Community Park scoping session next&nbsp;Thursday

September 4, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Ms. pathetic actually, you asked;

This question has already been asked and answered by Eirc Kirk and Dennis Huber, along with countless other people like yourself (anonymous) many many times.

Let me ask you, does it matter that no one from the Voice Family has lived in our house since 2005, that my dad had built in 1966 and we still own it?

Do you think we don’t pay the same property tax as someone who “lives” in the Garberville area, or the same Hospital District assesment? I myself want to retire in Garberville without having to put up with the Community Park Concert & Festival crap!

Have anymore bright questions, that have nothing to do with what the Park Board wants for this Community and its neighbors?

Here is one for you, please answer this question, As with past illegal and unpermitted events, Who in the community benefits from the Park Board allowing amplified Concert & Festivals, parking, camping and housing at Tooby Memorial Park, the River Bar and Community Park?

Eric Kirk

Basically, Ed has transferred his family’s dispute with the Randalls to the park.

Everyone in the community. That is, those of us who actually live here.

September 4, 2010 at 3:08 pm

September 4, 2010 at 3:23 pm

Then Eric said;

“As I’ve asked you before, can we do anything with the property or should we just leave it a big vacant lot”

I’m not sure what you mean by “big vacant lot”. Is that all you see of both Parks now, a “big vacant lot?”. You think you have to build and develop on it to make it something great in your eye’s and then shittttt on anybody who dare not want any part of what the Park Board is planning? Claiming the Park Board represents the overwheming VOICE of this community, well here is one Family of VOICE’s that you do not represent! Learn to live with it……..

ED Denson

Ed Voice, thank you for altering your handle. I don’t know that confusion was being created between my posts and yours, but it was possible, and seeing that I am somewhat controversial myself sometimes, i don’t think people blending our comments would further either of us in our communications.

September 4, 2010 at 3:27 pm

September 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Eric said again;

“Basically, Ed has transferred his family’s dispute with the Randalls to the park”

This proves my point Eric, you have been able to sink below even yourself:

“there’s what people want to hear, there’s what people want to believe, there’s everything else, THEN there’s the truth”

By the way Eric, is this all you and the Park Board have, sticks and stones?; you don’t live here, you don’t vote here, the Randall thing and god knows what eles? What happened to the facts, oh yeah: “But what you need to remember is that there’s what people want to hear, there’s what people want to believe, there’s everything else, THEN there’s the truth”

So at what part in this saying are we at, “what people want to hear” or what you are leading and telling them to believe”?

Eric Kirk

So the answer is yes. We can’t do anything with the park that you won’t oppose. Thank you for the clarification.

September 4, 2010 at 3:32 pm

Eric Kirk

This proves my point Eric, you have been able to sink below even yourself:

Yeah, and I’m supposed to sit back and let you attack people over and over again, and then feel guilty when I reciprocate even once?

That’s why I’ve been trying to stay out of these discussions Ed. You’re a classic case of not being able to take what you routinely dish out.

September 4, 2010 at 3:32 pm

September 4, 2010 at 3:35 pm

More Eric questions answered;

Q-So you object to camping Ed? Not at the SHCP or Tooby Park!

Q=I thought it was just about the amplified music. No you are wrong again! But now you oppose camping. Only at the SHCP or Tooby Park! You won’t commit to whether you oppose the pavilion. How about the soccer fields?

Eric Kirk

Just so I’m clear, you support camping in the park?

September 4, 2010 at 3:40 pm

September 4, 2010 at 6:41 pm

Q & A between Eric Kirk & Ed Voice, from September 4, 2010 at 2:44 pm;

Q – So you object to camping Ed? A – No, only at SHCP and Tooby Park

Q – I thought it was just about the amplified music. A – NO

Q – But now you oppose camping. A – No, only at SHCP & Tooby Park

Q – You won’t commit to whether you oppose the pavilion. A – NO

Q – How about the soccer fields? A – Not where they are currently planned

the reasonable anonymous

Ed, if you haven’t lived there in 5 years, then no, you’re not a “neighbor.” You’re a “former neighbor” and maybe a “potential future neighbor.” You’re also a property owner and property tax payer. But not a “neighbor,” at least not at the moment.

So yes, it does seem a bit misleading to refer to yourself as a “neighbor” of the park.

September 4, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Jane

In my personal experience there are planning members who owe their previous rents to people other than the public citizens. Literally. One of these days it would be nice to see a serious grand jury investigation into the selling of that office–before employees can do more extensive harm. At the same time when will Southern Humboldt ever realize perpetuating half-truths, minimal truths, and out and out falsehoods, from rumor into facts makes everyone in this community look like ignorant stoned sheep. The big sharks will eat you for lunch if you let them. Don’t play in the same lake. And by the way the criteria for changing that road I am told is how many deaths are on it or how much traffic goes down it. That is why it has never been on the priority list for funds before. It needs to be fixed whether or not the community park is at the bottom of it for the sake of us who live down there.

September 4, 2010 at 6:54 pm

September 4, 2010 at 8:10 pm

Are we clear now Eric?

“Yeah, and I’m supposed to sit back and let you attack people over and over again, and then feel guilty when I reciprocate even once?”

Start by naming them, even one would work for starters. And yes, if people think I am attacking them, why is it your job to defend them, or does that just come second nature to you!

What you have become is a bully Eric. Trying to intimadate me, knowing it will work on others, shame on you and the rest of the Park Board for going there. Name one time the Park Board has ever thought of their neighbors, ever included their neighbors or even the Community in the Plans of Both Tooby and SHCP since before 2009. Read you own park Board meeting nots from what you have posted on line!

This Scoping session is good, it takes the Park Board out of the way, so this community can be heard, can’t wait…………….

September 4, 2010 at 8:42 pm

Sorry anon, I just now saw your last post;

So lets recap in order of what you had said;

“Anonymous 6:55 a.m., where are you getting the idea that any growth over the 5000 would come without county permission? I do not see that”

“I see it Ed. It comes in the section where they ask for a land use designation which will allow them 5000 people for the SAF and 1200 for each of those events. Why do you insist on making crap up?”

“Slowing down Ed. Plan of Operation, page 4. This should be good”

Well here is page 4 of the “Plan of Operation” I got from Michael Richardson, dated July 23, 2010 from the Park Board and nothing mandates anything the park Board is requesting. But it does say the Park Board wants to “evaluate for future growth potential” and that “The Mateel Community Center’s Summer Arts and Music Festival is a good example of the kind of fairs and festivals we hope to have at the park” which tell anyone who reads this, they want more than one Fairs or Festivals at 5000, nothing about getting permission from the County and only have ONE (1) large event at 5000 people.

Everything is open-ended. No accountability please read on and tell me where you get your impression or your facts:

Large Events:

The following types of events are included in the large event general operation plan:

Large Fundraisers and Events – Attendance of 500 to 1200, five seasonal events per year

This type of event often features multiple performers and performances by well-known groups or individuals that will likely attract more attendees. These events could cover a wide-range of musical genres, theater, dance performances, concerts and performances like the Mateel Community Center’s Humboldt Hills Hoedown or Jazz on the Lake. These event will take place in the event area in the new Public Facility zone close to the tree line.

The Summer Arts and Music Festival – Fairs and Festivals:
The Mateel Community Center’s Summer Arts and Music Festival is a good example of the kind of fairs and festivals we hope to have at the park. We will use this event as an example of a large event. The Summer Arts and Music Festival is a two-day family-friendly event that is now in its thirty-forth year. Summer Arts features a unique blending of local and regional musicians on three outdoor stages, roving entertainers, quality artisans displaying and selling wares, exhibits of fine arts displays, international cuisine, and on site educational workshops. Summer Arts and Music Festival has been experiencing and outpouring of community support and growth over the past few years. The year 2010 was the most financially successful year to date with attendance rising to 4000 per day. In addition, there are approximately 1000 workers and vendors at the event. The festival is open 14 hours on Saturday and 12 hours on Sunday. The attendance fluctuates over the course of the day and the total number of attendees on the site at any one time would be less than the one day total. We are looking for a stepped approach to this event, beginning at current attendance levels, working with the Mateel Community Center to relocate the event to the Community Park and get the event firmly established and then evaluate for future growth potential.

The festival currently takes place at the Benbow State Recreation Area in early June. Benbow State Recreation Area is close to the residential neighborhood of Benbow in a setting similar to the Southern Humboldt Community Park.

Anonymous

This GPA plan is the very same that the appointed Board told us they were going to do at the first two meetings. If it was what “people” asked for, as the Park Board claimed the day we were introduced to them, then those attending the meetings were not people. As I recall, Doug Green, recently run out of Myers Flat with his Redwood Ampitheater scheme was the ONLY one there pushing the concert venue.
It is a stupid plan that is basically no plan at all. You would think that after 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, they would have least have had the courtesy to the community and their donors to pay off the park and hire someone to create a real management plan. This GPA is not a management plan or even a financial plan, it is a commercial development plan.
How is all this wonderfulness “for the kids” going to be maintained? Through ever more and more concerts? Sweet are the uses of staying in debt. We’re broke, we just need a few more concerts and a few more thousands attending. Sound familiar? Low cost housing to provide an income for a park? Yeah right.
A park can just be a park, it’s nice the way it is. Pay off the debt then we can talk about it. This environmentally degrading, neighborhood destroying, cockamamie plan is NOT a financial plan. All the money for the GPA and a real EIR should go to the debt, and Bob McKee and Steve Dazey should pay back the Park for the costs of the lot line adjustments. Pay off the Park FIRST.

September 4, 2010 at 8:58 pm

Anonymous

Funny how suddenly it is just an “arts fair” again, when in fact it is a music festival like all the rest.
It appears to me that Ed Voice was driven out of his home by gravel mining and trucks, dust, noise and all that crap that comes with commercial industrial surface mining. The Park Board increased it by more than double, which does not bode well for their flimsy promises to what… practice “resource management”?
I do not want to be driven out of my home by crowds, noise, trespassers and traffic. I do not want cars parking on the streambed, or the wildlife destroyed. The real nimby’s are the ones who want all this in my neighborhood so it’s not in theirs.

September 5, 2010 at 8:32 am

anon

So Ed, where specifically do they ask for the right to increase their numbers “open ended” without permission or process? I am still not seeing it.

September 5, 2010 at 9:41 am

Eric Kirk

Ed – I’m not going to do that. If I start pasting them you’ll do what you’ve done before. You’ll send around emails to everyone we’ve dealt with to show them how mean I am am, hoping maybe they’ll get tired of dealing with us and you and cut off potential support for the park. It’s your pattern. Nothing good comes of it.

Come and speak at the scoping session, and the sessions to follow where you have to abide by the county’s rules and where there is some control to the discussion. That’s where the discussion has to take place now. Blogs do not work for a serious local policy discussion where emotions are so highly charged and feelings so easily hurt that you can feel so profoundly offended and “bullied” because I point out that you no longer live in the subject neighborhood.

Then maybe you can tell us exactly where you would approve of soccer fields in the park and whether you would support a pavilion, or maybe how a pavilion will impact the use and enjoyment of your own property in a pristine, remote valley so far out of town and which already contains a major gravel extraction operation and an airport (maybe the sound of music and kids playing will detract from the soothing sound of Cessnas?). Or continue to leave it vague and accuse us of being a front for Billy Graham Presents or whatever. It’s your choice.

September 5, 2010 at 10:05 am

September 5, 2010 at 10:36 am

anon,

“So Ed, where specifically do they ask for the right to increase their numbers “open ended” without permission or process? I am still not seeing it”

#1. “The Mateel Community Center’s Summer Arts and Music Festival is a good example of the kind of fairs and festivals we hope to have at the park”

#2. “We will use this event as an example of a large event”

#3. “The attendance fluctuates over the course of the day and the total number of attendees on the site at any one time would be less than the one day total”

#4. “We are looking for a stepped approach to this event, beginning at current attendance levels, working with the Mateel Community Center to relocate the event to the Community Park and get the event firmly established and then evaluate for future growth potential”

anon, I ask you again, where do you read where any of what I have posted is conditional with County approval?

Look, there is nothing cast in stone about unlimited samll events with amplified music (under 500) too “Fairs and Festivals like SAMF”. The point is, nothing in the document caps events like Fairs and Festivals to 4000 people and 1000 venders & workers, only current levels!

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Since you could have an amplified music event at Tooby Park, from 10am till 12 midnight on Friday & Sat, with a live band under 500 people, you think this event will have less noise impact to the neighborhoods?

hardatit

i think eric’s comment was a bit bullyish… ie: …”those of us who actually live here….”

i mean wow. How exclusive and ‘so much better than you’ can you get? No one likes a bully. I contend, a taxpaying land owner has all the rights of those that chose to reside in the ‘hood’ – which is what it is starting to sound like!!!

And the benefit to ‘everyone’ from giant music events? Maybe the intangible benefit of the arts, and a community gathering (IF you have the coin for the entrance fee…) but the real ca$h will flow – and to where and whom???

September 5, 2010 at 11:16 am

edsvoice@mchsi.com

P.S. anon,

FYI, if you can, get a copy copy of what the County has sent to neighboring property owners (public notice DEIR scoping session, Park barn Sept 9th) I will see about scanning it later and putting it on the neighbors web site. And yes the Voices got one, because we are “neighboring property owners” to the SHCP property and Tooby Park.

Maybe the Park Board could put all this info on their web site? Now that would be very helpful………………..

September 5, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Kathryn

Comments regarding concerts and camping at Tooby Park are an inaccurate representation of the Parks’ application request and intent. Tooby Park is a day-use park and our intentions are to keep it a day-use park.

The types of “events” that we want to have approved for Tooby Park are things like the Easter Egg Hunt, Walk in the Park, birthday parties and similar events.

Folks who have been around awhile will remember the occasional larger events such as the Culpepper – Merriweather Circus and the Pickle Family Circus, which were fundraisers for the schools and non-profits. We’d like to able to do these kinds of things again if the opportunity arises. These circuses had amplified circus bands and announcers with microphones.

Then, more recently, there have been events like the Egg Hunt and Walk in the Park. Many of these events have in the past used some kind of amplification. It’s often hard to hear the human voice in a group of twenty people without amplification. Even the Egg Hunt has resorted to using bull-horns to make announcements to be heard over the sounds of a hundred squealing children.

