Font ResizeA large contingent of Southern Humboldt residents attended the meeting, including the park board, which now includes Steve Dazey, Kathryn Lobato, Tim Metz, Peter Ryce, Eric Kirk, and Dennis Huber.
Both Michael Richardson, the lead planner for the park board, and Chairman Jimmy Smith stressed that what was being approved at the meeting was permission to proceed with an application for an amendment to the existing plan and not an approval of the plan itself.
There appeared to be some confusion as to the exact acreage of the property under discussion. The application defines the property at 405 acres; Richardson described it as consisting of 437 acres. The request by the park board is for a designation of Public Recreation on part of the property, Agriculture Exclusive on other parts and Multifamily residential on still other parts of the property.
In their presentation, the park board members referred to the Community Park as a “regional” park, something for which there is a “pent-up need,” according to Lobato, who said also that the park board members were challenged to “hold back on community requests for activities in the park.” She said also that they plan to develop senior/workforce multigenerational housing on a five-acre area in the park and that the housing was needed to provide economic stability for the park operation, as their agricultural activities don’t provide sufficient income to support the park. She said larger events are one of their most requested activities in the park.
Park board member Tim Metz said that their “zonification request reflects what the community needs from us.”
Around 25 people commented on the request.
Sonny Anderson of Petrolia said that low impact uses are already compatible under the current zoning and that the park board had closed the park to those activities to make it appear that the County had forced that action.
Butch Parkin, representing the Farm Bureau urged a signed agreement from the park board that no illegal acts or unpermitted events would be allowed on the property.
In response to that, Planning Director Kirk Girard said that his department already has a signed agreement from the park board that no further unpermitted events will be held at the park.
Rebecca Arcos spoke on behalf of the Healy Senior Center board of directors to say that they were very much in support of the plan to build senior housing there.
The proposal for the amendment also received the endorsement of EPIC and Democracy Unlimited, Hum CPR and the Garberville Sanitary District. Several members of the Mateel Community Center were on hand to add their support as well, especially for the events aspect of the park board’s plans.
Jim Lamport presented a map intended to show that the Community Park is the only park in the southern part of the County.
Marie Raphael was one of several speakers who expressed complete trust in the park board. She also spoke in favor of youth activities at the park.
Syd Lehman said those with objections to the holding of large events in the park are an example of NIMBYism. [NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard]
Doug Green said that people opposed to holding large events at the park have a “personal agenda” and that the area is already subject to noise pollution from the freeway and airport.
Jerry Latsko said that while he had great respect for the members of the park board, he wanted to “remind everyone that once development starts, once the foot is in the door, it doesn’t stop and it never has.”
Virginia Graziani, who identified herself as a park donor to the amount of $4,000, said she had donated to protect the land from development and to allow public access. She said she couldn’t support the petition because there were too many land use designations “and I think they are in conflict with each other.” She said that housing and public events at the park have impacts on the community and the environment.
She was one of several speakers to support the “soft” or low-impact uses of the park, but oppose using the park for large events and for housing.
Kristin Vogel presented petitions signed by 300 people opposing large events and amplified music at the park. She said this proved that there is not broad consensus on the park plan.
When the public testimony was finished and the discussion reverted to the supervisors, Supervisor Jill Duffy asked Richardson for a time frame to completion of the amendment proposal. Richardson said he thought it would take about a year to complete the application.
There was also discussion about the maps, which were not precise. Richardson said that he didn’t want to limit the board’s vision. He said “we don’t want to tie them to what they’ve put down so far.”
Supervisor Mark Lovelace said that he had received a lot of input on the process and that all of those characterized as “park opponents” actually support the concept of a park.
”I can’t think of anyone who didn’t support the concept of a park here,” Lovelace said, “and taking them at their word, this suggests to me that as we move forward in the process, that the areas of division in terms of what uses will be allowed in the park and exactly how the map will be drawn, those are the areas where the divisions are. What I heard today from some people was that the uncertainty about where this process might land, even though some of these people donated money to the park and have been big supporters in that way, the uncertainty about where this is going to land has caused them to be opposed to even getting started.”
Lovelace said he hoped that the process would come up with a plan that would get those with concerns “back on board.”
Richardson said he thought that the process would clear up the uncertainties. He said he thought the process would go more smoothly if the park board would “define the details.”
Richardson also said, in response to a question about whether or not motorized recreation would be allowed in the park, that the park board had not requested that. He said also that some uses that would be allowed under the zoning and land use designations could be prohibited by the supervisors.
Lovelace also questioned the “findings” that the planning department and Richardson had written into the amendment application request. Lovelace also said that he didn’t think the document Richardson presented addressed the underlying noise concerns of the neighbors. He said he didn’t think re-orienting the stage would address the sound concerns.
”It’s very easy to underestimate the strange things that noise does as it moves across the landscape,” he said. He urged the park board not to underestimate the noise concerns.
Supervisor Clif Clendenen commented that music at any event, even when played on acoustic instruments, would need to be amplified, and that the problem was the overall volume of sound produced by the amplification.
Lovelace said also that he didn’t think the change in ownership was a good finding for an amendment, since the general plan designations apply to the property and not to the owners of the property. He said that ownership may change. He said he had difficulty applying a blanket assumption that “this nonprofit ownership is automatically so virtuous that we would allow them something that we would not allow another owner.”
Girard suggested that the park board was similar to a government agency, but he acknowledged that it was a “judgment call.”
Lovelace also questioned the housing proposal. He wanted to know if there were going to be deed restrictions requiring the housing to remain as described in the proposal, which doesn’t make it clear if the housing units will be rented or sold or under what conditions it will be managed.
The supervisors also expressed their desire for an environmental review of all the proposals. The Farm Bureau has expressed concern about further conversion of agricultural land and the County Public Works has concerns about the inadequacy of Sprowel Creek Road.
After their discussion, Clif Clendenen made the motion and Bonnie Neely seconded the motion that the request be approved and the process go forward. It was approved unanimously. The park board will now have to present a precise and specific plan and there will be opportunity for more public input.
