STOP the Dutra Asphalt plant in Petaluma

Dear Friends, Neighbors and WACCOBB,

Dutra Construction is trying to create an asphalt recycling center directly on the Sonoma County line (S. Petaluma Boulevard) and MUST BE STOPPED.

I am concerned by the decision of the Sonoma County planning commission to approve the placement of the Dutra asphalt plant in Petaluma and would like help in spreading this message.

The article in the Argus Courier states: The environmental impact report on the project stated the expected impacts of the project on air quality, noise and scenery would be “significant and unavoidable.”

Article Link: Asphalt plant up for final OK next week | Petaluma360.com | Petaluma Argus-Courier | Petaluma, CA

I am certainly not against growing the manufacturing capacity of the city or county but the fact that this development will sit directly next to a wildlife preserve, as well as a few blocks from my home, seems like a proposition that wasn’t well thought out.

The plant will be conveniently located so as to not only jeopardize the wild life preserves the city has invested millions in, but also foul the air of the South McDowell business park, the theater district and the thousands of homes in a few mile radius. To me this is not only a environmental issue but an issue that will negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of Petaluman's.


The board of supervisors will be holding a public meeting on Feb 3 at 575 Administration drive in Santa Rosa.

Please voice your opinions to the board:
1st Dist: Valerie Brown: [email protected]
2nd Dist: Mike Kerns: [email protected]
3rd Dist: Shirlee Zane: [email protected]
4th Dist: Paul Kelley: [email protected]
5th Dist: Efren Carrillo: [email protected]


Please spread the word, tell others, encourage them to write letters and please show up at the public meeting so our voices can be heard!

Thanks
Margi

Margi,
You characterize Dutra's proposed operation as a recycling operation in one sentence, and as an asphalt plant in another.
I agree with another that recycling of asphalt locally can be a benefit to the greater community.
I am sure there is data as to the amount of noise and other concerns that was presented with the application process. What exactly is the process by which the asphalt will be recycled, what is the decibel level of the potential noise, and what is the current decibel level at the site, and what exactly is going to be in the air that is not already there and how far will it travel?
Without the data, it's unfair to object so strenuously just on the principle. When you say the impact will be bad, please supply the measurement data.
Big Bob

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by margi:

Dear Friends, Neighbors and WACCOBB,

Dutra Construction is trying to create an asphalt recycling center directly on the Sonoma County line (S. Petaluma Boulevard) and MUST BE STOPPED.

I am concerned by the decision of the Sonoma County planning commission to approve the placement of the Dutra asphalt plant in Petaluma and would like help in spreading this message.

The article in the Argus Courier states: The environmental impact report on the project stated the expected impacts of the project on air quality, noise and scenery would be “significant and unavoidable.”

Article Link: Asphalt plant up for final OK next week | Petaluma360.com | Petaluma Argus-Courier | Petaluma, CA

I am certainly not against growing the manufacturing capacity of the city or county but the fact that this development will sit directly next to a wildlife preserve, as well as a few blocks from my home, seems like a proposition that wasn’t well thought out.

The plant will be conveniently located so as to not only jeopardize the wild life preserves the city has invested millions in, but also foul the air of the South McDowell business park, the theater district and the thousands of homes in a few mile radius. To me this is not only a environmental issue but an issue that will negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of Petaluman's.


The board of supervisors will be holding a public meeting on Feb 3 at 575 Administration drive in Santa Rosa.

Please voice your opinions to the board:
1st Dist: Valerie Brown: [email protected]
2nd Dist: Mike Kerns: [email protected]
3rd Dist: Shirlee Zane: [email protected]
4th Dist: Paul Kelley: [email protected]
5th Dist: Efren Carrillo: [email protected]


Please spread the word, tell others, encourage them to write letters and please show up at the public meeting so our voices can be heard!

Thanks
Margi

---

Is there a viable alternative location that large trucks filled with heavy asphalt could get to? Maybe in Novato?

That's a good point about Dutra owning the land and quarrying facilities being in place before urban/suburban sprawl surrounded it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by XanGo Rep & Ecobuilder:

Recycling and producing asphalt in a location convenient to a major highway could be a net benefit to the greater community.
It seems that mitigations should be possible for dust that is already monitored because of the existing quarry operations and concrete recycling that goes on there now.