The Park has no plans for large scale concerts or camping at Tooby Park.

September 5, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Jane

At some point this just gets so ironic it is humorous. People in SoHum who have passively allowed the grow scene and its consequences to completely take over the town and local area are complaining about noise, traffic, and other consequences of human exploitation being a public nuisance. Someone really ought to do a cartoon about this town.

September 5, 2010 at 2:10 pm

well that’s an interesting frame, Jane, but what I think is important is to read the document. it’s easy reading and only about 15 pages without the maps. then come to the scoping session with your questions and comments. this is actually a matter of some importance to the neighborhood at large.

September 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm

anon

Ed, that doesn’t even make sense. You are accusing the board of requesting “open ended” rights to expand their numbers into infinity and all you have is that they did not specifically request that their “stepped approach” involve the county as if that is something they have to ask for.

Seriously, is that your argument?

September 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm

Anonymous

It really saddens me to read that that the park owner board considers it to be a “big vacant lot”.

If you’re confused about where the park owners are coming from and whose heart is sincere, that statement clearly sets out an attitude and relationship to the land. Its the language of resource extractors who see the natural environment something “going to waste”.

September 5, 2010 at 5:49 pm

the reasonable anonymous

“I contend, a taxpaying land owner has all the rights of those that chose to reside in the ‘hood’ ”

No they don’t. For example, a “taxpaying land owner” doesn’t get to vote for County Supervisor, unless said taxpayer is also a resident.

And unless you want to abuse the language beyond recognition, no, an absentee landowner is not a “neighbor.”

So Ed is welcome to share his opinion, and his opinion may be afforded extra weight as a former resident, as a potential future resident, and as a landowner. I have no problem with that. But he also continues to call himself a “neighbor” of the park and seems to expect that his opinions should be given great weight as a “longtime neighbor,” yet to call himself a “neighbor” of the park is misleading given that he apparrently hasn’t lived there in more than 5 years.

I’m not suggesting that is is his *intention* to mislead, I don’t doubt that he continues to think of himself as a neighbor, given his previous longtime residence there and his plans to possibly move back there at some point. But most peoples’ definition of “neighbor” is someone who actually lives in the neighborhood.

September 5, 2010 at 7:27 pm

September 5, 2010 at 8:39 pm

Kathryn,

You are right, nobody I know has talked about any form of camping at Tooby Memorial Park (TMP). However, you do have TMP included and named on page 2 of the Plan of Operation (Small Fundraisers and Events-attendance under 500 people, unlimited in number). including the same hours as Large events, amplified live bands (Reggae Riding, Hoedown) and also used for Parking during Large events (1 1/4 acres) from page 10 of the Plan of Operation, listed on the “Additional parking areas have been identified” (Tooby Memorial Park Parking).

As for your comment:

“Folks who have been around awhile will remember the occasional larger events such as the Culpepper – Merriweather Circus and the Pickle Family Circus, which were fundraisers for the schools and non-profits”

Could you give me the year of those events? As you know, since TMP was under the control and operation of the County Public Works Department, amplified music was not allowed at TMP from 1967 thru 2004, when at such time (2004) the SHCP Board took control and operation of TMP. So my guess would be, that events with amplified music that you are talking about, held at TMP, were held illegally and with-out permits, just like the SHCP events with amplified music in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

There are no historical amplified events that took place at Tooby Memorial Park. Do you have any historical records of these events in your post that took place at TMP?

Just wondering Kathryn, how long have you been around in the area? As a neighboring property & land owner since 1966, we just wanted to know.

Thank you……..

Anonymous

Who said anything about camping at Tooby Memorial Park? Parking, the GPA application says Parking for big events at Tooby Memorial. But I guess everybody will have to leave the Parking Lot of Tooby Memorial at night for big multi-day events, if they get approved. What about all the Parking on the Riverbed for big events? Will they have to leave every night, too? What a mess.

The lease agreement between Tooby Memorial Park and the County specified that there be no amplified music at Tooby Memorial. How sad that the Park Board has decided to dismiss the wishes of the family who donated that park to the community.

September 5, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Anonymous

From the Park Board meeting summary of minutes 10/15/08:

“….It was also a suggestion from the Planning Dept that our zoning change might be looked upon more favorably if there was a housing element.”

As soon as the General Plan Update is through, the whole area around Garberville and Redway for miles is designated as “Urban Study Area”, which means that multiple units per acre will be allowed. Since our formerly rural neighborhoods are being urbanized and that will clearly take care of the perceived lack of housing in the area, it seems much better to not have housing at the Park. Big landowners right next to the Park are already in the works to “alleviate pressing community needs” for housing development.
I don’t think the problem is really lack of housing as much as lack of water for housing. What is going to happen to our beautiful river if we don’t take care?
Whoever heard of housing at a Park anyway?

September 5, 2010 at 9:14 pm

anon

Thank you for your response Ed. It says volumes.

September 5, 2010 at 11:50 pm

September 6, 2010 at 9:51 am

Sorry anon, I’m getting there. I didn’t know we had rules or a time frame?

You had said:

“Ed, that doesn’t even make sense. You are accusing the board of requesting “open ended” rights to expand their numbers into infinity and all you have is that they did not specifically request that their “stepped approach” involve the county as if that is something they have to ask for”

“Seriously, is that your argument?”

No, that is not my argument! My argument is not to allow any form of amplified music at the SHCP or Tooby Memorial Park, which will in turn degrade and change everything at both SHCP and Tooby Memorial Park. The Park Board needs to understand, by changing one small thing about the Park(s), will also change what makes both Parks a great and wonderful place now. It would never be the same ever again!

And all in the name of what; community, public benefit, wildlife protection, open space, family, youth, the MCC and berry pie? They say it takes a community (village) to raise a child, I’m glad I was raised by a very different community! Not one that included this Park Board and what they think is important for the child!

Less is more……………

anon

Nice change of subject Ed. Yes, we know you don’t want amplified music in the park. We were talking about your false representation that the park is asking for the power to increase their numbers without permission or process.

Are we done with making stuff up?

September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm

September 6, 2010 at 12:53 pm

anon,

“We were talking about your false representation that the park is asking for the power to increase their numbers without permission or process”

“Are we done with making stuff up?”

We can play this game all day long, nothing I have stated here is a false anything, let alone “representation”! What I have are documented facts, stated by the Park Board in writing on the SHCP GPA DEIR application.

Nothing I read in any of their three (3) documents limit, cap or even discuss any of the items I have listed above #1 thru #4.

Like I said before, even with what the Park Board is calling unlimited small events under 500, they could have 3 events up to 500 people, with live amplified music every weekend, all year long, even at Tooby Memnorial Park with out asking the County squat!

Another example of small or mid size events; to increase attendance and parking, there is nothing to keep the Park Board from combining any number of unlimited small events with amplified music and up to 500 people and include a mid size event with amplified music with up to 1200 people on the same day or weekend! And nothing the County can do about it, because it is not built into the permits, land use or zoning.

In fact, ask the County to show you the PR/PF zoning and land use designations they want to use at the SHCP & Tooby Memorial Park property? They can’t, that PF/PR zoning and land use have not even been written or approved by the Board of Supervisors!

And so to answer your question; “Are we done with making stuff up?” I don’t want to answer that question, because it asks, “WE” and I have no clue who you are! However I will always speak out as a neighboring land & property owner to protect our wildlife, our river and our right to do so, any time, any place!

Anonymous

The Park board is asking for something the community has told them it does not want. The community is asking for an acoustic Park. That’s because amplified sound canonballs around the valley and up the river corridor. Nobody wants their neighborhood to lose what money cannot buy, peace in your home. Noise from amplified sound is the number one complaint to sheriffs in the U.S. People who live near amplified event venues often fight for years to get relief. To impose this on people is a crime. You wouldn’t want it and all of its consequences in your neighborhood, on your roads, or impacting your town. Acoustic music in the Parks is the way for the Park Board to be a good neighbor.

September 6, 2010 at 3:04 pm

Anonymous

blah, blah,. blah. Lots of evasive words but no proof to back up a false accusation.

anon, if you are looking for a straight answer from Ed you are wasting your time.

September 6, 2010 at 4:30 pm

sista

what about the trailer at tooby park that has a red tag from the county what about that .No trailer is a not an approved dwelling anywhere in humboldt except a trailer park

September 6, 2010 at 4:42 pm

September 6, 2010 at 6:55 pm

None of you anon/anonymous can even name the false accusations, false representation, making stuff up, mis-information or inaccurate representation (did I forget any?) you say we are speading, right?

You are throwing the stones, tell all of us where we are wrong with facts not with your blah, blah, blah?

anon

I can Ed. You are falsely spreading a rumor that the park is asking for an “open ended” right to expand the numbers for the Summer Arts and Music Festival without permission or process. You yourself have demonstrated it to be false trying to put your own words between the lines of what is actualy written in the Plan of Operation.

It is disingenous at best.

September 6, 2010 at 8:07 pm

Eric Kirk

Ed, anon, and everyone else. Today this blog has so far received between 6 and 7 hundred visits. About 60 hits to this thread, and it looks like more than half accounted for by about half a dozen individuals. The point is, you guys might as well get on the telephone and argue with each other. I don’t think many people are paying attention.

The message is particularly directed to anon. These discussions with Ed are circular. When he gets like this, it’s like his posts are written by Lewis Carrol. We have the scoping meeting on Thursday and there will be other opportunities to speak your mind as well. And we have fresh new voices joining the discussion which could have a big impact on the outcome. The county will be hearing from a large cross-section of the community.

Just making a suggestion as to how you might want to use your time and energy.

September 6, 2010 at 8:53 pm

Anonymous

I still believe the best use of the community park is for the school board to buy up a chunk of it and use it to build a new state of the art educational facility for our children. Yes, the existing barn and farm would have to be upgraded to include modern agricultural methods. Get behind me on this one, we can call it Tooby high, and it will have the finest ag department in the state, perhaps a for the not so brainy, a technical course on diesel generator operations or Indoor growing operations could be designed for our most successful students. Sending them out into the world with a high quality tech education will probably help them more in todays society than the piss poor education we are getting out of south fork.

September 6, 2010 at 9:24 pm

Anonymous

Yeah, it is pretty hard since the Park Board and their adherents lack the ability to collaborate from diverse viewpoints.

What would be best for the beautiful parkland would be for this whole controversial, Expensive, county expedited rezone, rewrite of a zone, rewrite of a land use designation, multi-part application for change of land use designation and rezoning for extensive impacts commercial concert venue, possible sports complex and housing development if was put on ice until the Park is paid off, a park management plan adopted and ecological protections put in place.
Public Facility, the zone which is to be somehow shoehorned into the “new” PR land use designation, is currently for Extensive Impacts Civic Uses on publicly owned land. Confused? Maybe you are supposed to be.

It is not necessary to do all this to have a park.

September 7, 2010 at 2:39 am

Jane

“I” thanks for the invite. No thanks. Been to them before. It is senseless. My time can be better spent serving homeless meals at the Mateel or something productive. Helped write some of those documents. Until the planning commission corruption gets reigned in it gets to be a waste of time. The game is already set.

September 7, 2010 at 8:15 am

pipeandapancake?

Hey Eric, I notice that many of the threads on this blog have 3 or 4 people posting back and forth.
If there are still any hits on this thread, it is from those with strong stomachs. It seems that you would prefer to have diverting discussions about national or intellectual philosophical discussions that go nowhere and hope that the intentionally “clumsy democratic process” (as Cliff Clendenen calls it) is left to a few of us to argue about which direction to face the stages on the Titanic.

September 7, 2010 at 10:23 am

Anonymous

Section 15384. Substantial Evidence:

(a) “Substantial evidence” as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence.

(b) Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.

Public Resources Code section 21082.2 was amended in 1993 (Chapter 1131) to provide that substantial evidence shall include “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” The statute further provides that “argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence.”

September 7, 2010 at 3:32 pm

pipeandapancake?

Hey Eric, I notice that many of the threads on this blog have 3 or 4 people posting back and forth.
If there are still any hits on this thread, it is from those with strong stomachs. It seems that you would prefer to have diverting discussions about national or intellectual philosophical discussions that go nowhere and hope that the intentionally “clumsy democratic process” is left to a few of us to argue about which direction to face the stages on the Titanic.

September 8, 2010 at 10:52 am

Anonymous

Here’s why peope need to come to the County Scoping Session about the SHCP, to share your idea, share your thoughts fof the SHCP. This was one of the thoughts talked about on “Voices of humboldt County” web site, after the Nov 10, 2009 GPA Petition hearing with the County BOS:

-Most of the dozens of Southern Humboldt community residents who spoke
at Tuesday’s meeting expressed support for the general idea of
re-zoning and building up the park. But, exact visions for the
sprawling property — which features about a mile of riverfront
property — varied greatly, with some looking to keep the park
operating as an undeveloped natural area with a wedding grove, a small
farm and hiking and biking trails through forests and prairies.

Meanwhile, others — including the park board – hope to develop the property into a mixed-use area that would accommodate large- and small-scale concerts, a baseball field, a sports facility and maybe even a small housing development.

”Virtually everyone supports some kind of park — it’s just a question
of what that will look like,” Supervisor Clendenen said.

September 8, 2010 at 11:34 am

anonymous

The park board ‘vision’ is an amusement park/pot theme park that would put SoHum “on the map” so a few locals can regain things they had when they lived in urban areas. Wanting that is a litmus test to be appointed to the park board, a private corporation.

September 8, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Anonymous

pretty sad that you people who do not live near the park, want to destroy the peace, serenity, sanctuary and refuge of the people and wildlife that do live next to, and in, the park. that is one of the biggest environmental damages to the park. the destruction of peoples’ lives at their homes. the week-ends where they rejuvenate and heal from the stressful work week. and the park board wants to destroy this. shame on all of you.

September 8, 2010 at 3:56 pm

September 8, 2010 at 4:08 pm

So Pappa Eric,

If I could ask, what did you mean?:

“And we have fresh new voices joining the discussion which could have a big impact on the outcome”

Eric Kirk

Just what I said. Stakeholders in the community who haven’t been heard up until now.

