacts of the plant on visitors and wildlife at Shollenberger Park across the river?
Only 27.8 percent said the potential benefits of the plant outweigh the potential impacts?
Here are some comments by those who participated in the survey:
” “
“Find another place to build it. The impact on Shollenberger would be a disaster. The plant is a disaster waiting to happen. What are you people thinking?”
” “
“Most of the opposition appears to be emotionally driven, and not based on science or facts.”
” “
“We already have the gravel ops. The asphalt plant will be worse because it will add assaults to the olfactory as well as visual senses. Please listen to us who live in Petaluma. There have been enough negative changes to our lovely environment here.”
” “
“The location is a good one.”
” “
“This is truly wrong for Petaluma. The smell will greet visitors to our city and we will become known as Richmond North. The particulate matter in the air will have a negative effect on people who have asthma. We have put a lot of money and effort into making Shollenberger Park a wonderful wild bird sanctuary. It would be terrible if that were wiped out by the noisy, smelly asphalt plant.”
” “
“I can’t think of a worse location for this Dutra plant. To locate it right across from a very popular park is a downright travesty.”
” “
“The old plant was here for decades with no complaints.”
” “
“Normally in Petaluma when folks get up in arms over something, it’s a worthwhile cause. In this case, those up in arms have not fully educated themselves on this state-of-the-art plant. The proposed asphalt plant will put less pollutants in the air and significantly less smell than the new water treatment facility. I hope the visitors to Shollenberger Park and the wildlife they come to see will enjoy the aroma of the water treatment plant.”
” “
“I would only be OK with the plant if it was enclosed.”
” “
“A BONE-HEAD IDEA FOR PROFIT”
” “
“I read an odd bit in favor of the plant that said, ‘Sorry, environmentalists, humans come first.’ This is just the type of short-sighted thinking that will cause humans to perish. Anyway, I strongly agree with the City Council in their letter to the County Supervisors. No, no, no. Bad idea all around.”
” “
“Not only does this affect wildlife, but it affects the people who live in Petaluma. Our kids won’t be able to play outside for long periods of time without harmful effects. This affects all life!”
” “
“We need this.”
” “
“This one project could completely ruin Petaluma.”
” “
“A fully enclosed plant, with weekly- publically available- EPA/pollution data, and uber-filtering of PACs b4 they become airbourne and settle into your lungs and in the water and in bird species’ offspring. RACHEL CARSON………!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
” “
“Jobs for south county.”
“Please reconsider allowing an asphalt plant to be built so close to town.”
” “
“We already have the gravel ops. the asphalt plant will be worse because it will add assaults to the olfactory as well as visual senses. please listen to us who live in petaluma. there have been enough negative changes to our lovely environment here.”
” “
“Location is a good one.”
” “
“Great location. Use barges and freeway for shipping.”
” “
“Save on greenhouse gases, by using fewer truck miles.”
” “
“NO NO NO — Bad for Petaluma.”
” “
“Dutra wants a 24/7 asphalt batch plant and crushing facility. There is plenty of toxic ‘blue smoke’ released, even at the model they’ve used in Irvine CA. Add that to the diesel exhaust of up to 750trucks/day at peak, dust, noise, lights and traffic, and we’ve blown the entire public investment in Shollenberger and the River. Oh yes, add to it their barge mooring is a hazard to navigation, without leaving enough room for Jerico and other heavy tug/barge/boats to clear safely. They have’nt been a good neighbor in San Rafael – the Grand Jury and the Courts there have demonstrated that. Fix it! or Move it!”
” “
“Currently we import from Canada most of our gravel at a cost 5 times higher than a local quarry. Some think we should move the asphalt plant to Canada to save transportation costs.”
” “
“It is disheartening that things have come this far in the project approval process. What a beautiful gateway the plant will provide into our town. I guess it might look good compared to the dump just South of it!”
” “
“I am totally opposed to this asphalt plant being built where the developer wants it. It would be a travesty to ruin such a clean, beautiful environmental area with such a potentially damaging operation. I am greatly concerned about the wildlife, but equally concerned about those of us who use the park across the river for exercise.”
” “
“There must be better locations for such a project the one proposed and currently owned by Dutra.”
” “
“Allergies in and around petaluma are at an all time high, NO MORE POLLUTANTS NEEDED.”
” “
“The County Supervisors should require Dutra to ues afterburners to cut emissions and be totally contained.”
” “
“If the owners of the proposed Dutra plant are willing to work with the people who really enjoy and care for the wildlife and the river, perhaps it could work. But I fear too many people are willing to sacrifice the park for the monetary profits.”
” “
“STOP Dutra! Don’t let Dutra KILL Petaluma!”
” “
“This is horrible. How did it even get this far along. I am APPALLED.”
” “
“Across from a wildlife refuge, you have to be kidding!”
” “
“Wrong place — couldn’t be any MORE wrong. Not on my watch!”