Wasn't Dutra a landowner there before the housing developments, park purchases, business and theatre developments?

Do you have a better suggestion to put a needed recycling facility such as this that Dutra could do a land swap for? Maybe, if you show them a better place, they'll appreciate your suggestion and move out.

Good Luck.

---

Dutra calls themsleves an ASPHALT RECYCLING Plant.....the truth is they only recycle a small portion of asphalt and generate NEW asphalt. No matter how they want to slice, dice and say it...it is a horrible plan and plant in our county.

As for the TOXINS...read for your self. Here is a portion of the Environmental Impact Report:

… This increase would remain above the threshold of significance established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and would contribute to the San Francisco Air Basin’s air quality violation for ozone. Therefore, this impact and would be significant and unavoidable. The project would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to consistency with the CAP. In addition, cumulative impacts relative to regional air quality emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

I don’t know about you but I’m sensing a common theme here!

You can read it for yourself at: Dutra Draft EIR - Permit & Resource Management Department - County of Sonoma, California


And you can read more about public outcry etc at www.petalumastinks.wordpress.com

I DO believe in Recycling....I don't endorse toxins and DUTRA!

Is Dutra proposing alternatives in the environmental documents that will mitigate the air emissions through control technologies?
If so, are they the preferred alternatives?

Thanks for the information.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by margi:

Dutra calls themsleves an ASPHALT RECYCLING Plant.....the truth is they only recycle a small portion of asphalt and generate NEW asphalt. No matter how they want to slice, dice and say it...it is a horrible plan and plant in our county.

As for the TOXINS...read for your self. Here is a portion of the Environmental Impact Report:

… This increase would remain above the threshold of significance established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and would contribute to the San Francisco Air Basin’s air quality violation for ozone. Therefore, this impact and would be significant and unavoidable. The project would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to consistency with the CAP. In addition, cumulative impacts relative to regional air quality emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

I don’t know about you but I’m sensing a common theme here!

You can read it for yourself at: Dutra Draft EIR - Permit & Resource Management Department - County of Sonoma, California


And you can read more about public outcry etc at PetalumaStinks - Protesting the Dutra Asphalt Plant

I DO believe in Recycling....I don't endorse toxins and DUTRA!

---

I wish the alternatives were the type that made sense and would work but in my opinion the alternatives are just not good enough.

My issue with what is purposed with the alternatives is the language is very week and allow for Dutra's interpretation and not any type of accountability. For example throughout the EIR report the language says that Dutra will "mitigate" toxins, hazard waste, noise etc....but does not go far enough as to what that means.

Mitigate (definition:"To act in such a way as to cause an offense to seem less serious") is to reduce not eliminate. They DO propose that they could enclose part of the plant. So in one paragraph the EIR report says that parts of the plant can be enclosed to "mitigate" the toxic blue smoke that WILL be released. So that is good...but not good enough. As soon as that truck with steaming HOT asphalt departs from this enclosure, it will drive down our streets and roads still steaming, still toxic, still smoking. (I am sure you have driven past or behind a tar truck before. Think about the smoke and smell. That is essentially what this will be like 24/7). They will still have a smoke stack that will release some of the smoke into the air. HMMMMM....not good enough.

The EIR report and Dutra also say they plan on mitigating noise and toxins by operating the plant from 6AM -6PM but will "need" to have the flexibility to run the plant 24/7 "if needed". So who regulates the "need". You see how loosely this is written to Dutra's advantage. Dutra says later on that they will need to run the plant more often than the planned hours.

Then there are the pages about how this plant (according to Dutra) will provide revenue to the city and county by having this plant here. Their claim is that our county roads are the worst in California and the plant will be able to "improve and repair" the roads faster. I had to laugh out loud when I read that. The city, county and state are broke! If we can't pay for the road repairs...how does having this plant here help the speed the effectiveness of the repairs. What part of the repairs and our debt does Dutra become involved in? NONE. So that line while nice to write in the EIR is completely false.

Then we get to the part of how Dutra needs to run the plant 24/7 to provide all this asphalt for us locally. We have SPARE THE AIR DAYS, we can't light fires in our fireplaces, we are asked to not drive on certain days....but this TOXIC plant WILL be allowed to continue to pump out fumes at levels far exceeding those emission from home fire places or our cars. REALLY?