September 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm

September 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Cool,

Don’t you mean the Soccer and Baseball league’s the Park Board has herded together? You still have the problem of hundreds of kids, let along hundreds of adults driving down sprowel creek road, parking, water for the fields etc. Do you even have a Geology study or report for that project? You are pulling the cart before the horse. You don’t even know who will pay for it, maintain or operate it, do you? But the Park Board gets everyone juiced up talking about all this new idea of Sports fields, reminds me of Alice in Wonderland!

Just remember what I already told you, this EIR is about the Park Boards “potentially significant impact” on the environment, not the social or economic impacts of this community! Please keep this in mind at the scoping meeting.

Eric Kirk

Thank you for the advice Ed.

September 8, 2010 at 6:22 pm

Anonymous

When will the Park board get real and talk about the financial and environmental limits on big, expensive, high maintenance projects in the Park? All these years, why couldn’t there have been a simple, mowed area down by the Kimtu parking lot for a baseball or soccer area for kids? Everyone can see that the river doesn’t have the water to create green areas anywhere in the Park during the summer. Using about half their yearly allocation the last several years, even the GSD doesn’t take more water than that out of the low river.
There have been ideas like the above one presented to the board for years. And they just lie there and die there.

September 8, 2010 at 6:58 pm

Anonymous

When will supposedly grown up neighbors stop whining?

September 8, 2010 at 7:16 pm

September 8, 2010 at 8:04 pm

Another one Eric,

Tooby Advisory Committee? I know Carol VanSant touched on this at the Aug 25th meeting, but this is a done deal, everybody has been picked or appointed by the Park Board?

The Park Board should inform the communityabout this kind of Advisory Committe. If you need people to help with things like this, just ask?

You say the Park Board represents the SoHum Community, so why don’t you include them on your Board?

Anonymous

what about the environmental impacts all this crap is going to have on the people who live next to the park? why are you blowing over this one eric? and the rest of you on the park board? you get to go home to your QUIET neighborhoods. why is it so easy for you all to destroy someone else’s peace of mind and home life for your own egos’ and arrogance? there are enough other venues, etc…………

September 8, 2010 at 8:18 pm

Eric Kirk

I would love to live next to the park we want to create, where I could walk or bike over and enjoy the trails, and occasionally listen to some good music from my own porch without having to pay for a ticket. The only downside for me would be living so close to an airport, which would drive me crazy.

September 8, 2010 at 8:50 pm

September 8, 2010 at 8:54 pm

Well do I have a deal for you Erwic,

but you would have to live with a different kind of noise than the airport. Durning the day, you might not be able to hear music from the Park, but no problem at night.

You know its funny, I would give anything to move our house up to the airport, put up with airplane noise maybe 1 to 2 hours a day vs 7am to 6 or 7 or even 8pm, depending on the season M-F and half day, if we are lucky on Sat. Which leaves Sunday, unless the Park Board gets its way.

Yup Erwic, money talks and bullshit walks……………

the reasonable anonymous

Maybe Anonymous 8:04 & Erik could work out a “house swap.”

September 8, 2010 at 8:57 pm

the reasonable anonymous

Ed, isn’t your exposure to all that noise somewhat less due to the fact that you don’t live there any longer and in fact haven’t lived there for many years?

September 8, 2010 at 9:06 pm

September 8, 2010 at 9:13 pm

NOPE…………..

Eric Kirk

Maybe Anonymous 8:04 & Erik could work out a “house swap.”

If they get rid of the airport.

The neighbors complaining about music in the park couldn’t stand my neighborhood. I get music from the Mateel all the time, music from Redway school every morning. Cheering from the ball fields. Church bells. Sometimes we can even hear the refrigeration motors behind Shopsmart. Sometimes my neighbors even play radios! Amplification all around me!

Quite frankly, I’m amazed that the neighbors have lived where they live for so long, between the airport, the gravel operation (which long predates the park), and the freeway. I guess somehow their ears have tuned out those frequencies. It’s not like we’re talking about a remote rural area.

September 8, 2010 at 9:27 pm

Anonymous

The airport isn’t busy. The planes are dinky. No jets or jet engines. What’s the deal with calling it noisy? Try to visit it once. You’ll like it.

September 8, 2010 at 9:37 pm

the reasonable anonymous

“NOPE…”

Really? Please elaborate. Where do you live now, and how is it that you hear all the noise from there?

September 8, 2010 at 9:52 pm

September 8, 2010 at 10:07 pm

I know what you mean Eric,

Most everything predates the SHCP i.e, old Hwy 101 19??, new 101 1965 thru 1968, Airport 9/01/1950, Tooby Memorial Park 1967, River Crest Subdivision 1965, Kimtu Subdivision 1960′s, New Moody Bridge 1981, Randall Sand & Gravel 1984 and 1986. The SHCP is the new kid on the block, you name it with-in a mile of the SHCP and it predates it, well there have been a couple of new houses build up at the Airport since SHCP got too big for their britches……………..

One thing about hearing loud amplified music for hours at a time, vs 101, Randall and the airport, it sounds like this:

September 8, 2010 at 10:16 pm

Well jack-ass, I lived in our house from Feb 2009 til Sept 2009, fixing up somethings, visiting, swimming and floating down on the river and seeing if I could operate my business from Garberville, well it did not work, I could not stand the noise, so I rented it again.

Anymore lame questions you want to ask, blood type, sex, ring size, boxer or briefs, Ginger or Mary Ann?

bongandablintz?

I am not Ed Voice.

The geography of the proposed Public Facility area is a bowl shape in a river valley, the sound reverberates all along the riparian corridor and up. It is amazing how sound carries along the water and through the narrow valley, far more than the sounds from the airport and the freeway, which are at much higher elevations and in much wider terrain.
And yes, Randalls is noisy for the poor people and animals who have their homes near it. The homes closest were there before Randalls. The Park Board increased surface mining thereby further degrading the quality of life for the people and animals who live there. Is that a reason to torture them on weekends, too?
There are plenty of venues in the area for concerts. What we need is a public park. The parkland is a beautiful and peaceful place. Many people have noticed that. There are ways to have a park and get along, too bad you won’t.

You don’t live here.

September 8, 2010 at 10:19 pm

the reasonable anonymous

O.K., So you’re not living there now, are you? As an absentee landlord, it does seem to me that the noise isn’t really something you hear very often.

And your response was a little fuzzy on one point: you were “seeing if [you] could operate [your] business from Garberville” and it “didn’t work” and you also mention that you “could not stand the noise.” But it’s a little unclear whether the noise was the reason you couldn’t run your business from Garberville or whether that was a seperate issue.

September 8, 2010 at 10:28 pm

Eric Kirk

You know its funny, I would give anything to move our house up to the airport, put up with airplane noise maybe 1 to 2 hours a day vs 7am to 6 or 7 or even 8pm,

So you would have no objection to an airstrip at the park?

September 8, 2010 at 10:50 pm

bongandablintz?

Ed Voice is not the only person who hates what you are doing to the public trust, the park, the poor river and the wildlife.
Yeah, I remember that terrible, unpermitted public nuisance. Drunk people stumbling down Sprowel Creek Road in high heels…and that was before it even started. Even some people who attended said it was horrible, everybody got way too drunk. The cars careened around the neighborhood for more than an hour after it ended at 1:45 a.m. The really weird thing was that, though many people called the sherriff to complain, they only got an answering machine, but I saw sheriffs out patrolling the roads. They didn’t go in and shut it down. Fishy. I don’t want that here.
The Park Board acknowledges it was a mistake since they didn’t bother to go through any legal public process first but that is what they are trying to do now, so we can have Legal Public Nuisances. This is exactly the reason I say NO Public Facility at the Park. Have ‘em in Redway, Eric says it’s already noisy there.

September 8, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Anonymous

Ed Voice is not the only person who hates what you are doing to the public trust, the park, the poor river and the wildlife.

Yes, we know Frenchy. And we know how much you (sniff!) care for the poor river and the wildlife. It’s bringing tears to my eyes to think about how much you love the river and the wildlife!

Oh, the injustice of it all! A park! Why couldn’t it be a toxic waste dump? Or an airport?! Not those drunk people in high heels!

September 9, 2010 at 5:50 am

Anonymous

Eric, I haven’t seen a good word for the Park’s beauty come from you on your blog. Empty sandlot. Vacant lot. You’ve called it these names. Why’s that?

September 9, 2010 at 6:37 am

September 9, 2010 at 10:50 am

“O.K., So you’re not living there now, are you? As an absentee landlord, it does seem to me that the noise isn’t really something you hear very often”

Yes, you are correct, only when I/m at the house. But it seems people can make a difference one way or another. That when this is the argument and all you got to answer with or come back with is “you don’t live here”, it must be working. Trying to push buttons can work, but knowing who what why when and where to push the right button is the real deal.

You should read the new book for 501c3 non-profit Boards, its called “Damage Control” its a 12 step program for non-profits that screw their public benefit and come into question about what is right and wrong.

The Voice Family is a long standing member of this community and still a neighboring land & property owner to the Park property, hope to see you at the scoping meeting today, I’ll be driving up from out of town later this morning, how is the weather?

hardatit

Interesting digression. Funny how some lameass seems to think they know who is who around here. ‘sniffsniff’ Guess what? That poster is right. There are others. Listen, the “community park’ in theory sounds good. But how this whole deal has gone down, and continues to go down is fishy, suspect and not entirely ‘community’ imho. Sign me, Not frenchy, his goddess girl friend OR Ed!

September 9, 2010 at 11:09 am

Anonymous

Yes. The park is part of a grand conspiracy involving the Illuminati, Fu Manchu, and the Red Claw! They want to entice little kids down there so they can scoop them up for human sacrifice!

It’s a vicious circle man! The park is evil! Evil evil evil!!

September 9, 2010 at 7:35 pm

Anonymous

>>> Adam Jager 9/8/2010 1:08 PM >>>

To: Michael Richardson,

Sgt Martin Abshire will be attending this Scoping meeting as I can not make it. This is my response to your Notice of Preparation which I received on September 2, 2010.

I have reviewed the Southern Humboldt Community Park Plan of Operation document. The CHP does not support the size of the proposed events being held in this location. In my opinion, Sprowel Creek Road leading down to the park is narrow and in its current condition, is not adequate to allow for the increased traffic flow these proposed events would bring. In addition, I see some real public safety issues with vehicles exiting US 101 S/B and N/B. On the S/B US 101 Sprowel Creek exit, event traffic would have the potential to back up onto US 101 causing a hazard. On the N/B US 101 Redwood Drive exit, traffic has the potential to back up as well. The Plan does not address the other US 101 exits, N/B and S/B or signs and traffic control on US 101. Garberville traffic is already congested on Redwood Drive with businesses, especially during the summer months. If event traffic is added, there could be real problems as vehicles travel S/B and N/B on Redwood Drive and have to stop at Sprowel Creek Road and make a right/left turn onto Sprowel Creek Road. This intersection is especially congested with businesses on each corner.

The alternate emergency route of using Old Briceland Road to Briceland would not be in the best interest of public safety due to being narrow and curved. Allowing these types of events is going to increase traffic flow on these roads even when there is not an emergency, as there will be a certain percentage that will want to avoid the congestion in Garberville and the possibility of having law enforcement encounters.

The Plan of Operation does not adequately address traffic concerns in the town of Garberville, the lack of parking in Garberville and/or Redway, traffic on US 101, the amount of traffic proposed traversing down Sprowel Creek Road to the park, and the public safety issues of event goers leaving the park at night and traversing these roads, especially if alcohol is being served to event goers.

If the re-zoning of this area is allowed, the Garberville CHP Area would be taxed with traffic control at Redwood Drive and Sprowel Creek Road intersection, US 101 S/B exits at Spowel Creek and Redwood Drive, both US 101 N/B exits, on Sprowel Creek Road to enforce no pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians who normally have the right to traverse Sprowel Creek Road, the intersection of the park entrance and extra patrol in the area due the increased traffic flow and potential of under the influence drivers. In addition, the CHP would be called upon to migrate concerns of property owners who can not access their property, illegal parking, illegal camping, and provide assistance to the HCSO and local/state fire agencies.

Thank you

Lt. Adam Jager
Garberville CHP Commander

September 9, 2010 at 8:58 pm

Eric Kirk

Yeah, we got the letter and we’ve already had some conversations. What we have to do is put the CHP in touch with Public Works who have already analyzed the traffic issues.

There’s no way a 5000 person event will back traffic to the highway. It’s never done it at Benbow, where the event is right next to the freeway.

But, we’ll clarify the issues and address CHP concerns. All part of the process.

September 9, 2010 at 9:32 pm

pipeandapancake?

I am grateful to the CHP for expressing some of the neighbors’ concerns. Too bad that the people who wonder about the potential dangers of big events at the park are subjected to so much flak from the park board.
If the Park Board knew about this at the meeting, why wasn’t it brought up? Don’t want the little people to know?

Big events at the Park are a bad idea.

September 9, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Eric Kirk

Maybe pipeandpancake, because the Board is tired of the personal attacks from your group. Seriously, Board members past and present may have a hard time getting jobs in the future because of the crap said about them all over the Internet. That’s quite a punishment for the crime of having devoted one’s time trying to develop a crucial asset for the community.

The park is going to be rezoned, it’s only a question of the details. And most likely there will be amplified music events. And after a few years, most of the neighbors who are opposed to amplified music will realize it isn’t so bad after all. Just a few events a year and hardly disruptive on your peace and quiet. A few will never be happy, but then they wouldn’t be happy if they were happy and there’s nothing we can do about that.

September 9, 2010 at 10:24 pm

Eric Kirk

Oh, and to clarify something – I did not say that Susan Gardner or anyone at either of the papers was spreading rumors about Reggae on the River. My comments about fact checking were directed at the Independent article which was purportedly about the EIR application and which the reporter did not bother to read it.

I was also made to understand that the title to the corrective piece in the Redwood Times came from the source and was not intended to suggest that the error was the Board’s.

September 10, 2010 at 12:06 am

September 10, 2010 at 1:56 am

Eric, that is some news.

First off, let me Thank the MCC for setting the record straight and not allowing parking on the River for their events at the Park (not that I want to see or hear them at the Park), but they as an elected non-profit Board in this community see and hear what is not liked and did the right thing (in my opinion).

