Outreach wasn’t good enough
EDITOR: As a member of the Palmer Creek community where Thomas Planson hopes to establish an industrial cannabis operation, I was confounded to read in Andrew Pardiac’s article “Outreach at heart of pot farm recommendations” that the Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council has “lauded” Mr. Planson for his “outreach efforts.” Mr. Planson’s “outreach efforts” have been anything but genuine.
Mr. Planson extended his invitation to meet with the community only after his application had already been submitted, and he spent the meeting refusing to answer any of our questions about water use and storage, road safety, transportation of employees, financing, security, long-terms plans, etc. by claiming either that he didn’t know the answers or that the answers were confidential. He refused to listen to any of our concerns, and ended the evening by essentially announcing that our point of view didn’t matter because he could do whatever he wanted on his property.
In addition, I was equally dumbfounded by Councilman Bill Smith’s contention that Mr. Planson’s is “a very complete application,” since Mr. Planson’s application has been deemed incomplete by Permit Sonoma, and has been sent back to Mr. Planson for extensive further documentation.
Jean Hegland
Healdsburg
We can help homeless
EDITOR: We need a full range of services for the homeless in our community. Though we are blessed to live in one of the most beautiful, plentiful places on Earth, we have homeless people dying in our midst. I urge the Healdsburg City Council to follow the lead of St. Paul’s Church and Reach for Home. Use some of our revenue to add to the 11 transitional housing units currently offered. There are 129 to 150 estimated homeless in our city. While more permanent solutions are being developed, let’s provide a temporary legal encampment, as Gail Jonas and others suggest. Portable shelters are another creative option for those preferring to be on their own.
Lack of affordable housing is reportedly the main cause of homelessness in our area. Over 80 percent of those without shelter lived in Sonoma County before becoming homeless. Jennielynn Holmes, Catholic Charities Director of Shelter & Housing, said that quickly housing those needing basic assistance, including rent subsidies, appears to pay off. The housing retention rate is 94 percent among those who participated in transitional housing programs. That’s a very high success rate. With housing first and services, such as employment and medical assistance, as well as counseling and legal aid, we can make a difference.
Cindy Jacobs
Healdsburg
Knowledge helps weather the storm
EDITOR: I was dropping off eggs to the Healdsburg Food Pantry the other morning when our phones went off simultaneously notifying us of a countywide Emergency Alert to evacuate now if you live along the Russian River. It obviously changed our conversation from neighborly talk to anxiety relief. I remember thinking, wow, if we read this literally, it means 110 miles of river homes that need to evacuate now, four inches into the beginning of a rainstorm.
Twenty-five years ago, while living along the lower Russian River, we relied on the CHP list of road closures when the river was at a specific height at a specific section of the rivers reach. This is the same list that appears today when you open your emergency alert details. We talked to our neighbors back then, who had the history of flood years and localized flooding as imprints on their experience. They had a knowledge of their area that shaped who they were, and an awareness of how nature works.
I get the urgency to protect and provide, and that the infancy of this new emergency alert system will evolve. But there are tools out there that seem to be missing. When you use a framework like the Rosgin Stream Classification System, you end up with a language to understand and predict a stream and river behavior, understand how water and sediment interact, identify site specific problems, etc. You call specific streams “flashy” instead of warning about watershed wide flash floods. The latter informs us more that we misunderstand the dynamic of a stream or the stream-storm drain interactions in our areas. Let’s not misinform the public with statements like “evacuate now” emergency alerts when an informed common sense is already telling us to pay attention and make rational decisions at the right time. Otherwise, we are excusing ourselves from knowing anything about how nature works around us.
With education in our schools and communities, community neighborhood groups that exchange cell phone numbers, and come together, we can improve our knowledge that puts things in perspective. Learn your ecological address. Walk the creek and see the nature and wildlife it supports and how it changes in the course of time. Understand and pay attention to the nature beneath your feet. Knowledge is calming.
Rick Kaye
Healdsburg
Neighbors unhappy with proposed marijuana farm
EDITOR: Looks like you folks and the Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council members got bamboozled by smooth talking pot farmer hopeful Thomas Planson in Mr. Pardiac’s article on Feb 28.
My wife and I are next door downwind neighbors for 45 years to this proposal on Palmer Creek. Be very clear we residents here are strongly opposed to this stinking kind of industrial operation proposed by Mr. Planson. It is alarming that the so-called representatives calling themselves Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council did not bother to remember to inform and include the entirety of the people they supposedly represent. They have some things to learn about public representation. My Wife and I are demanding they rescind their recommendation for approval by the Sonoma County Planning Commission of Mr. Planson’s proposal. Would also hope the Healdsburg Tribune reporters would be more diligent about checking with the other side to more accurately report these things.
Ray Turner
Healdsburg
Hotel concerns need attention
EDITOR: Why do some of our planning commissioners seemingly ignore the sentiments of the Healdsburg community? The North Entry Area Plan was discussed at the planning commission meeting on Tuesday evening, Feb. 26.