I am just one person with one opinion. I provided the link not to debate but to educate. I hope people read the report for themselves. I find it poorly written and obviously slanted towards Dutra's position. (THey paid $12,000+ for the report). I would also encourage people to Google Dutra...they have a very poor record of saying one thing and doing something different. They are not good corporate neighbors and partners.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ELB:

Is Dutra proposing alternatives in the environmental documents that will mitigate the air emissions through control technologies?
If so, are they the preferred alternatives?

Thanks for the information.

---

Just bumping this thread. The vote comes June 9th. Please keep the pressure on. We can't have this, we dont want this.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by margi:

I wish the alternatives were the type that made sense and would work but in my opinion the alternatives are just not good enough.

My issue with what is purposed with the alternatives is the language is very week and allow for Dutra's interpretation and not any type of accountability. For example throughout the EIR report the language says that Dutra will "mitigate" toxins, hazard waste, noise etc....but does not go far enough as to what that means.

Mitigate (definition:"To act in such a way as to cause an offense to seem less serious") is to reduce not eliminate. They DO propose that they could enclose part of the plant. So in one paragraph the EIR report says that parts of the plant can be enclosed to "mitigate" the toxic blue smoke that WILL be released. So that is good...but not good enough. As soon as that truck with steaming HOT asphalt departs from this enclosure, it will drive down our streets and roads still steaming, still toxic, still smoking. (I am sure you have driven past or behind a tar truck before. Think about the smoke and smell. That is essentially what this will be like 24/7). They will still have a smoke stack that will release some of the smoke into the air. HMMMMM....not good enough.

The EIR report and Dutra also say they plan on mitigating noise and toxins by operating the plant from 6AM -6PM but will "need" to have the flexibility to run the plant 24/7 "if needed". So who regulates the "need". You see how loosely this is written to Dutra's advantage. Dutra says later on that they will need to run the plant more often than the planned hours.

Then there are the pages about how this plant (according to Dutra) will provide revenue to the city and county by having this plant here. Their claim is that our county roads are the worst in California and the plant will be able to "improve and repair" the roads faster. I had to laugh out loud when I read that. The city, county and state are broke! If we can't pay for the road repairs...how does having this plant here help the speed the effectiveness of the repairs. What part of the repairs and our debt does Dutra become involved in? NONE. So that line while nice to write in the EIR is completely false.

Then we get to the part of how Dutra needs to run the plant 24/7 to provide all this asphalt for us locally. We have SPARE THE AIR DAYS, we can't light fires in our fireplaces, we are asked to not drive on certain days....but this TOXIC plant WILL be allowed to continue to pump out fumes at levels far exceeding those emission from home fire places or our cars. REALLY?

I am just one person with one opinion. I provided the link not to debate but to educate. I hope people read the report for themselves. I find it poorly written and obviously slanted towards Dutra's position. (THey paid $12,000+ for the report). I would also encourage people to Google Dutra...they have a very poor record of saying one thing and doing something different. They are not good corporate neighbors and partners.

---

By the way Dutra's own EIR states that sonoma county has sufficient asphalt production plants for its needs. these plants are working under capacity. Please go here to read our arguments. Facts

Look at who's on the Planning Commission if you're surprised at all by this decision... these people are now and have always been backed by and in the pocket of development interests who want to pave over as much of this once verdent valley plain as they possibly can.
Want to change things? Find a way to recall all of them and fill their positions with people with a sense of Earth being alive and in need of care and respect, people with an understanding of this area's ecology and the tattered state much of it is in due to senseless development and trying to shoe horn as many people into this area as possible. Part of what makes this area so beautiful has been all the open, undeveloped space... all the room for wildlife. If it's up to them we'll have Rohnert Park all the way to the ocean.

Do we really NEED another asphalt plant?
Do we really need another shopping mall or housing development when so many sit empty? Fix what is already there and stop covering the landscape with new cracker box mansions. We'd better think about what enough is now and not lament what we should have done when it's too late.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

Look at who's on the Planning Commission if you're surprised at all by this decision... these people are now and have always been backed by and in the pocket of development interests who want to pave over as much of this once verdant valley plain as they possibly can....

