 |
News and ViewsSMART backers mount repeal defense By Bob Norberg Published: Saturday, October 29, 2011 In the face of a tax repeal effort, officials and supporters of the Sonoma-Marin commute train are mounting their own informational campaigns. The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit board has approved spending as much as $200,000 on public relations work that will include revamping the agency's website and developing outreach programs about how the 37-mile rail link between Santa Rosa and San Rafael is progressing. “I think it is our charge to let the voters know what is happening,” said SMART Chairwoman Valerie Brown. “Sometimes you get lost in tackling the internal business, which is where we have been the past three months. This will be a full-on outreach to meet with the people asking questions.” Friends of SMART, a rail support group that was active in the two-county campaign in 2008 to raise the sales tax by a quarter cent to fund SMART, says its voice has been missing in the recent debate. The group in the past few weeks has become the umbrella organization for a coalition of 18 North Bay groups formed to advocate on SMART's behalf. Members include labor, environmental and business organizations that believe the $360 million SMART project creates jobs, offers an alternative to Highway 101 and is an economic stimulus. The effort is meant to blunt the signature-gathering campaign by RepealSMART, a citizens group formed 10 months ago that wants to put a measure on next year's ballot to repeal the SMART sales tax. “We are slow in reacting,” said Jack Swearengen of Santa Rosa, who is president of Friends of SMART. “We had believed the project would proceed on its merits. We didn't realize the war was starting all over again and the project has to be fought and sold all over again. The RepealSMART people are trying to take us back to 2008 and before.” The sales tax passed with 70 percent support in the two counties after a contentious campaign that included lawsuits over ballot language and environmental impact reports. Many of SMART's opponents remain from 2008 and have been been joined by newly disaffected residents who say SMART is not delivering what was promised. The commute train was supposed run on a 70-mile line from Cloverdale to Larkspur, stopping at 14 stations, with service beginning in the fall of 2014. The rail line is now funded for half that length and may not start running trains until 2015 or 2016. “When we look at the core group, we are openly split between those who supported SMART originally, and now don't, and those who never supported the idea,” said Clay Mitchell of Windsor, co-chairman of RepealSMART. Mitchell said his group welcomes more debate. “We are obviously concerned if taxpayer dollars are spent on what some would consider propaganda,” Mitchell said. “But I don't think that more people joining the discussion ever hurts, as long as they are honest and straightforward.” Since the tax passed in 2008, SMART has had a series of setbacks and missteps, many of which the agency blames on the economic downturn. It has led to the decision to downsize the first rail segment, now running between downtown Santa Rosa and downtown San Rafael, and could cause a delay in the start of service of one to two years. The project includes a pedestrian and bicycle path paralleling the train corridor. SMART says it now has enough funding to complete the first phase of the train and remains committed to completing a Cloverdale-Larkspur line in the future. It is moving ahead with opening construction bids and is expected to award contracts and sell construction bonds within the next two months. Chris Snyder of Operating Engineers Local 3 said SMART will create construction jobs for an industry that has been hard hit by the recession, with unemployment running 20 to 30 percent. “We expect several hundred guys working the next three or four years,” Snyder said. “We will put surveyors back to work, soil testers back to work, inspectors back to work, the guys who run bulldozers back to work.” Lisa Wittke Schaffner, chief executive officer of the Sonoma County Alliance, which represents dozens of North Bay businesses, said the SMART train is one more piece in the North Bay transportation system. “We absolutely believe it is an economic stimulus,” Wittke Schaffner said. “The Novato Narrows is a check mark in the negative column if a business is considering expanding or locating in Sonoma County. The airport expansion and SMART is a positive.” Gary Helfrich, executive director of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, said cost overruns are typical for public works projects and no reason to abandon SMART. The cost of widening Highway 101 in the so-called Novato Narrows between Petaluma and Novato was $125 million in 2004, but has since risen to $850 million and is years behind schedule, Helfrich said. “Is that a reason not to build the Novato Narrows? Just the cost overrun for a seven-mile carpool lane that will be congested the day it opens would build SMART and every bike path in Sonoma County,” Helfrich said.
Marin County administrator tapped to lead SMART By BOB NORBERG Published: Monday, August 22, 2011 In a surprise move, the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit board has picked a Marin County administrator temporarily on loan to the rail agency to serve as its new general manager. Farhad Mansourian, Marin County's public works director, was named SMART general manager on Monday. He has served as executive director of SMART for the past five months while on loan from Marin County. “We believe in continuity. That was the most important issue for us,” said board Chairwoman Valerie Brown. Mansourian was not a candidate for the SMART post until the board approached him after conducting a nationwide search, Brown said. “This board has been working together very well, in part because of Farhad,” Brown said. “We felt we can advance with him. We are going through some tough times.” Marin County Supervisor Judy Arnold said the board has a lot of confidence in Mansourian, who has been in the county's public works department 31 years. “He is a beloved member of the family,” Arnold said. “Farhad is the only person I can think of that can bring this project home.” The terms of the five-year contract call for a salary of $246,000 and $36,900 a year in deferred compensation, a significant raise from his predecessor at SMART. The new general manager will pay his own share of the retirement plan contribution. Mansourian will also receive $1,154 a month toward medical benefits, $920 a month for automobile and cell phone expenses, up to $5,000 for seminars and training, and 23 vacation and 12 sick days a year. During the search, the SMART board had said that experience working in the commute rail industry was considered a necessity. Brown said the board was impressed, however, with Mansourian's work to reassess costs and revenues and work with local and regional commissions on funding issues. “I was honored when they approached me if I would continue to serve,” Mansourian said. “They were very pleased with the progress we have made in the last three months.” The appointment comes at a critical time for SMART, which is attempting to resolve a financial shortfall and begin construction next year. SMART's board has already retrenched because of funding problems, settling on an initial 37-mile line from Railroad Square in Santa Rosa to downtown San Rafael. The remainder of the 70-mile Cloverdale-to-Larkspur line, which was promised in the 2008 sales tax measure, will be built as money becomes available. The cost of the line is now estimated to be $360 million, $25 million more than had been projected. However, Mansourian is also estimating the cost hikes will be met by increased sales tax revenues and additional funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Sonoma County Transportation Authority and the Transportation Authority of Marin. The commute rail line may also be delayed by one to two years because of the local, state and federal permits needed to work in wetland areas, Mansourian said. The post, which paid $175,000 a year, has been vacant since Lillian Hames resigned in January, although Chief Financial Officer David Heath was briefly the interim general manager.