Many community members pointed to the results of a well-conducted community survey by FM3 Research, disclosing that Healdsburg residents overwhelmingly do not want more hotels, and feel that the rate of growth is too fast. Several new hotels are already in the pipeline. Yet, several commissioners dismissed the survey to discuss a 140 room hotel. One commissioner stated that surveying a resident about hotel growth is similar to asking a child if he wants candy — each would answer from their gut without really thinking it through.
Healdsburg residents are more informed and intelligent than that. There are many good reasons for minimizing future hotel growth. These include the impact of tourism on community character, traffic concerns, parking and the increased need for affordable housing that a hotel would generate.
Perhaps the pros and cons of hotel growth should be discussed more thoroughly before finalizing this plan. I understand the need to attract a developer; however, commissioners, please do not brush aside or diminish the well-founded sentiments of Healdsburg residents and what they would like to see in the community where they live and pay taxes. You owe that much to them.
Mark Bisignani
Healdsburg
Pot Farm Rebuttal
EDITOR: The residents of Palmer Creek take direct issue with the recent article in the Healdsburg Tribune “Dry Creek Oks one pot farm, tables the second” (Feb. 28, Page 1). We are at a loss why we, the community directly impacted by Mr. Planson’s proposed facility, were not notified that the project was up for review nor invited to speak at the Feb. 21, Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council (DCVCAC) meeting. Not only did this deny us the opportunity to present our united opposition to this project, the DCVCAC then proceeded to issue a recommendation for approval without hearing one word of input from the very community this project will impact.
Quoting from the article, “In his presentation, Planson described how he sent out letters requesting input on his project to surrounding areas and incorporated them into a revised site plan. He then held a pizza party for neighbors to get one more round of feedback and the ensure that the revised plan was something that was the best possible outcome for the area.”
It is unknown what “surrounding areas” letters were sent to for input but it did not include Palmer Creek. In truth, Mr. Planson submitted his application on Nov. 7, and then notified the Palmer Creek community of his project via mail Nov. 13, six days after the application had already been submitted. If our input and concerns were not asked for until after the application was generated and submitted, then at no point does the application incorporate or address them.
At the Dec. 5 Meet and Greet, Mr. Planson stated he was there to get our input on his project and address our concerns to which we replied, “How can that be done when you have already submitted the application?” Throughout the meeting, Mr. Planson was unable to answer any of our direct questions regarding the project under the pretext that getting the permit is Phase 1 and as such, he doesn’t have the answers, they will be looked at in Phase 2. At the conclusion of the two-hour Meet and Greet, after hearing the many resident objections to his project, Mr. Planson had no answer when asked, “After hearing our objections and concerns, what have you learned?”
The last comment made by the applicants was, we have owned this property for 50 years, we can do whatever we want with it, all we want is your blessing. And somehow this ensures “the best possible outcome for the area,” our lives, homes, and community. And for this, the DCVCAC “lauded” Mr. Planson’s outreach efforts to his neighbors. Whereas in the case of the other application reviewed the DCVCAC chose to withhold a recommendation pending full outreach for one family, the DCVCAC chose to endorse the application in Palmer Creek with no resident outreach resolution whatsoever.
As for Councilmember Bill Smith’s comment “This is a very complete application,” the application is currently considered incomplete by Permit Sonoma with a long list of requested documentation by various governmental agencies. There are numerous issues and concerns with Mr. Planson’s application ranging from its sensitive watershed location, substandard fire safe road access, limited water resources and easements that cannot be readily mitigated.
Not only is the DCVCAC’s decision founded solely on the claims of the applicant without any neighborhood rebuttal, it is then published in the Healdsburg Tribune implying that Mr. Planson has Palmer Creek residents’ full support, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Mr. Planson in no way speaks for the residents of the Palmer Creek community but speaks solely for his own personal interests and gain.
To this date, the residents of Palmer Creek remain overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, opposed to this application, and any other similar application, in our private residential community. As the application will be required to go through the referral process again, we respectfully request that the Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council afford us the basic courtesy of allowing us to speak on our own behalf before making any recommendations that will impact our lives so greatly.
We urge the DCVCAC to reconsider its premature recommendation in light of these facts and the united community opposition to this project.
Steve Imbimbo and Laura Anderson
Ray and Nancy Turner
Toney and Nancy PrussiaMeritt
Jean Hegland and Douglas Fisher
Steve Lundborg and Julia Piezzi
Jim and Terry Richter
Cecile Isaac and Norm Schneider
Pete Pistochini and Brian Griffiths
Ted Salkin
Dave Henson
Gary and Cynthia Anderson
Palmer Creek Residents
Healdsburg
EDITOR’S NOTE:Â According to the Sonoma County website Permit Sonoma, which keeps official records of applications, the Cannabis Use Permit for Thomas Planson was marked complete for processing on Dec. 7. The application is in process and has a review and public notice period before a decision will be made.
