The Dutra Group Companies and Aimi Dutra Krause take credibility and integrity very seriously. During the June 9 Board of Supervisor hearing and the debate surrounding the Haystack Project, several opponents made false claims about the Haystack Landing Project, the history of Dutra Material operations in Petaluma for over 23 years and attacked Aimi Dutra Krause’s statements suggesting she lied about Dutra’s record in Petaluma.

Unfortunately, the most serious of the false statements was made by Supervisor Zane at the hearing after public comment was closed which prevented Aimi Dutra Krause from correcting her and the Dutra record.

Dutra’s attorney, Chris Locke, sent County Counsel an email correcting the record after the hearing asking County Counsel to share the information with the Board of Supervisors to provide them with the facts. (SEE BELOW)  Earlier in the process, on February 23, 2009, Dutra sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors correcting the record on similar issues.

Dutra corrected the record with the County and hope the project will not be impacted by misinformation about Dutra’s record.

—————————————————————-

From: Locke, Christopher
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 3:36 PM
To: ‘Jeffrey Brax’
Subject: Haystack Project – Correction of the Record

Dear Mr. Brax,

Dutra and I were surprised and deeply concerned by a number of statements made at Tuesday’s Supervisors’ hearing, not the least of which was SupervisorZane’s statement that Aimi Dutra Krause had falsely claimed at the February 3 hearing that there had been no violations at the asphalt plantsDutra operated for 23 years just north of Haystack Landing on Petaluma Boulevard South.

Aimi’s reputation for honesty and integrity is very important to her and to the company, we have reviewed the February 3 hearing transcript, and we would like to set the record straight.

Aimi stated at the February 3 hearing (Transcript page 12):
“What I want to point out here is that Dutra has been doing business in Petaluma and providing materials to Sonoma Countyfor over 23 years.  We were at this old quarry site right up here, right off the Freeway and close to the golf course and adjacent neighborhoods with little or no complaint.  And then we relocated temporarily across the river right here, near the Sheraton Petaluma, and at both places we were running our asphalt plant and at the old quarry site doing recycle, which is proposed for our new location.”

Later at the February 3 hearing, Supervisor Brown asked a question about the temporary plant and Aimi responded (Transcript page 73):
“Supervisor Brown:  Not state of the art, not even close to full .  .  . “
”Aimi Dutra Krause:  To full containment, correct.”
”Supervisor Brown:  .  .  . actual containment.  I heard no response from anyone about that.  Have there been complaints to the City of Petaluma?  Have there been complaints from the County regarding that issue?”
“Aimi Dutra Krause:  .  .  . years that we operated there, we were not informed of them.  They did not come directly to Dutra.  And if it came to the County, it was not to our knowledge.  So when we sat here and said with the 23 years, I was confident in that there had been no community complaints.”

Aimi also referenced Dutra’s compliance history at these and other facilities and its ability to operate the new Haystack plant in a responsible and compliant manner.  (Transcript page 16).  However, at no time did she say there had never been any regulatory violations at the earlier plants in Petaluma .

Furthermore, when project opponents first claimed in February that Aimi had made such statements at the February 3 hearing, she promptly sent a letter to the Supervisors not only reiterating that the statements concerned neighbors complaints, not regulatory violations, and describing in some detail the regulatory history of the earlier plants.  Copies of the February 23 letter and February 3 transcript are attached for your convenience.

There is no question that the temporary plant, which was leased by Dutra to continue to supply asphalt during the Haystack approval process, was neither state of the art nor fully contained, as Supervisor Brown noted at the February 3 hearing.  Dutra worked with the owner and BAAQMD on testing and upgrades for the plant, and some of the deficiencies were resolved.  Dutra shut the plant down and discontinued the lease after it became clear that some of the remaining deficiencies could not be resolved.

I hope that this serves to correct the record.  Although it is always difficult to “unring the bell,” and cognizant of your statement at the hearing that there should be noex parte communications, we would appreciate your assistance in bringing this correction to the attention of the Supervisors and the PRMD Staff.

Very truly yours,
Christopher Locke
Counsel to Dutra Materials and The Dutra Group