Second thing, so the neighbors have been in the area longer and before most of all the Park Board Directors have lived in the area, long before the Park was a thought in any ones wet dreams. So everything is going AOK until 2006, when “Irie Boogie” first showed up at the Park (that’s why Garth was at the meeting tonight), then there was 2007, when the first complaints had been filed with the County about large commercial concerts being held at the Park. Then the unthinkable happened in 2008, many more neighbors complained about even how many more bigger commercial concerts were being held at the Park. Then the Park was told to stop all illegal and up-permitted events ASAP, then SHCP was taken out of the County GPU, the Park Board Closed both Parks, filed a GPA petition, filed a EIR and now blames all this on everyone else.

That is the short and sweet story, but the Park Board was told by Planning in early 2002, they could keep doing the small stuff, but if they get any complaints about events, the County would pull the Park Boards chain and the plug on everything, including amplified events.

So who is to blame for all of this name calling, the neighboring property owner group, the no amplified music group, the detractor group, the no fun group or now the CHP no event group.

Like you said Eric, “A few will never be happy, but then they wouldn’t be happy if they were happy and there’s nothing we can do about that”. It sounds like you are talking about the Park Board group. Seems they have never been happy, to be happy, about being happy about what we do not like; not on a bus, not in my boat, not next to my house, or up in my goat. “No No No I do not like it Sam I am”

bob

“FIRST OFF, LET ME THANK THE MCC FOR SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT AND NOT ALLOWING PARKING ON THE RIVER FOR THEIR EVENTS AT THE PARK (NOT THAT I WANT TO SEE OR HEAR THEM AT THE PARK), BUT THEY AS AN ELECTED NON-PROFIT BOARD IN THIS COMMUNITY SEE AND HEAR WHAT IS NOT LIKED AND DID THE RIGHT THING (IN MY OPINION). ”

thank you for your thank you, but at the risk of losing your support when i run for re-election in a couple of months (are you an mcc member?), i’d like to disagree with your conclusion. i don’t think that what i said about no parking in the riverbed is related in any way to my being ELECTED to the board of the mateel. i would hope that folks would support me as a board member because they like the fact that i have strong environmental beliefs and bring them with me to the mateel board, but i’d have them and act on them whether i was elected or appointed to the board. i have little problem with the non-elected nature of the shcp board, and have given the park money trusting fully in the ability of the board to be stewards of the park lands.

when i spoke at the scoping session, i believe i simply expressed the strongly heartfelt beliefs of most, if not all, of the mcc board members who have stated their own strong beliefs that parking on the river bar is bad for the river, and critters human or otherwise that depend on it. i don’t think that most of us have even heard from our membership on this subject. and keep in mind that we are elected by our paid membership, not by all the citizens who live in the area.

no matter what doug green said last nite about no detrimental effects from parking cars on the river bar at french’s camp for reggae on da ribber, i respectfully disagree with him that it was or is okay. i will always oppose projects which require putting vehicles in the direct path of the eel river (feel free to call me on it if i slip up), as i will oppose parking on the river bar if the mateel ever moves reggae back to french’s camp–whether i remain on the board or not.

I AM GRATEFUL TO THE CHP FOR EXPRESSING SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS’ CONCERNS. TOO BAD THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WONDER ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DANGERS OF BIG EVENTS AT THE PARK ARE SUBJECTED TO SO MUCH FLAK FROM THE PARK BOARD.
IF THE PARK BOARD KNEW ABOUT THIS AT THE MEETING, WHY WASN’T IT BROUGHT UP? DON’T WANT THE LITTLE PEOPLE TO KNOW?

i think some folks may be a bit confused about the process that’s going on and what the scoping session was all about. i understand people’s frustration when they feel that there’s stuff they’re not told about a project that affects them. but last night’s meeting was not actually done by the park board as an informational meeting. michael richardson was courteous enough to our community to give us information about the plan, and answer some of the questions asked. but as i understand it, the scoping session is actually just an official step in the EIR process called for under CEQA law (CA environmental quality act). that’s why it was actually run by the county folks and not the park board and staff. it was not really an opportunity for us to gain information about the project, but rather it’s the county government taking YOUR/OUR testimony about what’s planned. it’s kinda expected that we would get our information prior to the meeting, and that we would give them questions and information ONLY about the environmental aspects of the proposal for them to use in drafting an EIR required as PART of the county’s review of the project. that doesn’t mean that the planning commission and the supes won’t have to consider people’s concerns in other areas than the environment, just that it’s not part of the actual CEQA process. it’s especially important for those with strong feelings to express them to the county. the planning division will have to consider the written comments you send them in the next few weeks as they write the EIR, which i believe will be issued first as a DRAFT EIR, which will allow for further comments after it’s done. this process may sound arcane or bizarre to you, and perhaps it is, it seems like they’re just trying to follow the law.

it’s especially important for those with strong feelings to express them to the county. the planning division will have to consider the written comments you send them in the next few weeks as they write the EIR, which i believe will be issued first as a DRAFT EIR, which will allow for further comments after it’s done. this process may sound arcane or bizarre to you, and perhaps it is, it seems like they’re just trying to follow the law.

perhaps someone who knows the CEQA process better than i do will correct anything i got wrong. Woods?

this might help http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/

“Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the things you can think up if only you try!”

September 10, 2010 at 8:14 am

pipeandapancake?

It is great that the Mateel listens to the wishes of their membership, and care enough about the ecology of the river to promise not to use the riverbed as Parking Lots.
But wait! The Park Board’s GPA says that both Tooby Memorial and their public facility big event site are going to be for “commercial or nonprofit temporary events with amplified music”.
Then on page 4 of the Park Board’s Plan of Operation they say “The Mateel Community Center’s Summer Arts and Music Festival is a Good Example of the Kind of Fairs and Festivals we hope to have at the Park”.
So, if the concert venue scheme is to try to help finance the Park, will the big boogie event slot go to the highest bidder? Outside Commercial concert promoters might outbid the Mateel, all for the financial good of the Park, of course. Since the Park Board is the decider, as they have said, some outside concert promoter might pay the Park Board more money and not care about the river like we do. It is a serious problem with having all this land in the hands of a closed, private board, and letting them add parking lots to their surface mining operation.

September 10, 2010 at 8:46 am

Eric Kirk

So everything is going AOK until 2006,

No, it wasn’t actually. A few have been complaining from the beginning. One of the neighbors said at one group meeting very early on, “I don’t want this park.”

September 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm

pipeandapancake?

Oh, were you there, Eric? I didn’t remember.
Many of us were there, and still are supporters of a park.
The words used to me to solicit my donation back in the beginning was, “you don’t want to see Tooby Flat developed, do you?”
Lots of people got mad when we found out, at the first community meeting, that it was a private park with an appointed board. But we were told, this is a new board, give ‘em a chance. So we did. And this is what we got.
I wonder about Doug Green saying at the meeting last night that there is lots of oversight of non-profits. What was he talking about?

September 10, 2010 at 2:38 pm

hardhat

holymoly! Eric said:What we have to do is put the CHP in touch with Public Works who have already analyzed the traffic issues.

Oh that sounds real solid. Public works, they know a lot more about traffic than the California HIGHWAY Patrol.

C’mon. Lt Jager’s points are valid. Comparing SAF (eric said: It’s never done it at Benbow, where the event is right next to the freeway) shows how little you know about traffic flow/hazards etc. There are NO businesses/congestion at the benbow exit!! The only pedestrian traffic is going to the park! So imo, comparing the two is lame. Nice try though.

Sprowel Creek road IS narrow, winding and poor condition. And besides, we all know what “events of 5000″ mean. Ah, the numbers game. Wasn’t that one of the issues that sunk our other “valuable community asset?” Yea, as far as i have seen around here Valuable Community Asset is synonymous with How Can I Personally Profit?

Pretty much over all the self aggrandizement. Listen to the Lt -”The CHP does not support the size of the proposed events being held in this location.”

September 10, 2010 at 3:08 pm

September 10, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Eric,

“A few have been complaining from the beginning. One of the neighbors said at one group meeting very early on, “I don’t want this park”

You don’t read or listen very well, do you Eric. You need to know the whole story, the documented history to know the facts.

A lot of people didn’t want to donate during 2000, because they felt it was going to be turned into a Mateel Concert & Festival Venue. And then in April of 2001, long before any open community planning meetings with the public, we find out that Dazey and the Mateel had filed an application for a CUP with County Planning to have Commercial Concerts, events and camping for 700 people at the Park. That they had filed the application in January 2001 with the ink still wet from escrow!

That is why the Park Board has always been in question with people in this community. Its not that you don’t get it, its that you don’t want to get it!

I thought last night scoping meeting went very well, a lot of good points from both sides. And that is the biggest problem, its the Park Boards way or nothing. What we heard from people last night who like and want all the proposed projects at Tooby & Community Park is for the greater good, for social or economic reasons, not environmental concerns. As Michael told everyone at the beginning of the meeting, he wanted to hear from people was facts, provide substantial evidence that include “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts, not just argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, narrative, inaccurate, erroneous , or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.

All we heard from the Park Boards position, was making money and kids soccer tournaments coming to the Park with thousands of kids and parents filling up all the hotels and motels. Money Money Money, nothing about how you where going to do all this degrading development and protect the environment at the Park!

I guess what is mind boggling to me, is that you would not have gone to the CHP First, instead of Public Works. What if Public Works and the CHP are on the same page, then what, plan K?

FYI, it was stated last night by one of the public speakers, that if the neighbors who don’t want amplified music at the Park only want peace and quiet, why did you move here next to the highway, the airport and Randall! That sounds good, but the truth is, most of the neighboring property owners to the Park moved here before Randall Sand & Gravel built up their operation on the Riverbar. And for Highway 101, our family has never really heard it, maybe once and awhile, kind of like Doug Greens 5 seconds of silence last night, it proved our point, 101 is not a problem. And same for the airport, we never hear it, but that doesn’t mean others closer do. By the way, it was the Park Board that talked about how loud 101, the airport and Randall Sand & Gravel was compaired to their Concert & Festival Venue Plans, its listed in there application to the County, under NOISE. Wonder if Randall read your IS checklist, or maybe she is still under the bus…………….

Anonymous

Steve Werner, County Planner had suggested a “middle road option” about a year ago of a R-Combining Zone added to the AE zoning of the Park. This excellent suggestion would allow passive recreation of the type that many in the community want. Choosing this option would probably not require an expensive EIR, since it does not attempt to impose Extensive Impacts or housing development on the ecologically sensitive Park land. However, that suggestion never went anywhere because the Park Board is so determined to have their way.
Park Board adherents seem to look at the neighbors when they talk about compromise, but it is the Park Board who refuse to compromise.

September 10, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Eric Kirk

Actually, nobody on the Park Board spoke last night Ed. We left it to the community, and the county reps, once again, heard from a broad section of the community.

Ed, you and some of the other neighbors have made some good points, but the whole profiteering angle is really beneath you. The SAF and soccer fields aren’t about making money, and the money they make us will help us cover some costs. They certainly won’t endow us. We won’t make any money off the sports fields, even if we host a tournament some day. And nobody is going to make money off of events under 1200 people. I mean really.

As to the early days, I’m glad you’re acknowledging that this isn’t some new surprise. As some speakers pointed out last night, the vision has always been of multiple use, with the original vision incorporating a school campus, hospital relocation, and maybe even business center. That’s certainly what Steven told me when he gave me the initial tour.

The “degrading development” will be minimal Ed. You know it. It’s on a small portion of the park, and it’s not like we’re staring up smokestack industries here. We want to build some infrastructure for a multi-use park, and we’ll do it all within environmentally sensitive framework, beyond even what the county will require of us. Nearly everyone on the Board are or have been environmental activists. If a study shows any aspect of our proposals to be severely detrimental, which I doubt, we’ll abandon that part of the proposal. That’s what the process is all about.

It was kind of ironic to be listening to the roar of vehicles up on the freeway as people were talking about the peace and quiet on the park. Once we’ve initiated mitigations, I doubt the music will have anywhere near as much impact.

I know some feel strongly about the amplified music. You don’t object to it anywhere else in the county, but you don’t want to hear it in your yard. I understand. But unless we want to become a retirement community full of grumpy old men who chase what few kids remain off their lawns, we have to incorporate the needs and desires of the younger folk into our vision of what could become the central community asset of Southern Humboldt next to the Mateel Center.

We’re certainly willing to work with neighbors and compromise. But so far all we’re getting from your group is “no, no, no.” No amplified music. No parking on the rocks. No overnight stays. No housing. No sports fields. No pavilion. We can have Tooby Park, trails, and farming. That’s it. Where is the compromise?

Well, it was purchased with a much larger vision. We’re sorry that you might have to hear some music a few times a year, but by the time the mitigations are in place it won’t be any louder for you than your neighbor’s radio. Some of the neighbors have asked us to “turn it up.” We can’t make everyone happy.

Oh, and I’m glad Michael R. cleared up that stupid argument you and anon were having. I guess I should have intervened, but I really don’t like these exchanges on the Internet. You and I both get mad, type out frustrations and hit the post button, and at least speaking for myself end up regretting what I typed later. In any case, no, we don’t want an open ended ability to increase numbers of the SAMF, nor would the county ever consider giving it to us. That’s what we mean by a “stepped approach.” We get cleared for 5000, and then we evaluate the potential for growth without further impact, and then approach the county if we find it feasible. Otherwise, we live with what we have. That’s really common sense reading, and the whole issue comes across to me as a scare tactic.

As for 101, I don’t know if it’s a problem, but it was definitely loud for most of the meeting last night.

The application is sent to a number of agencies, and we have tried to get appointments to discuss the matters with all of them. The CHP simply hasn’t had the time yet. We have plans to meet with them in the near future. Public Works is on board, and in fact the application was worded according to their recommendations. The only other agency to chime in with concerns was the Building Department about the barn. Apparently they had received some complaints about events in the barn, so it would have to be brought to code before we could hold more public events there.

No other agency registered any concerns. That’s speaks pretty well of the proposal.

What everyone needs to understand is that even the present use of trails is not consistent with ag exclusive zoning. If we do not get some form of rezoning, certainly everything across the road from Tooby will be publicly inaccessible. It may or may not be that Tooby Park can survive due to historical use – we aren’t clear on that. No guarantees as the county no longer wants the responsibility of maintaining it and it is in fact zoned ag exclusive. Basically, we need some sort of zoning alteration to survive even as the natural preserve you want it to be.