---

While it's true that the planning commission recommended approval, along with an exception for the noise, I want to point out that our very own Tom Lynch (username RiverOsprey) who is the planning commissioner appointed by the recently elected 5th District Supervisor Efren Carrillo, voted against it! Yay, Tom and Efren! Let's hope that this is an indication that Efren will follow through on his pledges to be environmentally sensitive.

County recommends noise exception for asphalt plant | Petaluma360.com | Petaluma Argus-Courier | Petaluma, CA

And, Mike Kerns, the 2nd District Supervisor, has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2010! This is a great opportunity to elect a more progressive candidate to the Board and change the direction of the county!

Kerns makes it official: He won’t run in 2010 | Petaluma360.com | Petaluma Argus-Courier | Petaluma, CA

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...CLES/905279972

Just got an e-mail from Barry suggesting I chat about the planning commission.

Now that the Dutra hearing is closed I can share my reasons for opposing the change in the general plan to allow an exception to the sound ordinance. The measure passed 3-2 with Shirlee Zane's appointee Komron Shahhosseini and myself opposed, and commissioners Bennett, Fogg and Murphy in favor.

What I said at the hearing in front of a mix of supporters (mostly members of the operating engineers union) and opponents, there are good and bad elements to this project.

I told those attending that presently much of the aggregate for asphalt used in South Sonoma County and Northern Marin County (500,000 tons/year +/-) comes from two quarries in Forestville that some feel are overburdening a small community with too much truck traffic; and from the Russian River near Healdsburg where some feel there is overskimming that has devastated the middle reach of the Russian River and the aquifer.

As Russian Riverkeeper Don McEnhill says, "Barged aggregate coming up the Petaluma River is an important part of the aggregate portfolio of Sonoma County." According to Don the aggregate coming from Canada that Shamrock brings in by barge may be less green house gas producing than local aggregate from Sonoma County; and it is from a pretty good ecological source; glacial moraines from the Frazer River Valley in British Columbia(https://www.polarmin.com/).

In conversations with Marin planners regarding Dutra's San Rafael Quarry operation they said that they have been abiding by interim use permit conditions. Dutra has a marine quarry on the edge of San Pablo Bay; Marin planners said the Bay Area is encouraging more barge traffic to reduce truck traffic on the roads, some call this "green shipping". One Barge can transport the equivalent of 100 train cars or 250 trucks of aggregate. Barged aggregate may reduce impacts on Forestville and the middle reach of the Russian River.

The other concern I said to the audience was I toured several of the asphalt plants in Sonoma County along Hwy 101. One in Healdsburg is overlooking a park that kids play in, near the River, near a senior housing complex...another in one of the poorest neighborhoods near Roseland off College Ave...another off Todd Road...all of these are older facilities with lots of noise and air quality issues. The proposed Dutra facility is enclosed with many additional features to reduce potentially hazardous emissions as well as reducing the sound of the actual plant.

There are negative impacts that may be lessened in some areas with a return to a local asphalt plant in Petaluma. But...alongside the noise element (as former commissioner Rue Furch said to me, you have to vote only on the sound issue before you), I did not feel that the "mitigations" from Dutra AND Sonoma County had gone far enough.

I suggested that there is a divided community and if Petaluma can't find the third way to work together and come up with a solution it doesn't matter what the planning commission or the board of supervisors decide...this could go on for years just like Monte Rio sewer and you end up with nothing for the efforts but a bitter divide. The County stands to get sales tax from Dutra of 2%; Dutra presently gives Marin County $100,000 worth of material per year as a merit or mitigation provision. My suggestion was that the County and Dutra help fund (approx. $300,000/year) a Shollenberger Park Foundation similar to our wonderful Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation in West County. An entity that could be an advocate for restoring Adobe Creek, local wetlands, the Petaluma River...ecotourism to fill the empty Sheraton Hotel...local jobs...it’s just a thought.

If there is a solution to this issue, it has to happen in Petaluma; the community has to decide and it can't be forced, maybe some sort of arbitration could find a middle ground. I like the quote from Sun Tzu's The Art of Warwritten over 2000 years ago..."The acme of all skill is to avoid the battle and create an ally."