County approves local frost protection ordinance Self-regulation seen to benefit growers by Frank Robertson, Sonoma West Staff Writer Published: Friday, December 17, 2010
Sonoma County passed a wine-industry-friendly vineyard frost protection ordinance this week despite protests that the public was left out of the process. The ordinance, which takes effect in January and will affect frost protection operations next spring, requires growers who use River and stream water for frost protection to register with the county and pay fees to cover the cost of monitoring and coordinating frost protection operations. The fee schedule is still on the drawing board and will come back for board approval in January. The board unanimously OK’d the new rules despite opponents’ protests that the ordinance was a backroom deal written by the wine industry with the public left out of the discussion. “Non-grape growers were kept in the dark,” said environmental watchdog David Keller, in a written statement delivered to the board. Story continued here... ___________________________________________________ Go ahead for Dutra plant in Petaluma Published: Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Dutra Materials asphalt plant on the Petaluma River, one of the most disputed industrial projects in recent county history, won final approval Tuesday from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. The quick verdict came on a controversial plan five years in the making and before opponents who expressed bitter frustration at the outcome. Supervisors Mike Kerns, Paul Kelley and Efren Carrillo voted for project. Board Chairwoman Valerie Brown and Supervisor Shirlee Zane voted against it. The split vote mirrored the board's preliminary endorsement on Oct. 12 after hours of public testimony. While Tuesday's decision was a procedural formality closed to public comment because a hearing already had been held, it still came with fireworks. Moments before supervisors took up the issue, Sebastopol activist Magick Altman walked to the speaker's podium during a period for general public comment, and then approached the raised dais within a few feet of Supervisor Paul Kelley. As she attempted to speak to the packed chamber, she was taken away in handcuffs by a sheriff's deputy. Both Dutra supporters and opponents wore stickers or held signs to demonstrate their stance on the project, to be built on 37 acres near Shollenberger Park south of Petaluma After the vote, Aimi Dutra, spokeswoman for her family's San Rafael-based company, said she was pleased with the board's decision. “It's been a long road,” said Dutra. The plant was first proposed five years ago as a replacement to a former Dutra plant less than a mile away. Dutra officials said the new plant, with an annual production capacity of 570,425 tons of asphalt and rock material, will have safeguards for environmental and public health. “We look forward to working with and for the Petaluma community,” Aimi Dutra said. Supervisors who supported the project said changes to the asphalt plant proposal, including elimination of a crushed materials recycling operation and a change in the way materials arrive at the plant by barge, secured their support. “I think we have an improved facility,” said Supervisor Efren Carrillo, the swing vote on the project. “The documents in front of me (satisfy) my concerns.” Opponents, including environmental and citizens' groups and the Petaluma City Council, have said the plant would harm air quality and scenic views. Some have vowed to challenge the project's approval in court, taking aim what they say are holes in the county's environmental review. They were disappointed not to be able to voice their views again Tuesday. “This board, on the miserable advice of county counsel, denied the public their right to speak about new information on the Dutra project,” said David Keller, leader of the Petaluma River Council. He cited about 114 pages of mitigation documents recently released by the county. The vote approved a general plan amendment, a zone change and a use permit for the project. It followed the board's final approval earlier in the day of two controversial projects, the Roblar Road quarry and a frost-water program favored by grape growers. A disputed gravel mine in the Russian River near Geyserville was also given the go-ahead last week. Dennis Rosatti, executive director of Sonoma County Conservation Action, called the votes “a grand slam for resource extraction” interests. He noted that key votes came from two retiring board members, Kelley and Kerns. “It's another in a bad series of days for the county's environment and for the public's right to know what its government is doing,” Keller said. For his part, Kerns has called his support of the Dutra plant, which is in the district he represents, “the most difficult decision” of his 12 years on the board. Dutra supporters praised the board's decision, saying both the asphalt facility and the Roblar rock quarry would give the county sustainable, local sources of building material for years to come. “Cheaper prices, less out-the-area truck traffic on our roads, and the money stays in this county,” said John Bly, executive vice president of the Northern California Engineering Contractors Association. “This is good for industry.” _________________________________________________ Roblar Road quarry northwest of Petaluma gets final OK
By Brett Wilkison Published: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 A divided Sonoma County Board of Supervisors gave final approval today to the Roblar Road rock quarry west of Cotati as well as the rock project's habitat proposal involving county protected farmland. Slated for 70 acres north of Two Rock Valley, the quarry proposed by former North Bay Construction owner John Barella is the first of two controversial projects before the board today. A final vote on the Dutra asphalt plant, south of Petaluma along the Petaluma River, is set for this afternoon. Supervisors Mike Kerns, Paul Kelley and Valerie Brown voted for the quarry and the habitat proposal. Supervisors Shirlee Zane and Efren Carrillo voted against the quarry and the mitigation deal, citing their concerns about the quarry's potential impacts on the environment and implications for county open space policy from the habitat deal. Story continued here... ________________________ Good deal or slippery slope?
