s
s
Sections
Sections
Subscribe
You've read 3 of 10 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to SonomaNews.com, the Sonoma Index-Tribune eEdition and our mobile app for just $5.25 per month!
Already a subscriber?
You've read 6 of 10 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to SonomaNews.com, the Sonoma Index-Tribune eEdition and our mobile app for just $5.25 per month!
Already a subscriber?
You've read all of your free articles this month.
Continue reading with unlimited access to SonomaNews.com, the Sonoma Index-Tribune eEdition and our mobile app for just $5.25 per month!
Already a subscriber?
We've got a special deal for readers like you.
Get unlimited access to SonomaNews.com, the Sonoma Index-Tribune eEdition and our mobile app for just $5.25 per month, and support community journalism!
Already a subscriber?
Thanks for reading! Why not subscribe?
Get unlimited access to SonomaNews.com, the Sonoma Index-Tribune eEdition and our mobile app for just $5.25 per month, and support community journalism!
Already a subscriber?
Want to keep reading? Subscribe today!
For just $5.25 per month, you can keep reading SonomaNews.com, the Sonoma Index-Tribune eEdition and our mobile, and support community journalism!
Already a subscriber?

Letters to the Editor, Nov. 10 - 13

In January 2017, PRMD was on the verge of approving this plan when it was appealed. In August the appellants presented 14 pages of questions to PRMD. The questions included such matters as the effects of the project on Highway 37 traffic, including safety issues, the permissible uses for a property zoned for agriculture, accordance with state land-use regulations (CEQA), noise pollution, the effects of sea rise, and others. No responses nave been received by the appellants.

PRMD completed a “Mitigated Negative Declaration” in late September which, pursuant to CEQA, outlined in 46 pages, and on the basis of material assembled by Kenwood consultants, concluded that the project posed no significant environmental problems. The appellants were not on the distribution and discovered its existence by chance and too late to meet the PRMD’s deadline for comments. PRMD then set the date of Nov. 2 for a hearing on the project by the County’s Board of Zoning. Later, still without a staff report, the date was moved to Nov. 16.

The appellants continue to have serious reservations, including about this project’s effects on the safety of traffic, on the enjoyment of visitors to the Baylands, and on the appropriateness of such a large private club in the Baylands which have been protected and preserved with the expenditure of tens of millions of public (taxpayer) and private funds. They also question the timing of the hearing at this time when it would seem all County organizations should be helping people suffering from the wildfires, not an event center disguised as a humble hunt club.

If not postponed, the hearing this coming Thursday will entertain questions from the public as well as from the appellant. It will take place at 1 p.m. at 2550 Ventura Ave., Santa Rosa.

Ted Eliot

Sonoma