Tom Lynch

On the news of Kerns possible replacements and a more progressive, environmentally thinking Sonoma, the Argus just posted this...

Kerns to retire as county supervisor | Petaluma360.com | Petaluma Argus-Courier | Petaluma, CA

Thank you for the reminder and "bump"!

Thank goodness we got Shirlee Zane elected, who has been the only supe to show good sense and an ability to think for herself on this issue. The scuttlebutt is that she is "tipping" Brown and even Carrillo into voting against it.

However, Shirlee needs our help. An email/fax to the Board of Supervisors stating that you oppose the project and, if possible, one or two reasons why will do a lot to help back her up. A thank-you to Shirlee for sticking to her guns would be much appreciated as well.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by elienos:

Just bumping this thread. The vote comes June 9th. Please keep the pressure on. We can't have this, we don't want this.

---

Thank you EVERYONE for you support. With the help of all your letters (including five from city councils) and all the other help...It looks like we just may have done it! However, the final vote HAS been postponed again...but I think its a done deal.

Asphalt plant for Petaluma appears headed for defeat | PressDemocrat.com | The Press Democrat | Santa Rosa, CA

Check out this link https://www.saveshollenberger.com/
Don't mean to be lame but...look at the pics...the leadership of tomorrow is no longer the "good old boys" (old white men).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dynamique:

Thank you for the reminder and "bump"!

Thank goodness we got Shirlee Zane elected, who has been the only supe to show good sense and an ability to think for herself on this issue. The scuttlebutt is that she is "tipping" Brown and even Carrillo into voting against it.

However, Shirlee needs our help. An email/fax to the Board of Supervisors stating that you oppose the project and, if possible, one or two reasons why will do a lot to help back her up. A thank-you to Shirlee for sticking to her guns would be much appreciated as well.

---

I believe we need to acknowledge that much of the Carrillo bashing that transpired on this thread proved to be preemptive and wrong. The man took the time to do his diligence and made the right choice based on the facts, not what was or wasn't popular at the moment.
Photo

Carrillo would have to be living in a bubble not to know he was being bashed. He didn't need Riverosprey to tell him that.

Supporters of Dutra seem as numerous as opponents. Many here (and elsewhere) have portrayed Carrillo as firmly in the pocket of big biz and development interests which, were it true, would have made it easy to vote in favor of Dutra. Instead, in spite of rude demonstration and caricature, he chose to ignore personal attacks and voted what he felt was right, which was in the favor of those very people actively maligning him.

One gets the sense you may be disappointed he didn't prove your low expectations of him. It hardly seems rational or progressive, as you describe yourself, to remain so ungracious at your moment of victory.

Photo

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dynamique:

Or maybe Riverosprey tipped him off that he was being bashed, and Mr. Carillo decided to re-evaluate his position as a result.

---

Where did you get the idea that supporters and opponents are about the same. The only time there has ever been this indication is at one meeting, the June 9th vote. Many of us had to work, and Dutra sent their employees....Every other time citizens have had a chance to voice themselves (meetings, polls, etc) it was been 75-100% against, as far as I know.

Also maybe it wasn't one or the other. Maybe the huge outcry against it made him relook and he realized it really was a stupid idea. Either way, the people rule. He should relook at the issues when the people he represents send him letter and send latter after letter of reasons it was a bad idea. Why did he say yes in the first place?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite:

Carrillo would have to be living in a bubble not to know he was being bashed. He didn't need Riverosprey to tell him that.

Supporters of Dutra seem as numerous as opponents. Many here (and elsewhere) have portrayed Carrillo as firmly in the pocket of big biz and development interests which, were it true, would have made it easy to vote in favor of Dutra. Instead, in spite of rude demonstration and caricature, he chose to ignore personal attacks and voted what he felt was right, which was in the favor of those very people actively maligning him.

One gets the sense you may be disappointed he didn't prove your low expectations of him. It hardly seems rational or progressive, as you describe yourself, to remain so ungracious at your moment of victory.

Photo

---

While it is wonderful that Carrillo decided to get on the Dutra plant opposition bandwagon, it just strikes me as doubtful that his change in position is a result of due diligence. He had as much information on the project when he started on the board as the other newbie, Shirlee Zane, and only Shirlee had the wherewithall to figure it out and take a stand in opposition at the first straw vote.