By Brett Wilkison Published: Saturday, December 4, 2010 Near Two Rock Valley, small wooden signs with the message “Protected Forever” stand along cattle-dotted hillsides that make up Sonoma County's long-tenured dairy belt. County taxpayers have poured millions of dollars into preventing development on about 2,000 acres of private ranchland here. Evidence of that effort is visible in all directions. Open fields stretch down dirt roads, past aging barns and out toward the windswept coast. The public agency behind the work, the 20-year-old Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, erected the signs to tout those results. But a complicated land deal that comes before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday could test that track record, and, some say, undermine land conservation efforts across the county. Under a proposal by the owner of a 70-acre rock quarry tentatively approved for the area, about 105 acres of adjacent, county-protected farmland owned by a local dairy family would be used to partly replace habitat for two rare amphibian species that would be impacted by the quarry. At issue is whether such an effort would compromise the permanency of conservation agreements with private property owners and affect how they can use their land. In addition, it raises the question whether a private developer should be able to satisfy habitat replacement requirements without adding new protected lands. Story continued here... __________________ Santa Rosa bike bridge in peril after emotional vote By Kevin McCallum Published: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 The proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Highway 101 may become the first project blown away by the changing political winds in Santa Rosa following a dramatic City Council meeting that put the plan in peril. The possibility of losing a project dear to cycling advocates outraged Mayor Susan Gorin, who denounced her colleagues as shortsighted, and reduced Councilwoman Veronica Jacobi to tears. “It's painful that this wonderful project's in jeopardy and I can't do anything about it,” said Jacobi, who lost her reelection bid and was overcome with emotion Tuesday night as she read a series of resolutions aimed at pushing the planning process forward. Technically, several measures backing the proposed span and authorizing additional studies passed on 5-2 votes Tuesday, which should have been cause for its advocates to celebrate. Councilmembers Jane Bender and Ernesto Olivares, who is likely to become the city's next mayor, voted against it, citing concerns about the cost and timing. But Councilman John Sawyer, who shared the concerns of Bender and Olivares, cast a vote for the project — and said he was only voting “yes” for the sole purpose of reconsidering his vote at next week's meeting, when new council members take office. By then, Sawyer and Olivares will have two new allies on the council, Jake Ours and Scott Bartley, and if the item was revisited, the group would have the votes to halt the proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge. It is not certain that will occur, but Gorin was exasperated by the possibility, making a lengthy, impassioned argument outlining the economic and social merits of the project and chastising Sawyer for his tactic. She said the $100,000 in redevelopment funds was a “drop in the bucket” compared to the value the bridge could bring to the lives of college students, the city's reputation as a cycling destination and economic development for the city. “This is penny-wise and pound-foolish! I am shocked, I am absolutely shocked!” Gorin said, turning to face Sawyer, her voice quavering with emotion. “I'm going to be extremely disappointed if you vote for this for the purpose of reconsideration.” __________________________________________________ The Press DemocratNovember 13, 2010 GUEST OPINION: Full SMART line is still on trackBy Debora Fudge and Charles McGlashan
We can understand the disappointment expressed by North Bay residents upon hearing the news that the first segment of the SMART train and pathway system will be shorter than the full Cloverdale-to-Larkspur plan. We are disappointed, too, that the struggling economy has reduced SMART’s revenues and forced changes in our schedule for building the complete project. But we should all remember this: The project has not changed. SMART will run from Cloverdale to Larkspur. The only thing that has changed is the timeline for making that happen. In the coming months, construction contracts will be released on what will be the biggest single public project ever undertaken in the North Bay. With a current financial capacity of $350 million, SMART will provide a train and pathway that improve mobility in the North Bay, that benefit the environment by getting people out of their cars, that stimulate the economy with thousands of good jobs and that improve our quality of life by offering alternatives to the congestion of Highway 101. A train between Santa Rosa and San Rafael will serve the majority of SMART’s projected ridership. While many believe SMART will be used mostly by people looking to connect to San Francisco by ferry at Larkspur, the fact is that more than 90 percent of SMART riders are projected to use the system to commute within Sonoma and Marin counties. The proposed initial segment will allow them to do that. And, until we can provide full train service to the ends of the line, SMART plans to provide station-to-station bus service connecting the train to Larkspur and Cloverdale and reduced-speed train service to northern Sonoma County. In 2008, we produced an expenditure plan that showed how, primarily with the sales tax revenues and bonding capacity provided by Measure Q, the SMART system could be completed by fall 2014. It was a good plan, endorsed by the Transportation Authority of Marin County and deemed “reasonable and conservative” by Robert Eyler, the North Bay’s leading economist. But, shortly after 70 percent of Marin and Sonoma county voters approved Measure Q, the economy collapsed. Sales tax revenues have plummeted in the past two years, reducing our short- and long-range revenues and shrinking our bonding capacity. Because of this, our plan has changed — just like the plans of other governments, businesses and individual households have changed in this economy. A change in our plan, however, does not mean a change in our goal. We are committed to building the complete SMART project. We will start with an initial segment that connects the two most populous cities in our region. If construction bids are favorable — as many predict they will be — the initial segment may reach farther south or north. Trains will run by late 2014, as planned, on the initial segment. We estimate it will take another two to four years to complete the system — all of the system. We are poised to make real a dream that began more than two decades ago, when forward-thinking leaders in this community made a decision to prevent the abandonment of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad corridor and preserve it for public use as an alternative to sitting in traffic on Highway 101. They knew then that they couldn’t resume passenger rail service overnight. But they had a vision for the future, and they acted on that vision. The SMART board of directors also acted on that vision on Nov. 6, when we voted overwhelmingly to move this project forward. Spread the news: The SMART train is coming. Debora Fudge is a member of the Windsor Town Council and chairwoman of the SMART board of directors. Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan is past chairman of the SMART board.