” “
“The plant benefits Dutra. Shollenberger benefits everyone.”
” “
“This is the wrong site for an asphalt plant. At the very least, the board of stupidvisors should require this plant to be completely enclosed so at least some of the project’s problems can be mitigated. What Dutra really should do is not only fully enclose the plant but relocate it to the old Pomeroy site where they will still have river and good freeway access but could then have rail access too.”
” “
“The Dutra family has done an abysmal job of operating the quarry in San Rafael, ignoring rules and regulations and endangering the health and happiness of nearby neighbors. If the Dutra’s get approval for the asphalt plant, watch out!”
” “
“Supervisors: What ARE you thinking? Please do NOT approve this project.”
” “
“NO ASPHALT PLANT NEAR SHOLLENBERGER.”
” “
“I don’t know how to maintain air quality and reasonable noise levels at that location without impacting human and wildlife.”
” “
“No, no no no no no no.”
” “
“I think this plant would be an environmental disaster.”
” “
“I am totally against it.”
” “
“Protect Shollenberger Park and the heron-egret colony. No to Dutra!”
” “
“We HATE the whole smelly stinky idea. Put the asphalt plant elsewhere and save our lungs our visitors, our wonderful park and our wildlife!”
” “
“Any kind of negative impacts should be enough for those in power to say no. We have to think long term nowadays. Wetlands are essential for a lot of species, including human being!”
” “
“Haystack Landing is the worst imaginable site for this asphalt facility. It’s much too close to critical wildlife areas enjoyed by Petaluma families and visitors too.”
” “
“Not only could the asphalt plant potentially threaten the wetlands, I think the location near the southern ‘gateway’ to Petaluma would be a smelly eyesore. Is this what we want at the front door?”
” “
“The Board of Supervisors needs to rethink this location.”
” “
“Shollenberger would not be there withouth the dredge spoils, which are related to levels of commerce on the river. But we need responsible commerce and not commerce that is detrimental to the park.”
” “
“According to Dr. John Kelly, there is more than an even chance that the heron/egret colony on the Dutra property will be abandoned if the project goes forth, because of the increased noise and human proximity. Last year the colony produced 79 healthy egret and heron chicks.”
” “
“See me blog! Frank.”
” “
“An asphalt plant is just the WRONG kind of business so close to our well-loved and very popular park! It will irreversibly change the landscape and make the park less pleasant to both humans and wildlife.”
” “
“It is hard to imagine a worse gateway into our fair city than a very active, noisy, smelly and highly polluting asphalt plant.”
” “
“Do not ruin that wonderful park!!!”
” “
“Unbelievable the Sonoma County supervisors are even considering this proposal. What happened to caring about our environment????”
” “
“No meaningful comments about this.”
” “
“This is a a win-win for Dutra and a total loser for Petaluma and Sonoma County who will have to live with the smell, smoke, and sight of yet another unnescessary industrial blight.”
” “
“Asphalt plants with the heavy trucks and traffic over long periods of time should not be in a park/wetland corridor. Noise and smelly fumes drift over the city with no control by the owners.”
” “
“If the city cannot be dissuaded that the plant is necessary, it should at least restrict the hours of its operation. Shollenberger is one of the best parts of Petaluma and living there, and this would largely negate the beauty of the place. That is without even considering the life and health of the avian life there. The Schollenberger Marshland is an extremely important flyway for the migration of birds. I strongly hope this project is not approved.”
” “
“There were no public hearings on this project in Petaluma. Why Mike Kerns? Why is Dutra adamant about not considering relocating this project to the ready-made former Pomeroy site? This is most likely because county requirements are less stringent and the city would make them do it right. Why does Dutra say that they cannot completely enclose this plant, even though that is a viable option? The county is poised to approve this project even though the EIR states that the project would produce “significant and unavoidable” problems. Why? Does anyone care that the water supply to this site is so inadequate that they will be begging to get city water sooner than later? This project as it stands would cause irreparable damage to Schollenberger Park. The EIR doesn’t even mention the water runoff from this project that would go untreated into the Petaluma River. The EIR says NO and so do I.”
” “
“JOBS JOBS JOBS! We’ve got to have these places somewhere and it would probably be cheaper to fix our roads having it closer. NIMBYs need to see the benefits.”
” “
“I think this is a very poor site for the plant. It will take away the beauty of Petaluma and Schollenberger Park. What will happen to all the birds that next there? Please don’t allow this plant!”
” “
“This is a shameful propostion. Carcinogens by a river? A toxic plant in a city of 55,000? This plan is disgusting and incredibly ill advised.”
” “
“It is a travesty that the city and it’s residents, those directly adversely affected by this horrible proposal would be left out by the county supervisors. Shame on you, Mike Kerns!”
” “
“This would ruin our beautiful town — NO ASPHALT PLANT. “