Chalk one up to the old-school democratic tradition of the metaphorical boot in the keister. Some people are leaders and some play follow the leader. You can figure out who is who!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite:

One gets the sense you may be disappointed he didn't prove your low expectations of him. It hardly seems rational or progressive, as you describe yourself, to remain so ungracious at your moment of victory.

Photo

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dynamique:

While it is wonderful that Carrillo decided to get on the Dutra plant opposition bandwagon, it just strikes me as doubtful that his change in position is a result of due diligence. He had as much information on the project when he started on the board as the other newbie, Shirlee Zane, and only Shirlee had the wherewithall to figure it out and take a stand in opposition at the first straw vote.

Chalk one up to the old-school democratic tradition of the metaphorical boot in the keister. Some people are leaders and some play follow the leader. You can figure out who is who!

---

Me thinks you are going too hard on him! Clearly he is a rookie, and a young one at that. Still, one way or another, he came out on the right side of this issue and he deserves credit for it. :thumbsup: He's not ready to be a leader yet and that's just fine for now.

Quote:

---

Carrillo basically proved that he is a sock-puppet. He understands the job that he was hired to do and knows how to play it, just like Ronald Reagan and George Bush knew what they were hired to do. (Reagan did a much better job of it; after all, he was a B-movie actor.)

---

This doesn't make sense. If he were a "sock-puppet" he would have voted No. While this one vote isn't conclusive, either about Efren or the project, it is a step in the right direction.

Even if your are suspicious of his loyalties, I suggest it is wiser to warmly receive this vote and hope, publicly, that it is indicative of his sensibilities, rather than to condemn him for it. Show him some love in hopes that he will feel vindicated and supported and will continue in this direction. You can always trash him later if needed.

To get elected or re-elected you have to be in somebodies pocket (ie be supported by a large contingent). Let's let him know that we stand ready to support him if he is aligned with our interests, so he can safely make the switch, if in fact your analysis is correct.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the project returns to board.

Remember Efren is young and new to politics. I met him and my sense is that he has a good heart. It's going to take a little while for him to find his path and to see which way the winds blow and how he feels about it. It's way too early to condemn him. And, so far so good!

Well as some of you may already know the tide is turning and now 4 members of the planning commission are apparently going to vote against it in the middle of July....here's more links:

Save Shollenberger Park

YouTube - SaveSHOLLENBERGER's Channel

Home Page

Welcome to Petaluma Wetlands Alliance (PWA)

ps....any local Petalumans want to meet for tea/coffee and take a walk around the wetlands....I'm often willing and able. And the south part of the park should be opening soon in July....I got a sneak preview and it's very different...should be fun.

Absolutely, Barry! What I've seen of Efren is that he is really committed to being a voice for the people of his district, that he is extremely intelligent, and has the energy of youth. He came all the way to Annapolis in March to support us far west county people who are dismayed that the county wants to close the road maintenance yard there; this will be an awful blow to our roads out here, which aren't in great shape as it is (and we have to drive over so much of them to get into town). I was very impressed with him, and, believe me, I'm as much a cynic about politicians as Dynamique is, as a rule.

He also responded to my emails about the developer who's trying to close down the Sandpiper restaurant in Bodega Bay, and came out to a town meeting in Bodega Bay which dealt with this issue.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Me thinks you are going to hard on him! Clearly he is a rookie, and a young one at that. Still, one way or another, he came out on the right side of this issue and he deserves credit for it. :thumbsup: He's not ready to be a leader yet and that's just fine for now.



This doesn't make sense. If he were a "sock-puppet" he would have voted No. While this one vote isn't conclusive, either about Efren or the project, it is a step in the right direction.

Even if your are suspicious of his loyalties, I suggest it is wiser to warmly receive this vote and hope, publicly, that it is indicative of his sensibilities, rather than to condemn him for it. Show him some love in hopes that he will feel vindicated and supported and will continue in this direction. You can always trash him later if needed.

To get elected or re-elected you have to be in somebodies pocket (ie be supported by a large contingent). Let's let him know that we stand ready to support him if he is aligned with our interests, so he can safely make the switch, if in fact your analysis is correct.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the project returns to board.