_______________________________________________________ The Press Democrat Letters to the EditorJuly 15, 2010
EDITOR: I have noticed that there is a recurrent theme of “slow growth” vs. “business-friendly” in The Press Democrat's coverage of local politics. I believe this political framing is false and misleading and is a biased presentation of the actual choice voters will make in Sonoma County's 2010 elections. The term “slow growth” went out of fashion years ago and political progressives now identify with, and promote “smart growth.” Smart growth involves careful land-use planning to preserve open space, in-fill development, urban growth boundaries and transit-oriented development and to support affordable housing, living wage ordinances and community impact reports. Smart growth is a fully formed policy orientation that has reams of academic studies to back it up and is not a fancy word for NIMBY. So, this generational and evolutionary change in public policy theory should not be reduced to a pejorative term such as “slow growth,” while the opposition is described affirmatively as “business-friendly.” Please try this on for size: “Smart growth” vs. “business friendly.” Fair and balanced. BILL PRANGE __________________________________ Judge’s decision could halt river gravel miningBoard of Supervisor’s 2008 extension reversed By Kerrie Russell November 18, 2009
A decision last week by the Sonoma County Superior Court could mean the end of gravel pit mining along the Russian River. “The ARM plan was clear that there were no extensions,” said Riverkeeper Don McEnhill.
________________________________________________Judge blocks resumption of gravel mining along Russian River by BLEYS W. ROSE November 16, 2009 An attempt by Syar Industries to temporarily resume gravel mining along Russian River terraces has been blocked by a Sonoma County Superior Court judge’s ruling that county supervisors exceeded their authority in granting a permit extension to the quarry company. In a 12-page opinion, Judge Robert Boyd sided with river preservation activists and Healdsburg groups, which had filed a legal challenge to Syar’s gravel mining permit extension. Boyd said the county failed to conduct environmental reviews to support extending terrace mining permits, allowed under the Aggregate Resources Management plan, beyond their original expiration date in early 2006. “All mining was ... to cease on April 15, 2006. This is not in dispute. The project’s very essence is that it allows mining beyond this date,” Boyd wrote. Syar’s permit extension was a highly controversial policy decision when it was approved in September 2008 on a 3-2 vote. Officials with the Napa-based company argued that administrative delays and equipment malfunctions had prevented it from extracting its previously permitted amount of gravel. As a result, they contend an extension did not constitute a violation of the long-term mining plan. Supervisors Paul Kelley, Mike Kerns and Tim Smith sided with Syar. Supervisors Mike Reilly and Valerie Brown opposed the extension, arguing that all permits under the 10-year plan had expired and that rock from local quarries or importation by barge was available as alternatives. Smith and Reilly did not seek re-election and have been replaced by Shirlee Zane and Efren Carrillo. Syar officials said Monday that it was too early to determine whether they will appeal the judge’s decision. Because of high river levels during winter months, terrace mining traditionally occurs from May into October. “We are looking at the decision and we are evaluating what our options are going forward,” said Syar attorney David Spielberg. Leaders of several groups that challenged the Syar permit extension said excavation of gravel pits, some 90 feet deep, have depleted storage capacity of the river’s aquifer, adversely affecting agriculture and well water supply. The permit appeal was filed by groups that included Russian Riverkeeper, Westside Association to Save Agriculture and North Coast Rivers Alliance. “We hope that, with this ruling, the county will finally take seriously the environmental community’s resolve to end this extremely damaging and completely unnecessary method of supplying the county with gravel,” said Stephan Volker, attorney for the groups. Syar’s request for a permit extension reignited a decade-old dispute over Russian River terrace mining. Ever since the mid-1990s, environmentalists and river-area residents have battled with gravel companies and construction operations over whether pit mining damages water quality, aquifer levels and fish habitat. In 1996, the Board of Supervisors enacted an Aggregate Resources Management Plan, which remains in effect, although permits expired in 2006. A major goal of the plan was a shift toward quarry mining and barge importation of rock, both of which have generated opposition. ___________________________________________________ 6/5/09 Dutra wants to build an asphalt plant next to the best park in Petaluma in spite of the noise and toxic fumes it will produce. The four asphalt plants that already support Sonoma County operate at minimal capacity and can handle all projected needs in our county. Dutra is trying to buy a gravel pit on Roblar Road, reportedly so they can truck the gravel to their Petaluma asphalt plant. There goes the big, green, river-transport concept. Dutra and the county have both shown a lack of responsibility toward the public and local wildlife by sighting this plant next to Schollenberger Park. We, as a society, have learned much about toxic industries in the last 30 years. Today, no one in their right mind would place an asphalt plant next to a large city park. I challenge anyone to show us a new asphalt plant next to a major city park anywhere in America. Such a crazy, irresponsible plan is unconscionable. We have no issue with making asphalt, but Dutra needs to move its plant to a safer, out-of-town location, such as the Mecham Road landfill, where it will do much less damage to people and to wildlife. GERALD MOORE _______________________________________________ Controversial Preservation Ranch proposal braces for public review
The required environmental impact report will probably take at least a year to complete a draft, which would then be put out for public comment and hearings. The April 29 scoping session at PRMD runs from 4 to 6 p.m. The May 2 session at Horicon School goes from 1 to 3 p.m. _____________________________________________________ The True Cost of Gravel Mining in the Russian RiverNorthern California River Watch Activist’s BlogPublished June 7, 2008, at: River Watch Blog
How the public foots the bill, while miners truck out the profits.