For the rest of the community reading this, after last night’s meeting I really think this is going to happen, but it’s going to take a lot of work, and money. Thank you for turning out last night, and for your input to the County. We appreciate generous donations we’ve recently received. We really need more. This is the time your donations can make the biggest difference.

September 10, 2010 at 4:47 pm

Eric Kirk

Yeah, in other words trails, farming, and Tooby Park. That’s not “middle road.” That’s what a small group of neighbors want.

September 10, 2010 at 5:40 pm

September 10, 2010 at 6:04 pm

No Eric, you are once again wrong;

Here is what Mr. Werner said in his e-mail, it was because of a complaint about the closer of Tooby Memorial and SHCP, he sets the record straight about why the Parks were closed i.e. not what the Park Board told people at the Mateel hiss & boo Park meeting at the Mateel in Feb 2009:

—– Original Message —–
From: Werner, Steve
To: Jackson, Lucinda ; Girard, Kirk
Cc: Hofweber, Tom ; Lazar, Steve
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: SHCP – Complaint by Public

The closure was made by the SHCP Board of Directors and announced at the public meeting on Tuesday. According to reports, the decision was made to limit the Board’s exposure to potential liability claims based on the fact that recreational activities were not sanctioned by the County without the securement of appropriate permits.

I would expect that this decision by the park Directors will raise the level of public comment with a two-fold purpose: 1) to get the County to accept the Public Recreation land use and zoning change as part of the GPU; and 2) to seek a reconsideration of the Department’s position relative to low-scale on-commercial recreation pursuits at the SHCP property.

In discussing this matter with Tom Hofweber before Tuesday’s public meeting, I mentioned the possibility of the Park obtaining a rezoning to add an “-R” Combining Zone to the existing AE zoned property. Under this zoning, a CUP could be applied for for non-commercial as well as commercial recreational uses, but the AE uses would remain as the only principally permitted use. Possibly a middle course if it were agreeable to all parties.

Steve W

September 10, 2010 at 6:41 pm

FYI Eric,

That small group of neighbors that don’t want amplified music at the Parks, is now up to 360 in this community. What numbers will it take for the Park Board to understand what the public is not wanting at the Parks?

Eric Kirk

Yeah, in other words, everything we do, even the trails would be at the whim of the county. If it’s not “principally permitted” then we have to get permission for everything. Every event not within “principally permitted use” would require special permission. Every birthday party. Every Frisbee golf get together.

That’s not a middle road. Whatever we get, we don’t want to have to continually petition the county. We don’t have that kind of time on our hands.

As for the numbers, well, I guarantee we could also get hundreds of people to sign that they want amplified music. Hundreds have attended such events. In fact, I have been considering a full page newspaper ad to be signed by 500 community members in favor of amplified music events at the park. If we get that many to sign, will you drop your opposition?

September 10, 2010 at 7:18 pm

bongandablintz?

“Parking on the rocks”!” Sand lot”…” vacant lot”… But you will do all this extensive impacts development “within an environmentally sensitive framework”.
Does that ever sound like corporate PR.
Did the Park Board ever bother to find out what activities an R-Combining Zone would include?
It would certainly be much cheaper, and less controversial than trying to force a bunch of Extensive Impacts on the area. Noise is just one of many many concerns about having big blow-outs at the Park. How about traffic, crowds, trespassers onto neighboring property, effects on wildlife, fish and birds of late night noise, crowds, cars and lights? How about parking cars on wet lands and agricultural soils? Did you know that sunscreen is toxic to fish and amphibians ( it is an endocrine disruptor that penetrates their skin and causes gender mutation), sunscreen that is given away free at events, that turtles and birds live and lay eggs “on the rocks”, that there are still species of unique and wonderful amphibians in the shallows of the river?
If yer not gonna make a bunch of money on events as you say (sometimes), why do it here? We have got plenty of places for events of all kinds in southern humboldt, as people said last night.

September 10, 2010 at 7:25 pm

Eric Kirk

I’ve actually never said “sand lot”, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your insulting hyperbole.

He’s being a bully Ed. Go get him!

September 10, 2010 at 7:45 pm

bongandablintz?

Really? I thought you did call it a vacant sand lot on one of the other threads about the Park. Perhaps I am mistaken.
Nonetheless, the geography of the park is a wonderful transept of river, flood plain, wetlands, open meadow and forested hills. It is a shame to break it up into “zones” of exploitation, which calling it a vacant lot lends itself to.

September 10, 2010 at 8:29 pm

anonymous

wow…sept 10 and the river is still swimmable just down from the park! i don’t mind amplified music but please keep those other dirty hippies out of my river!…
thanx…

September 10, 2010 at 8:35 pm

Eric Kirk

You know, my father and uncle used to be partners spec building on the San Mateo coast. They had been union activists who led a wildcat strike and got themselves blacklisted. Out of work, they went for broke and became successful spec builders.

I do remember when they began a home in Moss Beach and one of the neighbors said, “we don’t need any more houses around here.” I was somewhat sympathetic because a lot I had played in near my home in Montara had been built up. I didn’t like the change. The neighbors to my father’s project didn’t like the change. But my uncle responded to the young woman: “then why don’t you burn your own house down and move into a tent?”

I certainly appreciate that you don’t want to see the pretty land converted to something useful for the community. I believe we can keep it pretty and still build sports fields and infrastructure. I appreciate that you want to keep it vacant. But community members bought the property for a broad vision of usage. If you wanted to preserve it for the beauty alone, then maybe you should have bought it yourself.

In the meantime, I’m sure your own property would be much prettier without the home. I’ve got an extra tent if you want it.

September 10, 2010 at 10:42 pm

edsvoice

“As for the numbers, well, I guarantee we could also get hundreds of people to sign that they want amplified music. Hundreds have attended such events. In fact, I have been considering a full page newspaper ad to be signed by 500 community members in favor of amplified music events at the park. If we get that many to sign, will you drop your opposition?”

First off, you did not answer my question, so I will ask it again; what numbers will it take for the Park Board to understand what the public is not wanting at the Parks? Or when will the Park Board recognize that over 360 people in this community (right now, today) don’t want amplified music events at the Park?

This same question was asked of you at the selected neighbor meeting back in January of this year, and Peter said the same thing you just did, without the BS line about placing a full page newspaper ad to be signed by 500 community members in favor of amplified music events at the park (now that was a stroke of genus). Are your eyes brown Eric, because you are just full of it today, Damage Control City……….

And you are dead-on balls accurate with this one: “Yeah, in other words, everything we do, even the trails would be at the whim of the county” Well Eric, right now you are at the “whim” of the CHP, County Health & Land Use and California Native American Heritage Commission, just to name a few. The only reason the Park Board turned down Werners offer, was the Park Board thought closing the Parks and making “4 family households” the bad guys would incite people to get the County to keep the SHCP in the GPU, but the whole thing went to shit in your pants.

Who the hell is trying to get a job, using their position as a SHCP Director? Where are these posted on the web, I would love to read them, maybe add some more?

All is fair in; Love, War, water rights and no amplified music, no housing development, no camping, no sporting complex, no rezoning or G.P.A.

You should try and do what I do, just don’t talk about “Git-r-Done”………

September 10, 2010 at 11:29 pm

Eric Kirk

I’ll answer yours if you answer mine.

As for the job, employers now do google checks on potential employees. What you say here, and on your own site, could have an impact. People have been denied jobs due to anonymous comments about them on the Internet. If you’ve got 20 applicants who are all qualified, are you going to take a chance on someone who is badmouthed on forums? Maybe. But maybe you’ll just go along with another choice just to be sure.

And there’s no damage Ed. You may not realize it yet, but the rezoning is going to happen in a form substantially along the lines we have requested, because the community, minus a few hundred individuals, supports it and will benefit from it. Last night pretty much convinced me of that.

As you know, we received additional correspondence subsequent to Werner’s letter. We closed the park because we were instructed to do so. We opened it when we were allowed to do so.

The CHP raised some concerns, and we’ll address them with the help of Public Works and other folk who’ve studied the traffic.

Oh, and one more point to clarify – it has never been the intent to utilize the Kimtu loop. That’s another false rumor spread by some elves somewhere.

September 11, 2010 at 12:22 am

edsvoice

Your are batting 1000 today Eric,

The Kimtu “Loop” plan is on page page 8 of the “Plan of Operation” #2-C.

As for the traffic study you referenced to on the IS Checklist; Transportation/Traffic section, do you mean the “Dazey & Son Enterprises Traffic Study Febuary 2004″? Have you seen this study? Can’t wait to see what the CHP thinks of it. Check this out, here is a link:
http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Neighbors.of.the.Southern.Humboldt.Community.Park.NOTSHCP..707-349-1069/picture/view/2380450

As for the; “As for the job, employers now do google checks on potential employees. What you say here, and on your own site, could have an impact. People have been denied jobs due to anonymous comments about them on the Internet. If you’ve got 20 applicants who are all qualified, are you going to take a chance on someone who is badmouthed on forums? Maybe. But maybe you’ll just go along with another choice just to be sure”

Wow, I had know idea that was happening, guess I will have to try harder next time when I talk about Kathryn Lobato, Timmy Metz, Peter Ryce, Eric Kirk, dennis Huber or Carol VanSant on line, ya think?

As soon as I see the same respect given to the Parks neighboring property owners by the Park Board, as the neighbors have for both Parks, their wildlife habitat & Cultural History, is the day we will all get along just fine.

September 11, 2010 at 6:41 am

anon

maybe someone should/could do a non-biased poll…(i am sure that i could get my 350 friends to sign whatever i reasonably put before them, especially if it had nothing to do with them and their daily activities which is the case in Kristin’s petition–you gotta hand it to her: she even went to dead people’s memorial services to get signatures)…those who signed the petition a year or two ago might have changed their minds also…

September 11, 2010 at 9:03 am

pathetic actually

1.000

September 11, 2010 at 11:52 am

Eric Kirk

The Kimtu “Loop” plan is on page page 8 of the “Plan of Operation” #2-C.

It does not say that the traffic would be sent all the way to Kimtu. Obviously we would use the western parking lot. Kimtu is way down the road. Please stop making stuff up Ed. The scare tactics are getting old.

September 11, 2010 at 12:51 pm

edsvoice

So you are telling me, your holding and turn-around point is the Parking Lot off Kimtu Road, just north of Dazeys driveway? And not the Kimtu Meadows Subdivision cul-de-sac loop?

If that is what you are saying now, where are the plans to make that size of a road into the Park property? Because you could not accomplish that feat with the current Parking lot you have there now.

If that was your plan since the start, why is it not included into you plan of operation?

The only place on Kimtu Road you can call a “turn-around” is at the end of Kimtu Road!

The Traffic plans are very hard to figure out on paper, maps would have been nice for all Plans and Alternate plans since there are so many of them. Even the wording between Plans and Alternate Plans from section to section are worded different for the same Plan.

Here is the other section of the “Plan of Operation” you may have overlooked, or not glanced at; from page 15, Exit Plan #2, Exit Plan #2-Alternate C:

I could see how even a Park Board Director could mistake the words “Kimtu Road cul-de-sac” with “Kimtu Parking Lot”

Here is what it states;

Exit Plan #2 – Alternate C:

Exit event parking area out Ranch House Road to Sprowel Creek Road (one-lane) west (left) to Kimtu Road cul-de-sac. Kimtu Road may be used as a holding area for traffic over-flow and traffic control.

Here is what it states on page 8:

2. Sprowel Creek Road:

a. Cars will enter the on-site parking areas through the event entry at Lower Tooby Ranch Road. A traffic control attendant with orange vest and radio will be stationed here.

b. A secondary entrance at the main gate can be used temporarily used at peak entry times if there is a need to get vehicles off Sprowel Creek Road very quickly. A traffic control attendant with orange vest will be stationed here.

c. If traffic is temporarily congested and is causing a back-up on Sprowel Creek Road of more than ½ mile, traffic will then be diverted to Kimtu Road to a designated turn-around for temporary holding. Cars can then be released from Kimtu Road to the Main Entry and a secondary entry at Lower Tooby Ranch Road when traffic eases. One traffic control attendant with an orange vest and radio will be stationed at the Kimtu Sprowel Creek intersection and one at the turn-around. This plan eliminates traffic congestion by quickly moving cars off of Sprowel Creek Rd.

September 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Eric Kirk

Ed, you don’t have to abandon common sense. If we were to map out every obvious point to avoid your interpreting it in the most fretful and ridiculous way, it would be the size of a telephone book.

This is a contingency plan for extreme cases, suggested to us by Public Works. Obviously the parking lot would have to be set up accordingly. But the plan nowhere says we are going to send people into the subdivision, and nobody applying common sense would read it that way.

September 11, 2010 at 1:06 pm

Eric Kirk

A lot would be nice, but what we did took an enormous amount of time, and we were only asked to provide an outline to address in general terms concerns. As the process gels, more details will be worked out in suggestions from agencies, experts, etc. And we’re only talking about the zoning at this phase,

September 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm

edsvoice

Well that sound good for the Park Board, but what about the people who have to make comments on your details that are still in the process of what you call “gel” This whole plan “gel”.

The Fact remains, you are sending cars down to the “Kimtu cul-de-sac”, when they back up, that is the fact.

This whole plan is a joke, because its not a plan, its an ever changing mission floating around in your head and if you run into a wall, you change your plan for what you call the “greater good”. Who that is has never been explained!

September 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm

edsvoice

“A lot would be nice, but what we did took an enormous amount of time, and we were only asked to provide an outline to address in general terms concerns”

What do you mean by; “we were only asked to provide an outline to address in general terms concern”? This is a EIR process, that has laws to address the issues and facts, not to be used as an “outline”. No wonder the Park Board is so vague and ambiguous, they like it like that!

I can see why so many people on your threads say your full of crap (to use another word). You just make this crap up as you go, If Metz is President, Lobato is E.D. and Ryce is Treasurer, you must be Damage Control Officer Kirk!

September 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm

Eric Kirk

You’re supposed to propose details. That’s what’s in the world “scoping.” But apparently you don’t want to propose anything. You just want something to shoot down.

And yes, it’s ever changing. That’s how the process works. That’s the whole idea.

September 11, 2010 at 2:21 pm

Eric Kirk

Okay, so now you’re calling me a liar. And here I was a “bully” for pointing out that you don’t live near the park.