Remember Efren is young and new to politics. I met him and my sense is that he has a good heart. It's going to take a little while for him to find his path and to see which way the winds blow and how he feels about it. It's way too early to condemn him. And, so far so good!

---

However he got there, I'm VERY GLAD that he decided to vote no on the Haystack Landing project. On the other hand, I'm not buying the idea that this vote is a sign of the proverbial conversion on the road to Damascus. Carrillo just has too many eyebrow-raising associations and is quite good at telling everybody what they want to hear... a little too good.

A healthy level of suspicion and yes, a dash of cynicism is a good thing when dealing with politicos. Even people with the best of intentions get corrupted by swimming in the cesspool. This is why we need publicly-financed elections so that qualified people who are not professional politicos can run without having to take money from the people they are supposed to be regulating. The only group a "clean" candidate is beholden to if elected is the public, which is how it is supposed to be.

Speaking of progressive action, kudos to the Friends of Schollenberger Park and other groups who organized resistance to the Haystack Landing project!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Absolutely, Barry! What I've seen of Efren is that he is really committed to being a voice for the people of his district, that he is extremely intelligent, and has the energy of youth. He came all the way to Annapolis in March to support us far west county people who are dismayed that the county wants to close the road maintenance yard there; this will be an awful blow to our roads out here, which aren't in great shape as it is (and we have to drive over so much of them to get into town). I was very impressed with him, and, believe me, I'm as much a cynic about politicians as Dynamique is, as a rule.

He also responded to my emails about the developer who's trying to close down the Sandpiper restaurant in Bodega Bay, and came out to a town meeting in Bodega Bay which dealt with this issue.

---

Your assessment of Efren Carrillo seems to be based partly on some of the pre-election innuendos; what "eyebrow-raising associations" are you talking about, and how have you seen them influence anything that he's done?

Have you actually talked to him, or seen him in action?

Do you honestly think that, because he listened to all of the sides, and changed his mind on an issue, he is somehow suspect? I would certainly think that a rigid adherence to his first position would be much more damning.

And what example can you give of an instance where he told "everybody what they want to hear" without meaning what he said?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dynamique:

However he got there, I'm VERY GLAD that he decided to vote no on the Haystack Landing project. On the other hand, I'm not buying the idea that this vote is a sign of the proverbial conversion on the road to Damascus. Carrillo just has too many eyebrow-raising associations and is quite good at telling everybody what they want to hear... a little too good.

A healthy level of suspicion and yes, a dash of cynicism is a good thing when dealing with politicos. Even people with the best of intentions get corrupted by swimming in the cesspool. This is why we need publicly-financed elections so that qualified people who are not professional politicos can run without having to take money from the people they are supposed to be regulating. The only group a "clean" candidate is beholden to if elected is the public, which is how it is supposed to be.

Speaking of progressive action, kudos to the Friends of Schollenberger Park and other groups who organized resistance to the Haystack Landing project!

---

Dear All,

Efren Carrillo and Valerie Brown have looked into the future and seen the way is GREEN! I am encouraged that common sense is prevailing, because it just makes no sense to put an asphalt plant, no matter how state of the art next to a wildlife preserve. How much of our environment are we willing sacrifice to save a buck? And do we in the end really save any $$$ ? How much does an increase in cancer, asthma, pre-mature death cost a community?

Now it's time to reach out to everyone who needs more information to understand the impacts of this Dutra Asphalt plant proposal? Talk to your neighbors and friends, direct them to SaveShollenberger.com for information. It links to primary documents like the EIR and the Marin Grand Jury Report on Dutra. It tells you how to donate to keep the information campaign flowing. It makes it easy to e-mail all the Supervisors and express your opinion.

The Hispanic population of Sonoma County is getting involved. Look for articles about Shollenberger Park and threats to our clean air and health in Spanish language media. Look for our Spanish translation of the SaveShollenberger.com website coming soon.

Efren will soon be hearing from his Hispanic constituents - they are often on the front lines of occupational and environmental toxins as workers. This is not a Petaluma issue, or even a county issue - this is an environmental justice issue. And yes, I do remember Love Canal? Do you?

Joan