[Editor's Note: Syar Industries, Inc. is requesting a permit for continued gravel mining in the Russian River from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, June 10, at 2:30 pm. The permit was not approved by the Planning Commission in April but this action may be overturned by the Supervisors. Thanks to the Russian Riverkeeper: http://www.russianriverkeeper.org/gravelmining.html for providing information on the background and the true impacts of gravel mining in the river.] Gravel Mining competes with a healthy sustainable watershed, you can import gravel but you can’t import a healthy fishery or plentiful and clean water supplies for our future! What are the Impacts? In simple terms the largest impact from gravel mining is erosion. When material is removed from a river system it is replaced from increased erosion upstream and downstream. Gravel mining has lead to or increased impacts that damage public trust resources, but we pay for many of these impacts. ————— Gravel mining has caused and continues to contribute to severe channel incision (deepening) that has eroded bridges, property, riparian habitat and led to steep to vertical banks that collapse during high flows.
(THIS PICTURE COURTESY OF HEALDSBURG Geyserville Bridge in 1932 had its support piers deeply embedded in riverbed gravel. Well before its New Years 2006 collapse, gravel mining had largely removed over 20 feet of the riverbed that used to support the bridge leading to a $25 million bill to taxpayers. Gravel mining is the major cause of induced incision of tributaries as gravel removed from the mainstem is replaced with increased erosion of tributaries causing wildlife, property and structural impacts. Gravel mining has caused braiding or splitting of the main channel despite the regulations that do not allow gravel mining to upset the rivers form. Gravel mining has contributed to significant reductions in spawning habitat due to increased turbidity and ensuing embededness of gravels in fine materials that prohibits spawning in many mined sections of the River. Gravel mining perpetuates a greatly degraded state of the River causing more bank erosion that is followed by bank armoring that increases channelization of the river and causes loss of riparian habitat. Gravel mining has caused a drop in Middle Reach aquifer levels roughly equivalent to the loss of 450,000 acre feet of water or six and a half times the current SCWA water usage from the river. These graphics show what has occurred in the Middle Reach of the Russian River between Healdsburg and Forestville, over 25 feet of bed level degradation has lead to a major loss of aquifer storage, it has been calculated to be over a hundred thousand acre feet of water. Gravel mining continues to threaten our naturally filtered water supplies by reducing the natural bedload transport and perpetuating a greatly incised river channel.
Another major gravel mining impact we will pay for as taxpayers is dealing with the hundreds of acres of Open Pit gravel mines that are unstable, pollutant filled holes in our future water supplies. Open Pit mines exist in the Middle Reach below Healdsburg and in the Ukiah Valley. Fine sediment filled pits release fine sediment back into river when floods frequently connect Open Pits to the river called “capturing”. Open Pit mines are far deeper than the River and water always finds a low point as will the River some tragic day in the future. All Open Pits have no engineered levees and instead are just left over strips of unmined land…waiting to collapse. Other damage due to gravel mining:
How do we Pay? Gravel mining companies pass along most of the environmental costs called “externalizing costs” of gravel mining to our community that has paid and will continue to pay for decades after mining has ended. In the last 60 years we have paid for:
Our children will be burdened with the future costs from past and current gravel mining in the Russian River such as:
Why hasn’t Russian River mining stopped? All those gravel industry profits make for great political campaign donations to influence local politics. In many other areas of the state and country, if you want to mine gravel from a public resource like a river you pay the state for the privilege of taking away a public trust resource. Not so in the Russian River. Due to a misguided Supreme Court decision (Rehnquist), the Russian River is treated like private property as far as gravel extraction is concerned so miners can take gravel with no compensation to the state or community. This makes for great profits and the desire to protect these profits. Over the last four election cycles, individuals and companies linked to the gravel mining industry have poured tens of thousands of dollars into Sonoma County Board of Supervisors elections. The results are predictable such as one Supervisor saying, “We are sitting on a gold mine (of gravel) and we should use it”. Of course if this person were working for the community they would have thought - We ARE sitting on a gold mine, a sustainable water supply - and made decisions based on the best long-term use of competing resources. _______________________________________________________ CIR will steer us in right direction April 3, 2008, Petaluma Argus Courier Guest Commentary By Paul Francis There has been much talk centered on community impact reports these days. Some of it has been accurate, but much of it has been misreported. In most part, the opinions regarding the intentions behind the inception and implementation of this new policy/ordinance have been distorted. One misconception in need of clarification is that the presentation of an idea like the CIR came from a political body or some other form of organized entity outside of Petaluma. In fact, the CIR requirement was part of a larger list of standards drafted by a group of Petaluma residents over a series of weekends and evenings last year to address their concerns regarding large-scale retail development in our city. This document is titled Responsible Retail Development in Petaluma. It can be viewed in complete form at www.ipetitions.com/ petition/keeppetalumaeggcentric. Later in 2007, after seeing an array of irresponsible decisions being made by four of the seven City Council members, Petaluma residents decided they needed to do more to assure that Petaluma's elected council members heed the community's wishes in making economically prudent dec-isions regarding building more chain-store retail along East Washington Street and McDowell Boulevard. In an attempt to get the City Council and staff up to speed with many other communities, similar to Petaluma, across the country that have already adopted the CIR as a method of analyzing "chain store" impacts on their local economies, the residents found it necessary to form a coalition. By bringing together residents from various other community groups, the intent was to address a few basic fundamental concepts of the General Plan and the city doctrine that were being neglected by some of the council members. The above-referenced Responsible Retail Development in Petaluma document