September 11, 2010 at 2:23 pm

Eric Kirk

And in the meantime, why don’t you learn something about zoning? To obtain a certain zoning, we are not expected to blueprint every move we are ever going to make. That’s certainly not what happens with any other property. The point is to set up a framework within which we can operate. But you don’t want that. You want to shut us down. I understand, but at least don’t make stuff up trying to accomplish it.

September 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm

edsvoice

No Eric,

You just called yourself a liar, not me…………..

September 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Eric Kirk

Uh, no Ed. You did. It’s not the first time either. And it’s getting old.

September 11, 2010 at 2:29 pm

edsvoice

Yes Yes Yes, spot on, ding ding ding, he’s go it, I WANT TO SHUT THE PARK BOARD DOWN. Is there a problem with that?

September 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm

edsvoice

Not so much old, as it seems to be a way to point out what is wrong with the Park Board!

September 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Eric Kirk

Thank you for admitting it. Now I’m going to pull and “Ed” and put that in an archive to reference another time.

September 11, 2010 at 2:41 pm

edsvoice

What ever blows your Kilt up Eric………………..

September 11, 2010 at 7:34 pm

bongandablintz?

So, what are the oversights for non-profits?

September 11, 2010 at 9:13 pm

Anonymous

the yeti, who are famous for keen oversight.

September 12, 2010 at 6:59 am

Tanner

I attended Thursday night’s meeting. Some of the “park detractors” are kind of wacko especially some of the posters here. But I do agree that the park should not park on the riverbed for the fair even if it will pass an EIR. There is plenty of parking in Benbow. Shuttle them in.

September 12, 2010 at 8:45 am

anon

enough talk…
lets have some MUSIC!…

September 12, 2010 at 9:46 am

edsvoice

OK, remember this music from our Community Park, great wholesome Family Entertainment. I don’t know if you can call it music, but here you go.

September 12, 2010 at 10:13 am

edsvoice

Tanner said;

“I attended Thursday night’s meeting. Some of the “park detractors” are kind of wacko especially some of the posters here”

So can I ask you Tanner, who are you calling “park detractors”?

What do you think “park detractos” means?

Would you have used that name “park detractor” if the Park Board didn’t start using it first?

Do you think its right to lable someone you don’t even know?

Have you ever been given a name for no reason?

September 12, 2010 at 10:15 am

Anonymous

Eric, you wrote in an above post: “In any case, no, we don’t want an open ended ability to increase numbers of the SAMF, nor would the county ever consider giving it to us.”

A question to Michael Richardson at Thursday evening’s Scoping Mtg, Sept. 9th, 2010:

Community member: “Is it up to the Park Board then to evaluate for future growth [event size] ?” (1hr. 6min. into the Mtg)

MRichardson: Well, they would have to propose a modification to the approved use permit, just as Reggae did over the years. They grew through modifications to the use permit.

Cm: Through the County?

MRichardson: Right.

September 12, 2010 at 10:57 am

edsvoice

I myself am a “Park Board Detractor” always have been, always will be, as long as the Park Board tries to have any kind of Amplified music events at the SHCP or Tooby Park.

Let me give you an example of the Park Boards public or community benefit:

The Skate Park had two amplified music fundraisers down at the Park, they were called “Pipe Jam” & “Pipe Jam 2″. They were in 2007 & 2008. Both events were illegal and unpermitted. Both had amplified music until 11 pm. Both served alcohol. Both were presented by the MCC.

Now Richard from Tsunami’s told Huber on KMUD’s MMM, that they only cleared $100 from “Pipe Jam 2007″ and lost money from “Pipe Jam 2 2008″.

This event was to benefit the Skate Park at the SHCP, right. But it seems everyone else made money except the Skate Park folks who lost money.

With the past track record this Park Board has over the years with events and now this incomplete non-detailed application to rezone the Parks, that the public is to comment on. What makes this community think anything is going to change?

The Park Board has never once looked out for the best interest of its neighboring property owners, as we are a part of this community, what makes anyone think that is going to change?

Now we understand that the Park Board has appointed a Tooby Park Advisory Committee with out any public or community input, why is that?

Nothing as changed, only what they are made to do by the County, because of their past track record.

September 12, 2010 at 12:48 pm

bongandablintz?

The oversight for non-profits are the yetis? They’re all dead!
How about in the real world?
Membership non-profits are supposed to answer to their members. who can attend board meetings and can vote for board members. If anyone cares, that is.
But what about appointed/self-selecting non-profit boards that have no oversight, but are in charge of so-called community assets?
What oversight is there?

September 12, 2010 at 12:59 pm

Anonymous

I am very curious about what was wacko about the people that the Park Board calls their”detractors” at the meeting.
Tanner? What did people say that was wacko?

September 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm

bongandablintz?

We will treat each question as seriously as it deserves. The question for a few of the neighbors is how serious they want to take the dialogue rather than playing the game of “gotcha.” To quote from the old movie, “I’ll take my mask off if you remove yours.” We do know there are neighbors with serious concerns, but who really do want a functioning park and not just a big sand lot. This will be about dialogue. We expect you to raise your concerns. We intend to raise some of ours.

Eric, this is where you said the park is just a big sand lot. Jan 15, 2010 at 10:52 a.m. But feel free to say I am attacking or insulting you anytime you feel like it. You often do even if it is because I am quoting your own words. and I am not Ed Voice.

September 12, 2010 at 6:07 pm

Eric Kirk

Anonymous 10:15 a.m. – that’s the statement I was talking about, and, well, duh. Did anybody seriously think the county would ever let us expand numbers open-ended? Nobody who’s graduated the 5th grade should have thought so.

I’m curious though. Who made the transcript? Obviously somebody with more time on their hands than me.

September 12, 2010 at 8:16 pm

McMurphy

Flying over the cuckoo’s nest

September 12, 2010 at 8:37 pm

edsvoice

duh Eric,

“Did anybody seriously think the county would ever let us expand numbers open-ended?”

To answer your question, YES, as long as nobody knew about it. I mean read your own EIR applications. It never gives any information. It looks like it was written by a 5th grade class. Or maybe that is the point, as you guys said, Richardson told you to list everything down you ever wanted, right? Then the County will hold the Park Boards hand in any way they can, even if it means writing up a new zone and land use designation just for non-profits, right? That way the property will be public, but not, but it looks good to everyone that doesn’t know the difference, right Eric?

But please tell everyone again, how Public Works is going to tell the CHP about their short comings. When is the last time the Park Board talked with Public Works, you know, make sure they didn’t drift off to the dark side and side with the CHP?

I don’t know about you, but I had already talked with Reeve some weeks ago, beause what you talked about in the “Plan of Operation”, maybe you should give him a call?

September 12, 2010 at 8:57 pm

edsvoice

“I’m curious though. Who made the transcript?”

wHY KMUD recorded it, don’t you have a copy?

September 12, 2010 at 9:23 pm

dusty husghton

sorry don’t mean to interrupt your argument
i support the park and was wondering if all this work(zoning etc) is to be done to the park could the venue portion of the park be reshaped to absorb sound. basically moving dirt, it is done in other ampitheather type settings. as well there is noise cancelation technology, if the park could own their PA then they could have it designed to cancel it-self at a certain distance off the front of stage, this is available today with current technology, then as well the park could force the rental of their PA on all promoters and start each event with positive cash. as well i have seen picnic areas shade arbors fitted with hooks to hold sound baffling to reduce noise, a half arch could be erected around the perimeter of the venue area allowing for sound baffling to be setup and taken down for each event… this could be designed into the park to double as the BBQ area

as well could an alternate loop road be constructed, maybe a dirt road with temporary use in mind, maybe a neighbor who supports the park could offer a paid right of way, allowing this neighbor to receive compensation for use per event,

just some ideas

September 12, 2010 at 10:21 pm

edsvoice

Bottom line, this is all the Park Board wants. Nothing hard to understand, nothing that would harm the environment, nothing at all that would harm a fly, right Eric. And the Park Board has overwhelming support from its community, after all if it didn’t it would not be called the Southern Humboldt Community Park, right again Eric?

The Community Park’s General Plan Amendment includes the following:

305 acres will designated for Agriculture and Conservation with allowances for low impact recreation such as hiking, biking and picnics.
Creation of a 96 acre crescent of land to allow for future recreational and educational activities such as:

A location for soccer, baseball and other sport fields for all ages
A location for special events
An area for educational and environmental camps
A pavilion with picnic tables for group BBQ’s and private celebrations
Recreational zoning for Tooby Park
A 3-5 acre portion of roadside property to be zoned for Multiple Family housing

How could anyone argue with that……………………….

September 13, 2010 at 6:33 am

Southern Humboldt

Eric I agree with most of what Ed Voice has to say the only decent thing I can say about your application for a zone change is that the public no longer has to fight with you our fight is now with the county to not go along with the zone change.
Dazey , McKee knew what the zoning was when they purchased the Toby parcel. This parcel after all one of the largest privately held flat parcels along the river in Southern Humboldt hopefully more people will get on board to keep this property from being rezoned.

September 13, 2010 at 6:51 am

anon

To answer your question, YES, as long as nobody knew about it.

You’re not that stupid Ed. Don’t insult peoples intelligence.

September 13, 2010 at 9:25 am

Anonymous

Amplified parties in the wrong place bring: Unhealthy noise, a community signing an anti-noise petition, disturbance to established neighborhoods, traffic congestion, quicker degradation of fragile, dangerous Sprowel Creek Road, parking thousands of vehicles on the river bar, blocking of emergency vehicle access, backing up traffic into highway 101 …….doesn’t sound like the right place for mass amplified entertainment. We can choose a more appropriate big party place among the several we have already.

How about loving the incredible, quiet Park we have? Walk around it, love the birds, love the trees, love the blackberries, the bees, the farmers, the Brandywine tomatoes, the sweet corn. It’s there to love for what it is, peaceful and abundant. Bring children to visit it. Let them discover the enchantment. Protect it for the next generation. Save the river.

September 13, 2010 at 9:58 am

edsvoice

Thank you anon,

“You’re not that stupid Ed. Don’t insult peoples intelligence”

The Park Board has a way of doing things under the table with County, that doesn’t include the public or this community. This was seen early on, before there was a Park Board in January 2001 and again with a Park Board in 2007 and then again in October of 2008. These are all times when SHWT and Park Board submitted applications to the County for CUP’s, permitting a Concert/Festival Venue site at the Community Park, without asking this community what so ever. Now those are the facts. I cannot help it if you don’t want to believe them or not, they are the facts.

In fact, this last round of applications, requesting a rezoning and land use change on the Park property had never been shown to the community in any kind of public planning meeting. The Park Board wrote it up and submitted it in May and July of 2010 to the County not this community. Nothing in this application was even (Plan of Operation) presented to the public or community. And that was only because we as neighboring property owners had been requesting the information as soon as it was available, not coming from the Park Board but from the County. Check out the Park web site, nothing about any of this is available to the public, until the Scoping session was first publicly announced in late August. Did you go to the Scoping Session?

This EIR application is the biggest joke of a CEQA EIR document I have ever seen. How can anyone comment to something that has no contain or protection, other than; we think or it has been determined, with nothing to back it up. The Park Board is basing everything on human out cry, social and economic needs, including the “Greater Good”, which has nothing to do with effects to the environment and that is fine to argue. But the Park Board can never tell us who is the “Greater Good”. Will the environment benefit from this project, will the wildlife benefit from this project and how will this community benefit from this project. Show me a past track record of fundraisers that benefited this community, god knows they have had many. Lets see the money trail from past fundraiser, events, concerts and Boogies that went to the “Greater Good”………….

FYI, this is not living in the past, this is all we have to work with! And whats up with this “hundred year plan” for the SHCP people talked about at the Scoping session, has anyone have a copy?

September 13, 2010 at 11:44 am

edsvoice

Thank you “Southern Humboldt”;

“Eric I agree with most of what Ed Voice has to say the only decent thing I can say about your application for a zone change is that the public no longer has to fight with you our fight is now with the county to not go along with the zone change”

I would however like to bring to your attention one fact about the Park Board. The Park Board can meet with any of the County and State agencies to hash out the Park Boards differences with the comments submitted for this EIR, unlike the public or community. The Park Board is the “Applicant” not the Community. The Park Board can see anything, change anything it wants, because its the Park Boards EIR Application, not the Communities.

The Park Board will still be involved with lobbying their position and representing this community at the same time. So when the Park Board is talking with the CHP, Fish & Game, Public Works, County Public Health Land Use, Sheriff or Water Quality Control, Planning Commissioners and Supervisors will the Park Board represent this community or the agenda of the Park Board?

We have already seen this, with the selected meetings the Park Board has had outside public notice and access, even denying the news media access to the meetings with County and State agencies held behind closed doors at the Park. The Park Board told us at a meeting in January, its because of the Brown Act?.

As we have seen and read on this thread, Eric has talked about a meeting with the CHP and Public Works about “making it work” “working things out”. The Park Board knew about what the CHP position was before the Scoping Session, why didn’t this very important fact come up at the meeting in public, because the Park Board wanted time to work on the CHP, with out any community involvement, that’s why. So this is not even close of being out of the hands of the Park Board, not by a long shot.

Remember, the Park Board reports to the County that this whole project has the “Overwhelming Support of this Community”, is that true?

September 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm

edsvoice

Eric;

“Yeah, we got the letter and we’ve already had some conversations. What we have to do is put the CHP in touch with Public Works who have already analyzed the traffic issues. There’s no way a 5000 person event will back traffic to the highway. It’s never done it at Benbow, where the event is right next to the freeway. But, we’ll clarify the issues and address CHP concerns. All part of the process”

No Eric, with the Park Board calling in Public Works to argue the Park Boards case with the CHP, you are working outside the “process”. The Park Board keeps telling this community that everything is now in the hands of the County, but then you say;

“we’ll clarify the issues and address CHP concerns”.

I think the concerns of the CHP are clear, without repeating them again, and given the benefit of talking to them behind closed doors help whom, the public, this community or the Park Boards agenda?

So please tell all of us again how this whole EIR process is only in the hands of the County and the Park Board has no more say?