was eventually formatted as a petition and circulated through Petaluma last summer. The document garnered overwhelming support and gathered some 1,700 plus signatures and continues to do so. This document, among other things, includes a CIR requirement for projects over 25,000 square feet. Nevertheless, given the document's clarity of intent and the overwhelming support by the residents, there still lies an isolated minority that continues to oppose the CIR by fabricating fallacies to knock it. One of the fallacies that I, personally, would like to clarify is that the adoption of a CIR ordinance would somehow stop development here in Petaluma. This is a ridiculously made assumption and maliciously hypes an extreme-case scenario that simply doesn't exist here in Petaluma. Frankly, it's insulting to put forth an idea that the residents would be so naïve to think that an economic analysis or any other development requirement would halt development in Petaluma forever. After all, why would we take the trouble to request the implementation of these basic guidelines, for development, if we wanted no development? As the largest investors in Petaluma, we the residents want only the best possible opportunities for our community and its future. A responsible economic plan takes us past the short-term payoff of initial lump-sum development fees and perceived tax revenue and brings us closer to building a sustainable local economy that continues to fund the city for generations to come. A community impact report ordinance will help steer us in the right direction economically while promoting the philosophy of why we live here. (Petaluma resident Paul Francis is co-founder of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association. Contact the group at petalumaneighbors@yahoo.com) __________________________________________________ Big-Box Bingo: Petaluma Grapples with Deciding the Entire Impact-both Fiscal and Communal-of Construction. True Cost Petaluma Considers Evaluating Economic Impacts March 5, 2008, North Bay Bohemian News and Features By Patricia Lynn Henley Everyone wants to make prudent financial decisions, both individually and on a community-wide level. But what's the best way to go about it? How much do officials need to know to make a decision? Nowadays developers expect to do an environmental impact report (EIR) for any large-scale construction project. But are physical results like noise or traffic and the ecological balance the only things decision-makers should evaluate to determine if a proposal will help or harm the local community? In Petaluma, activists are proposing requiring a community impact report (CIR) to assess the true fiscal costs and benefits of potential projects. Environmental impact reports have entered the standard public lexicon. Are CIRs the next step? "Twenty-five or 30 years ago, the environmental impact report was also a new tool, and now it's standard," asserts Marty Bennett, a Santa Rosa Junior College instructor and co-chairman of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition, part of the group that's urging Petaluma to adopt the CIR requirement. "From my point of view, 25 years down the road, we will say that a CIR has become standard in the approval process for new developments. That will be a huge step forward." But Petaluma resident and Sonoma County Planning Commission member Don Bennett (no relation) thinks that's a bad idea. Community impact reports, he says, would be used as "a tool to keep things from happening within the community." He argues that the proposal is anti-chain stores and anti-big-box retailers. "It comes down to a philosophical thing, whether you think the role of government is to control business and management, and who you're managing it for," he says. "Who's going to decide who you want in? That's the problem. Whose will do you impose?" Cities such as Los Angeles and San Jose already require CIRs as part of the approval process for major projects. Usually less than 50 pages, a CIR looks at five main impacts: fiscal, employment, affordable housing, neighborhood needs and smart growth. Unlike an EIR, a CIR isn't binding and doesn't require mitigation of any impacts. "For me, [a CIR] is a win-win for both sides," says Melissa Abercrombie of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association. "You look at the information, you weigh it and you figure out what works." There's an urban-growth boundary to protect Petaluma against sprawl, Abercrombie points out. "Any project that's built within that should be the best, because it's a limited amount of space." Petaluma is already looking at plans for new Target and Lowe's stores within city limits. Among other items, a CIR would evaluate the number and types of jobs, including salary levels, that they would bring to the area. It would look at whether they would bring new sales tax revenues to city coffers or just cannibalize the sales taxes already being collected by other, usually smaller stores. For Abercrombie, a CIR is just a way of looking at the big picture before making a decision. It's similar to what developers do before deciding to build a project, she argues, and isn't at all anti-development. "I would welcome a development that I thought would benefit our community, and I don't think analyzing that makes it not happen." But Don Bennett sees a CIR requirement as a "fact-finding thing to determine what you don't want in your community." The CIR proposal, he asserts, is being supported by those who don't want more chain stores in Petaluma. But if a lot of folks didn't like big-box retailers, he says, they wouldn't exist. "If the majority of people didn't want to shop in those places, they couldn't keep their doors open." In his view, it's more important for people to be able to shop, work and live in Petaluma. A CIR, he argues, is an attempt to have the government decide what can be built on private property based on the social aspects of the project. But Abercrombie sees things differently. "A CIR is just a tool so we can have a clear picture for our decision making." The coalition presented its CIR proposal to the Petaluma City Council in late January. Coalition members are now working with city staff to answer a number of questions raised by the council members, including how much CIRs cost and how they've been implemented in other communities. ______________________________________________ West County Wastewater Tsunami January, 2008 West County Gazette A wastewater tsunami exploded in mid-January, leaving behind a totally altered landscape in western Sonoma County. The repercussions will be vast and no one knows exactly how it will play out! There were four cataclysmic meetings in three days where the drama was intense, and sheer coincidence that they all happened at about the same time. On Monday, January 7th, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board hosted a meeting for community activists, interested citizens, numerous Regional Board staff and County and State agency representatives. It had been organized by Board member Bill Massey. Within the next few years, the Regional Board will conduct studies that will determine whether septics along the river are actually causing pollution problems. Any particular septic found to be causing problems will have to be repaired within legal guidelines. In extreme cases, where repairs simply cannot be made, properties can be condemned. While this situation may be years down the road (studies will take a long time and there will be a public review process before any actions are taken), nevertheless, Director Massey urged those in attendance to begin thinking about possible remedies, including creative solutions using less expensive, innovative technologies. There was also an emphasis on local control. We will write much more about this in future articles. On Tuesday morning, the Board of Supervisors considered and voted to shut down the planned Monte Rio wastewater project that had been eight years in the making, because it was at least $2.6 million dollars short with no additional funding in sight. The County had hit a brick wall in terms of funding problems, which is indicative of the times. While a majority of people in the community twice voted to tax themselves to pay for part of the sewer, there were many concerns that it was getting far too expensive for the number of hookups and didn't even serve many of the properties having the worst pollution problems. Monte Rio property owners are now aware that they have to address these issues in some other manner and will be exploring alternative and affordable solutions to the problem. Meeting number three took place Tuesday evening at the Camp Meeker Recreation and Park District. It was a dramatic evening since much of the power was still out for the fifth day because of a fallen tree and the meeting had to be moved from Anderson Hall to the Fire District meeting room. About 30 people were squeezed in the tiny room. The main item on the agenda was a decision to certify the environmental impact report (EIR) on the $22 million dollar pipeline project to the Russian River County Sanitation District (RRCSD). The problems with this project have been frequently described in prior news articles. The drama was intense. Everyone thought that the vote would be unanimous in favor of certification because Occidental was threatened by heavy fines by the Regional Water Board for being out of compliance with their discharge permit. The prevailing idea was that the EIR could be certified, thereby getting Occidental off the hook, but that the project would not be built. At that price, no one wanted it. Yet many in the room felt the EIR was deficient in serious ways noted by Board members, and the project had too many unknowns in regards to needed RRCSD upgrades. We have no space for details now of who did what, other than to say that, of the five Board members, one could not vote because of a possible conflict of interest, two supported certification, and two felt the EIR was deficient and for that reason voted against it. This killed the EIR. The very next morning, our group was scheduled to attend a meeting with key Regional Board staff about West County wastewater issues. All of a sudden, it feels like the dynamic on West County wastewater issues has changed. We don't know where it will go but we hope many people will get involved in seeking new solutions. Our role will be to keep you informed. |
SCCA Report Card Sonoma County Conservation Action’s Environmental Report Card is one of our premium grassroots functions. Created by a team of City Council and Board watchers who attend meetings and study their local environmental politics, the SCCA Report Card evaluates the performance of the local elected officials by grading them on their vote for the environment for the year, and on how well they are listening to their constituents. The SCCA Report Card is a watchdog tool that holds our local elected officials accountable for their actions. Check and see how your local electorate scored! Click here to see the 2010-2011 Report Card in PDF fromat. Click here to see the 2009-2010 Report Card in PDF fromat. Click here to see the 2008-2009 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2007-2008 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2006-2007 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2005-2006 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2004-2005 Report Card in PDF format. Click here to see the 2003-2004 Report Card in PDF format. ______________________ A keystone project Letter to the Editor, Press Democrat, 11/1/2011 EDITOR: Skeptics of SMART have a right to express their opinion, however misguided. We believe that voters in Sonoma and Marin counties already see through the opponents’ veil of half-truths and diversions. Too much is at stake to lose our vision of a superior transportation corridor. The SMART train and pathway will provide critical transportation alternatives for the North Bay. The value of jobs, traffic relief and ease of travel have made the project increasingly popular as time passes. SMART’s 70 percent approval in 2008 is a clear mandate from the voters and provides solid evidence of public commitment to a 20-year train and trail plan. It is through such mandates that voters have supported open space protection, urban growth boundaries, coastal protection and community separators, allowing Sonoma County to enjoy a rural “country in the city” feeling and for Marin County to keep its open hilltop vistas. The SMART project is the backbone of that broad voter mandate because it provides students, workers, visitors and retired people the benefits of community centers around rail stations, and it allows for easy community access by bus, bicycle, auto and footpath. SMART will be the keystone of a regional transportation system for the North Bay. DENNIS ROSATTI Executive director, Sonoma County Conservation Action
Kerns' Carol Letter to the Editor, Press Democrat, 12/21/10 EDITOR: Supervisor Mike Kerns' recent votes promise to define his legacy and profoundly affect Sonoma County for many years. As a result, a visit from the “Ghost of Christmas Future” is needed. Behold, the dead sales of the KB and Lennar developments across Petaluma Boulevard from an asphalt plant. Behold, fine soot particles settling over south and west Petaluma and depressed home values sagging further as neighbors rush to sell. Behold, both local and surrounding residents alike avoiding Petaluma businesses to avoid clothes, food and lung contamination. Behold, the powerful Dutra family toasting Kerns' name while sitting on the coffins of dead Petalumans. Outside, Kerns' constituents recall his tenure as a time of approval of the pollution of Roblar Valley ground water, the final transformative blow securing the Russian River as a sewer pipe devoid of life and, most notably, the approval of polluted air for the people you supposedly represented. A remarkable legacy, indeed. Finally, behold retired Supervisor Kerns moving his family to a far less polluted area than southern Sonoma County. JACK E. MILLER Petaluma _____________________ The Dutra asphalt plant siting at Haystack Landing challenges two