September 13, 2010 at 3:08 pm

edsvoice

Remember this one Eric,

“The CHP raised some concerns, and we’ll address them with the help of Public Works and other folk who’ve studied the traffic”

Another good choice of words “some concern”, how about they don’t like any plans you have for any of the events, big or small with or without the zoning! They can’t support the project for events! Is the horse dead and can I please get off now!

OK, then we have the Multi-Family Housing Development, that is so incomplete they have taken it off the table, until they get a couple more small details like, oh yeah EVERYTHING!

Put this into prospective, consider the source, put yourself in the Park Boards shoes and I don’t live here so piss off, right Eric!

Look at the project from this point of view; can the County shut down this project, NO. Can this community shut down this project, NO. Does the public have any say in shutting down this project, NO. Does the Park Board have the authority to shut down this project, YES they do. So tell me again who this project is to benefit?

September 13, 2010 at 4:16 pm

neighboring property owner

September 14, 2010 at 11:02 am

edsvoice

Eric said;

“Basically, Ed has transferred his family’s dispute with the Randalls to the park”

Then you posted what I asked (which has still never been answered):

“Here is one for you, please answer this question, As with past illegal and unpermitted events, Who in the community benefits from the Park Board allowing amplified Concert & Festivals, parking, camping and housing at Tooby Memorial Park, the River Bar and Community Park?”

Then Eric said:

“Everyone in the community. That is, those of us who actually live here”

But now I am confused, this new voice not heard from, that you said was going to come and be heard at the Scoping Session? Whom did you mean?

September 14, 2010 at 4:57 pm

tannersdaman

u didn’t know ? Tanner is a psycho – logist. He knows wacko.

September 15, 2010 at 11:32 am

September 15, 2010 at 7:00 pm

Eric,

Do you want to blog on this thread or start a new one. I want to blog about how many state & county agencies, local non-profits and people in this community that DO NOT support or endorse the current SHCP Boards GPA EIR projects and events as proposed at Tooby Memorial or Community Parks?

It would seem the Park Board needs to take a hard look at this proposed undertaking, to see whay support they have le

publicparkadvocate

Goals of Public Participation

The goals of public participation are to:

* Provide the public with information so they can understand the process, the issues, and the values, and can participate effectively.

* Provide full opportunities for the public to share their views and to influence the outcome of the planning process.

* Build consensus and public support for the vision and goals of the plan and of the entity charged with developing and implementing the plan.

* Ensure that the planning effort addresses issues of importance to those affected by the plan.

September 15, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Anonymous

Dr. Robert Hare, an expert on sociopaths, states that “among the most devastating features of psychopathy are a callous disregard for the rights of others and a propensity for predatory and violent behaviors. Without remorse, psychopaths charm and exploit others for their own gain. They lack empathy and a sense of responsibility, and they manipulate, lie and con others with no regard for anyone’s feelings.” I’m reminded of something Red Cloud said: “They made us many promises, more than I can remember. They only kept but one. They promised they would take our land, and they took it.”

September 16, 2010 at 8:17 am

edsvoice

Eric,

Are you sure that this SHCP GPA Rezone EIR does not includes portions of the parcels now owned by Dazey & River Ranch Homes LLC/Goldeen? These parcels were sperated and created from the SHCP LLA, that use to be the SHCP property parcel “A” & “D”.

I ask this question, because the APN’s used on this SHCP GPA Rezone EIR are the old APN’s since before the SHCP LLA that was completed in March of 2009. New APN’s have been created as of Feb/March 2010 from the SHCP LLA. So why are the old APN’s still being used?

September 16, 2010 at 8:40 am

Eric Kirk

Okay, that’s a good question Ed. I’ll look into that one.

I know that the original application contained the old APNs because the Assessor’s office did not issue new numbers until months after the completion of the lot line adjustments. I wasn’t aware that the old numbers appear on the latest documents. I’ll report back when I have the information.

September 16, 2010 at 8:41 am

reallyashrink

Sociopaths, no. More like a group of people who have been working on this for 10 years and simply have a lot of time and energy invested in their vision.

And Ed, you are obviously obsessed with details, but you have some valid concerns. It’s when you get into hyperbole that you get into trouble.

I think there is a middle ground here as Marie Raphael pointed out.

September 16, 2010 at 11:44 am

edsvoice

I cannot agree, I disagree reallyashrink,

What Marie Raphael proposed, was that the definition of mitigation was compromise and I would like to see where she found that definition.

There is no middle grown, its all about this CEQA EIR and can the Park Board mitigate the effects to the environment below a significant level. That is why we had a scoping session, not about personal attacks, and that social and economic impacts are not included into this EIR.

If we do as Ms. Raphael suggests, could you compromise the environment at Tooby Memorial Park or even the SHCP? Or even the surrounding area outside the Parks boundaries? Just to have it turned into a commercial concert & festival venue site, parking lots, camping, housing development and everything else that includes?

As the public gets more information about the Park Board EIR, the more everyone will understand why I ask for so many details. If I have learned onething from this Park Board, they never have details!

Let me give you one example; Call or email Michael Richardson, ask him if any other person or LLC property owner(s) on these old APN 222-091-003, 222-091-006 or 222-241-008 that are publicly listed for this GPA, ZR, CUP and SP will be included in this GPA Rezoning EIR. Then ask him why? Ask him!

In fact, call the County Assessors office at 707-445-7663, give them the above APN’s, ask them for the name of the new property owner(s).

September 16, 2010 at 6:50 pm

edsvoice

Eric,

What are the top 5 community and civic club’s or organization’s in Garberville that give complete support and backing to the SHCP Boards GPA Rezoning EIR and proposed projects and events at Tooby & SHCP?

September 16, 2010 at 7:14 pm

Eric Kirk

Wjat is this, Jeopardy?

September 16, 2010 at 7:44 pm

pipeandapancake?

If middle ground is about negotiation, why won’t the Park Board negotiate?
Back at the March 18, o9 meeting, Kirk Girard said his department was inclined to support the Park Board’s proposal, especially if they “lower their numbers”, since that was what people at that meeting wanted: A smaller Summer Arts and Music Festival, if it was going to be at the Park.
At that meeting, the Park Board was asking for 2500 attendees. Now it’s up to five thousand! Real negotiators.
Why don’t Marie and others ask the Park Board to become public.
I have never seen the Park Board negotiate anything, except maybe with the county, and always upward.

September 16, 2010 at 8:23 pm

edsvoice

No, but it was a nice stall Eric;

If you have what you say, which you call the overwhelming support of the community, then that would also include civic and community clubs and organization’s as well. You mean to say the Park Board doesn’t solicit support from community organization’s? So who are they and what do they support?

September 17, 2010 at 8:08 am

edsvoice

Eric,

Just thought I would help educate the Park Board about the South Fork Eel River (1972) and the State Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.

California Public Resources Code – Section 5093.50-5093.70
Chapter 1.4. California Wild And Scenic Rivers Act:

5093.52 “River” means the water, bed, and shoreline of rivers,
streams, channels, lakes, bays, estuaries, marshes, wetlands, and
lagoons, up to the first line of permanently established riparian
vegetation.

5093.53. Those rivers or segments of rivers included in the system
shall be classified as one of the following:

(a) Wild rivers, which are those rivers or segments of rivers that
are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail,
with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters
unpolluted.
(b) Scenic rivers, which are those rivers or segments of rivers
that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still
largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible
in places by roads.
(c) Recreational rivers, which are those rivers or segments of
rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have
some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone
some impoundment or diversion in the past.

5093.54. The following rivers and segments thereof are designated
as components of the California Wild & Scenic River Act:

Eel River. The main stem from 100 yards below Van Arsdale Dam
to the Pacific Ocean; the South Fork of the Eel from the mouth of
Section Four Creek near Branscomb to the river mouth below Weott;
Middle Fork of the Eel from the intersection of the river with the
southern boundary of the Middle Eel-Yolla Bolly Wilderness Area to
the river mouth at Dos Rios; North Fork of the Eel from the Old
Gilman Ranch downstream to the river mouth near Ramsey; Van Duzen
River from Dinsmores Bridge downstream to the river mouth near
Fortuna.

September 17, 2010 at 10:11 am

edsvoice

Eric,

Here are the seven (7) newly created APN’s that came from the SHCP LLA and should have been listed on the SHCP GPA application that was submitted by the Park Board to Michael Richardson on July 2010.

We understand about not having APN’s for the Petition Hearing in Nov 2009, but the new maps and APN’s from the SHCP LLA were created in March 2010.

They are:

222-091-009 active, property owner Dazey.
222-091-011 active, property owner River Ranch Homes LLC/Service Sanford Goldeen.
222-091-012 active, property owner SHCP
222-091-014 active, property owner SHCP
222-241-009 active, property owner SHCP
222-241-010 active, property owner Dazey
222-241-011 active, property owner SHCP

September 17, 2010 at 10:23 am

edsvoice

Eric said;

“I wasn’t aware that the old numbers appear on the latest documents. I’ll report back when I have the information”

I guess you didn’t read the GPA application? How could that have happened, the APN is what documents the zoning and land use designation. The Park Board wrote it, not Michael Richardson. The next time you call someone to task because you think they don’t know “zoning” maybe you should talk with the guy in the mirror more often.

Ooooooooooooooops?

September 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Anonymous

Dear Reallyashrink, earlier on this thread a poster called “tanner”said that the Park Board “detractors” are wacko, but did not provide any specific examples when asked.

When I posted a quote by Derek Jensen (from Orion magazine) about psychopaths, why did you immediately defend the Park Board?

September 18, 2010 at 8:53 pm

publicparkadvocate

Effects on Wildlife

The effects of ecological light pollution are widespread. They include disorientation from and attraction to artificial light, structural-related mortality due to disorientation, and effects on the light-sensitive cycles of many species.

September 20, 2010 at 5:46 pm

neighboring property owner

From the Garberville Rotary Minutes September 14, 2010, By Doug Ingold:

PROGRAM: Steve Dazey introduced Kathryn Labato and Tim Metz. Kathryn is the executive director and Tim is a board member of the Community Park board. Steve, who is not presently on the board, described his original vision for a regional park that would provide civic, educational and recreational benefits to the community. He began working on the project eleven years ago. He thanked Bob McKee for helping to make his dream become real. He referred as well to Rotary’s contributions. Three of the original six park board members were Rotarians and Rotarians other than himself donated $60,000 to the park’s purchase.

Kathryn and Tim have been involved with the park for ten years. As Tim taped up maps, Kathryn explained the board’s proposed general plan amendment which will convert the 430 acre park from an agriculture exclusive designation to multiple zoning with an overlay of public recreation. 305 acres will retain their agricultural designation. 97 acres will be set aside for higher impact uses such as playing fields, events, group camping for educational purposes. Tooby park will also lose it agricultural exclusive zoning. Finally there will be an area set aside for housing. There are also plans for events. The proposal is for an unlimited number of events (weddings, memorial services etc.) of less than 500 persons per year. Five events with attendance between 500 and 1,200 and one event with up to 5,000 attendees could also be held in a year. The proposal is now in the public comment period which will continue into October. Written comments should be sent to Michael Richardson at the Planning department. There were a number of questions from and comments by the assembled masses all of which were deftly handled by Ms. Labato and Messrs. Metz and Dazey. Thanks to them for a lively program.

September 20, 2010 at 6:07 pm

Anonymous

Holy! Look at all these Ed posts!

Can you say obsessive compulsive?

September 20, 2010 at 6:24 pm

edsvoice

Eric,

From the minutes above:

“The proposal is for an unlimited number of events (weddings, memorial services etc.) of less than 500 persons per year”

1st) “less than 500 persons per year”? That is the first time I have read that, that is not in the “Plan of Operation”

2nd) Don’t you think its mis-leading for Kathryn Lobato and Tim Metz to say: “weddings, memorial services etc”? When the “Plan of Operation” does state more that just “weddings, memorial services”.

“Small Fundraisers and Events – attendance under 500 people, unlimited in number: Many local nonprofit organizations and park user groups have used the park for fundraising activities. A few examples include the Hospice Barnyard Brew, the Humboldt Hills Hoedown, the Walk in the Park (fundraiser for the local schools and the park) and Reggae Riding (mountain bike races). These are well attended events that bring a wide range of community members and interests groups together at the Community Park. Most of these events include a variety of types of amplified music including prerecorded to live performances and from classical to popular music. These events can take place at the barn yard, in the new Public Facility area, or at Tooby Memorial Park”

So Eric is that what they meant by “etc”?

September 20, 2010 at 7:01 pm

publicparkadvocate

Isn’t it time for Tim, Peter and Kathryn to rotate out of board directorship? Last time I saw the bylaws of the Park Board, the term of Board Membership was to be three years, with the possibility of three consecutive terms. Have the bylaws been rewritten?
Is the Park Board even a n0n-profit anymore? According to the minutes above, they have been “involved” with the Park for 10 years.
And now according to the Independent, the Parkland was purchased with “private donations”.
Has the non-profit disappeared? What magical park! Certainly, the public has been disappeared from this whole deal.

September 20, 2010 at 8:12 pm

edsvoice

And eric,

While were on the subject, there is this remark from the Rotary minutes; “one event with up to 5,000 attendees could also be held in a year”; wouldn’t it be more accurate for Kathryn Lobato & Tim Metz to say; one event with up to 5000 attendees PER DAY, instead of per event? same goes for the 5 events up to 1200 and unlimited up to 500, I mean to say your cap attendance should be per day, not per event, because there is no cap on the amount of days per event, right?

Again Eric, how can the public make comments to a “fill in the blanks” EIR?

September 20, 2010 at 8:18 pm

edsvoice

Dam, I forgot to ask;

What was the responce and support from the Garberville Rotary after this program/pitch the Park Board make concerning your SHCP GPA EIR?

September 20, 2010 at 8:20 pm

edsvoice

Can you say concerned neighboring property owner?

September 22, 2010 at 11:12 am

edsvoice

Do you remeber this Eric?

February 27, 2010 at 3:36 pm

Eric Kirk

As it happens, I’ve only had one car accident case on Sprowel Creek Road, and that one took place right outside my office.

As for what the Supervisors will consider, it’s all about the EIR. Maybe we shouldn’t have concerts there if the road is so dangerous. Maybe we shouldn’t have an airport down there either. It’s not the tourists who scare me most on the road. There are some people, including one guy in a large truck, who speed by my office window frequently.