voter-controlled land use ordinances. Letters to the Editor, Press Democrat, 6/4/2009 Unique in California, Sonoma County voters have taken certain land use powers away from their elected representatives at the city, county and state legislative level by passing the Coastal Act, and with voter control over urban growth boundaries, community separators and our scenic corridor below Petaluma. Why? Because electeds are subject to the same lobbying pressure and financing of campaigns currently being used by Dutra to influence the Board of Supervisors. Previous boards promised voters that they would not change the county land use in a city’s urban growth boundary. That promise, if broken by a Dutra approval, is as disrespectful as the breaking of a 10-year promise to stop gravel mining of the Russian River. Board of Supervisors’ approval of Dutra would circumvent a 76 percent countywide vote establishing a scenic corridor below Petaluma to the Marin County line. Siting an asphalt plant in our scenic corridor will require a vote of the people. The Board of Supervisors, in voting for Dutra, would trample on an exceptional electorate who many times have expressed their landscape and environmental values at the ballot box. BILL KORTUM ______________________ Down the Wal-Mart Low Road: What Are the Costs of a Supercenter?by Martin J. Bennett, SCCA Board Member Wal-Mart recently announced plans to convert its existing discount store in Rohnert Park to Sonoma County's first 'supercenter.' Many cash-strapped cities are tempted to hastily approve retail projects that can generate substantial sales tax revenue given the current economic downturn. However, we should pause to consider, not only the benefits, but also the costs of the proposed supercenter for Rohnert Park. A supercenter is a 200,000 square foot store that sells both general merchandise and groceries. Since 1988, Wal-Mart has opened 2300 supercenters nationwide. Wal-Mart announced in 2002 that it would build more than forty of these megastores in California. By 2008 only thirty-one were built, with organized grassroots opposition and environmental lawsuits blocking the others. Wal-Mart is now the nation's largest grocer and pharmacy, with sales exceeding the combined total of major competitors, including Target, Safeway, Albertsons, Kohl's, and Kroger. How did Sam Walton develop a rural, southern discount store into the planet's largest retailer and the nation's largest employer? According to UC Santa Barbara historian Nelson Lichtenstein in his new book, "The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created A Brave New World of Business," the main reason for Wal-Mart's phenomenal success is containment of labor costs by a relentless downward pressure on wages and benefits, and a near-perfect record thwarting unionization. Most Wal-Mart workers are the 'working poor' in America. According to the company's own reports, the average wage for a full-time Wal-Mart worker in 2007 was $10.51 an hour. The average wage of a Wal-Mart employee is 26 percent less than other large merchandise stores, and 18 percent less than large grocery stores, according to the New York University Brennan Center. Kaiser Family Foundation reports that less than 50 percent of Wal-Mart ensures that wages and benefits remain low by a systematic, company-wide, policy to suppress unions. A report by Human Rights Watch about Wal-Mart concluded, "while many American companies use weak U.S. laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus." Between 1998-2003 the National Labor Relations Board issued 94 complaints and found that Wal-Mart illegally fired workers for union activity, forced workers to attend anti-union meetings and video screenings, spied on workers who supported unionization, and claimed workers would lose pay raises and benefits or the store would shut down if the employees voted for a union. Not one Wal-Mart store is unionized in the U.S. When Quebec workers voted for representation by the United Food and Commercial Workers in 2005, the company closed the store. What are the costs when a Wal-Mart supercenter opens in a community? First, good middle-class jobs are replaced by poverty-wage jobs. Grocery prices at Wal-Mart are 15 percent lower than those of competing firms, and half of these major grocery chains, like Safeway, Raley's, and Albertsons, are unionized. The 'union premium' for combined pay and benefits is 30 percent more than nonunion. In Southern Nevada, Wal-Mart opened sixteen supercenters and by 2002, 1400 union jobs were lost when Raley's closed eighteen stores. According to Nelson Lichtenstein, 13,000 traditional supermarkets were closed and twenty-five regional chains forced into bankruptcy from 1992-2003 due to Wal-Mart. Second, the taxpayers end up providing public assistance for Wal-Mart workers. A 2004 study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center, "The Hidden Costs of Wal-Mart," concludes that uninsured Wal-Mart employees in California rely on programs like Medi-Cal and Healthy Families at a cost of $32 million a year to the taxpayer. The report also demonstrates that Wal-Mart workers earning poverty-wages rely on federal and state programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Section 8 subsidized housing, and child care assistance to make ends meet at a cost of $54 million per year. Third, local merchants are hurt when Wal-Mart enters a community. In 1995, economist Kenneth Stone found that, a decade after the opening of a Wal-Mart in rural Iowa communities, 60 percent of the retail sales captured by Wal-Mart came from existing retailers and hundreds of grocery, apparel, hardware, and drug stores closed. University of Missouri economist Emek Basker examined county-level employment impacts of Wal-Mart from 1977-1998. She demonstrated that, for every one hundred new jobs created by Wal-Mart, fifty retail jobs and twenty wholesale jobs were lost over the next five years. This is an appropriate moment for an informed public dialogue about the megastore proposed for Rohnert Park. For instance, cities across California have implemented a 'Community Impact Report' (CIR) for large commercial development projects. In 2008, Petaluma was the first city in the North Bay to approve a CIR. A CIR, prepared by a city-designated consultant early in the development process, is much shorter than an Environmental Impact Report. The CIR analyzes the economic and fiscal impacts of a proposed project and provides a comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits. Also, California municipalities are capping the size of supercenters. Most recently, Santa Clara and Salinas have prohibited any supercenters of more than 90,000 square feet. Residents of Rohnert Park and Sonoma County should consider the relevance of these policy tools to encourage smart, equitable, and sustainable growth. Martin J. Bennett teaches American history at Santa Rosa Junior College, serves on the board of Sonoma County Conservation Action, and is Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County. For more information go to: www.livingwagesonoma.org. |
||
 |