Tourists aren’t familiar with the Honeydew road. Should they shut down Rockefeller Forest? In fact, by the argument, all of the businesses in Shelter Cove should shut down because tourists really very often don’t know what they’re getting into, particularly when the ride their brakes down that last hill. And maybe they should block off the Mendocino Coast entirely, because there’s no very safe way to get in there and many people get injured or die on those roads every year.

September 22, 2010 at 7:05 pm

publicparkadvocate

After reading accounts of the Park Board’s presentation to the Rotary Club, I was struck by the words “regional park”. Here is what wikipedia says:

“Regional park is a term used for an area of land preserved on account of its natural beauty, historic interest, recreational use or other reason, and under the administration of a form of local government.”

Is Steve Dazey’s appointed Park Board our local government? Why that’s…
Yikes!

September 23, 2010 at 4:11 pm

edsvoice

So Eric,

Wanted to know why the SHCP ByLaws on the Park website do not reflect what has now been included. Funny none of this info was talked about at any other Park Board Meeting since March of this year. So much for general community involvement by the public, even elections or membership?

Please tell me again how the community benefits from the Park Board Inc?

“Resolution to Amend to Bylaws”:

“Director Emeritus” – The Board of Directors shall have the power to grant the title of Director Emeritus, to serve without term, upon recommendation of the Board. The position is intended to acknowledge those who have demonstrated outstanding dedication and contribution to the work of the organization. A Director Emeritus shall have the right to attend and to speak at Board meetings, and shall be eligible to stand in consideration for appointment to any Board Position.

Director Emeritus shall have all the privileges of a director, such as committee membership and attendance at meetings, except that Director Emeritus shall not have any voting rights. The Director Emeritus designation is intended to honor those persons who have previously served on the Board of Directors, and who have made a significant contribution toward furthering the organization’s objectives.

Any officer or member of the Board of Directors may nominate a former Board member whose qualifications meet the Director Emeritus criteria, the nominator providing his reasons for putting forth the nomination to the Board in writing. At the next regular Board meeting the nomination shall be put to a secret ballot. The nomination must carry one-half the quorum plus one vote. If it is successful, the designee will be informed of the Board’s action.

The position is a high honor and is to be conferred accordingly; however, nothing in these Bylaws shall be interpreted as limiting the Board to a single Director Emeritus at any given time.

Adopted at board meeting on March 1, 2010

Yes: 5
No: 0
Absent: 2

September 24, 2010 at 11:51 am

Eric Kirk

Ed, we are not going to discuss personnel matters on this blog.

September 24, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Eric Kirk

Last warning Ed.

September 24, 2010 at 12:17 pm

edsvoice

ERIC????

“Last warning Ed”

Or what Eric, the Blog police will come and take me away? Or you will 86 me from your Blog?

September 24, 2010 at 12:41 pm

edsvoice

Eric,

This is your last warning, re-post my comment or you can find it posted on the WWW!

September 24, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Anonymous

Wow, this SHCP board is getting weirder and weirder. This anointing people for life is like they’re the Catholic Pope, an emissary from a diety. Whatever happened to a plaque of recognition, honorary dinner, firm handshake, and a picture on the wall? Even former US Presidents don’t get this kind of unending authority.

And you know, given conditions that older folks often develop(e.g. Pat Wiggins) this seems like a real dumb idea. And of course, there’s no defined process for removing a “Director Emeritus”. Guess thats another thing that will get “figured out we go along”.

This really sounds like a disaster being built that will be “nobody’s fault” when it happens. And all to satisfy the blown up egos of people who can’t bear thinking of ever bowing out of authority. Thats very similar to the old SoHum patriarch ranchers who leave messed up situations behind because they never really trusted anyone and had to be in control up to the very end. And there are organizational parallels to. Many of those ranchers inherited their land but felt everything came solely from their efforts. sSame as the SHCP was given its land by donations but some “founders” feel its really theirs. It echos the ROTR and SHCHD conflicts too. What is it about this small place that blows people’s egos sky high?

Its pretty clear that this board reports only to themselves and more specifically to the strongmen they owe their positions to. To paraphrase Butch Cassidy… “Who ARE those clowns?”

September 24, 2010 at 8:59 pm

bongandablintz?

From the SHCP board meeting minutes Dec 2, 2009

“Park’s Application for General Plan Update (sic)
-Kathryn will use the information from the River Parkway Grant for the Environmental Checklist segment.”

Considering the difference between the River Parkway Grant and the GPA development project, this is a serious problem. Are the studies cited in the GPA also from the River Parkways Grant or maybe from the lot line adjustments? Pretty different from the wild development plans for the park that the Park Board is trying to get the county in compliance with.

For the year 2010, there are three (3) summaries of minutes in the Library from the Park Board’s meetings: Jan 19, May 5 and June 30. Doesn’t the Park Board meet twice a month?

I think it is hilarious that there are “closed” Sessions within the closed meetings, along with plenty of just no minutes at all.

September 26, 2010 at 8:32 pm

Anonymous

This director emeritus scheme seems to be a way for the Appointed Board to overstay their welcome… A sort of high priesthood, or bishopric of the board. The inner circle. More private private meetings and committee meetings unreported on.

I wonder how many people go to the library and read the minutes and lack of minutes of the SHCP Board meetings. It doesn’t take long to read them, but what is there and not there is interesting reading.

How about that year and a half gap of meeting minutes. Wonder what deals were being made during that time. Some say it’s the lot line adjustment. I speculate that there are some kind of water deals going on with GSD.

September 26, 2010 at 9:26 pm

Eric Kirk

Actually, several weeks ago I added a bunch of minutes to the record in the library. I am trying to track down the meetings which are missing and I will place them in the library once I have them.

As for what you speculate, well, I speculate that my schlong is bigger than Long Dong Silver’s. That doesn’t make it true.

September 26, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Anonymous

down boy!

September 26, 2010 at 10:22 pm

pathetic actually

down boy!

September 27, 2010 at 9:17 am

johnChomes

Schlong?

Tell us all again why you are giving this kind of example & detail? Is this the best example you have, is this all you got?

“Mommy, what did Erwic mean by Schlong”

Why schlong, why not Dick, Cock, Willie, One eyed snake or maybe the correct term “Babys arm holding an apple”.

Its called a penis, hello………………….

September 27, 2010 at 11:39 am

Anonymous

Uh oh, musta hit a nerve.

Unfortunately, the Public who paid for the Park can Only Speculate about what deals involving the parkland and the water and the speculators are made in closed door meetings. Especially when the minutes are not there at all and/or say nothing of substance. It is only speculation of course.
But small speculation compared to what appears to be land and development speculation involving the Park Board, former board members, the sellers, GSD and private beneficiaries of the whole park scheme .

I checked the meeting minutes on September 22, last thursday. There were three (3) meeting minutes for 2010. Does the board meet twice a month? Where?

September 27, 2010 at 11:52 am

anon

As for what you speculate, well, I speculate that my schlong is bigger than Long Dong Silver’s. That doesn’t make it true.

ROFLMAO! I’m glad someone is approaching this issue with humor. Don’t expect any of the detractors to laugh though. They have no sense of humor whatsoever. That might mean having fun.

September 27, 2010 at 6:21 pm

Anonymous

With interest on loans, contracts, salaries and land deals, the PBoard is laughing all the way to the bank. Don’t know about Eric, though. Good thing he can laugh about his schlong.

September 27, 2010 at 8:42 pm

schlongandablintz?

From December 2, 2009 Park Board meeting minute summary:

“FUNDRAISING

-Each Board member should draw up a list of potential substantial donors.

-Each Board member should draw up a list of potential loaners.”

Is the Park Board getting even deeper in debt over this environmentally degrading GPA? Remember Kirk Girard saying that the more you want there, the more expensive the EIR?
And how much has the PBoard spent on attorneys fees, land use consultants and county fees and title fees on the lot line adjustments?
Pay off the Park first. Have Dazey and Goldeen pay for the lot line adjustments.

September 28, 2010 at 9:09 pm

publicparkadvocate

The threats to close the park are starting up again, if the Park Board doesn’t get their way. The Park Board’s propaganda piece in the papers say even Tooby Memorial Park will have to close, since it has been a park zoned AE for more than forty years.
There are many options for preserving wildlife habitat and protecting riparian corridors and having a park. A recreation overlay for passive recreation wouldn’t even require an EIR, since it would not have EXtensive Impacts on the environment.
We have plenty of places for housing and after the GPU there will be lots more. And we have plenty of places to have boogie blowouts in Southern Humboldt.
The public paid for this park.
It is time for us to have a public park.

September 28, 2010 at 11:15 pm

September 29, 2010 at 7:35 am

Here we go again.

As Carol Van Sant confirmed today “Community Park’s Land-Use Designation Must Change If Park to Remain Open to Public” the Park Board has again shown use all how low below the belt they will hit to get what “they” want.

The Park Board has chosen to make this community believe what they want us to believe. Knowing it would be frowned upon to question the Park Board and be called a “Park Detractor”.

Earlier in this thread, someone had said “there’s what people want to believe, there’s what people want to hear and after all of that, there is the truth”

It was also talked about earlier on this thread that a County Planner by the name of Werner offered the Park Board a deal, that without a costly rezone and EIR, they could just have a recreation zoning overlay covering the Park property and the Park Board could apply for a Conditional Use Permit as they need them for each event, fundraiser, concert or festival. But for some reason the Park Board didn’t bite?

And then they closed both Parks to make a point. Now we have come full circle again. They need to leave Tooby Park out of the mix.

Anonymous

Please, No Rezone for an Amplified Park. It is a destructive plan for the Tooby Flat and the neighborhoods that surround it. The Park board’s eyes are bigger than their stomach. Proposing what isn’t suitable is the hallmark of imbalance. Voices for conservation of the Southern Humboldt Community Park’s environment have been advocating for its gentle use since its purchase, recognizing its real gifts to us: a place to walk and have health, a place to grow food, a place to protect plants, animals, birds and fish. Allow it to be the very special place it is. That’s why we donated to purchase it: to save it from housing developers and Amplified event producers.
The Park is fine as AG land. Nothing threatens it except the threats of the Park board itself to close it. What can be added is an R(recreation)-combining zone as suggested by a County Planner two years ago. The R-combining zone allows low-impact recreation, and requires No expensive General Plan Amendment process.

September 29, 2010 at 9:12 am

September 29, 2010 at 9:29 pm

I asked for a copy (EIR) by email from the Park Board, took the time to read it now. One of the first items that stand out for me is on page three. Besides all the environmental and safety concerns talked about past page three, is the following- [The project will accommodate the community’s stated purposes for the Community Park property and to provide for a future mixture of public, private and non-profit uses]

I am having trouble understanding this one and what it has to do with the Environmental issues and project as a whole. Should it have said [community's Park Boards stated purposes?] because that is who is pushing this, not the community, not the chamber and not any other real community benefit group or organization.

Think about this> maybe instead of the Park Board running around soliciting and meeting with groups, organization and other nonprofits the Park Board could save time/money by just sitting down with the community and hash the whole issue out. From what I hear from people in this community, they get no say about the Park or now Tooby Park. The Park Board needs to be public not private.

Ps-I thought Jerry’s letter yesterday was fantastic, it came from his heart and what he feels [what many people feel], with no benefit to him, but to the wildlife and their environment we have taken from them. That’s why we all came to live here in the first place. Not to give someone money to change everything later, after the fact to what they want. Kind of like the hand that feeds you or the MLB strike. We just can’t learn from our short-comings and mistakes, but need to have our cake and eat it too?

September 29, 2010 at 9:37 pm

Did anyone else catch the KMUD news tonight. Talked about the CHP and the Parks projects. Any word about the meetings with the CHP, Park Board and County Public Works? Seems without support from CHP, this is all for NOT. What a waste of public money and donations.

Anonymous

A public park with public oversight.

Hijacking the Public Recreation land use designation for use by a non-profit that will not trust the public enough to let us into their meetings is a half-baked idea, at best.
The reality is that the public paid for the park and then the door slammed shut.

Public Facility is for EXTENSIVE IMPACTS civic uses. Extensive impacts to the environment. The Park Board is also applying for a “special permit”, which is a take permit on the river.

September 30, 2010 at 6:44 pm

October 2, 2010 at 6:54 pm

Can we use this blog post for Q & A via our comments we have concerning the GPA EIR application from the scoping session?

Will any of the GPA Environmental project mitigation, maps, locations, studies and models be listed on the Parks web site?

Would it be appropriate to contract anyone on the Park Board to ask questions about the CEQA application?

bongandablintz?

Eric, what exactly were the suggestions made by Public Works in June 2010 that the Park Board incorporated into their GPA? Would you find out please? I need to know.

October 3, 2010 at 11:26 pm

October 6, 2010 at 9:27 pm

From “Bonnie Neely fundraiser on Sunday”

{They were very impressed with Clif and Bonnie’s presence and the broad support from the community, and they really wanted to give it to us}

{Letters of support are broad-based, and, yes, we are receiving donations towards the rezoning. I am certain it will happen in substantially the form requested}

{While some legitimate concerns have been received about certain aspects of the proposal, the bulk of the opposition is coming from a small group of people who show up to all the meetings and an even smaller group of people so desperate for a forum that they come to this blog to hijack threads only tangentially on topic. If your opposition is so broad based, then why is nobody going to your site?}

I just counted the comments made from the Sept 9 scoping session off the KMUD website and here is what I found-

Total speakers 28

In favor of the EIR rezone-12
Not in favor of the EIR rezone-14
Taked about farming and Thanks to John & Lisa-1
Mateel Board wants the MCC events at CP, but no parking on the Riverbar, Im not sure how to count that one?

Anonymous

Now that the CHP has made their comments known to the public in the paper, does this mean that the Park BOD had meeting with CHP and Public Works?

Last week Terri interviewed Michael Richardson on the KMUD 6:00 pm news. One of the things they talked about was this CHP comment and it would be very hard for the BOS to approve this project with the CHP not approving it.

What does the Park BOD have to say about it? Is there an answer?

October 8, 2010 at 9:53 pm

Anonymous

This is from the Redwood Times this week. Submitted my the Park Board.

‘At several public meetings data documented significant positive support for events at the park, as long as there were conditions that took into consideration the Park neighbors and the environment’

Eric- Do you comment about what the Park Board said in the paper this week?

October 8, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Eric Kirk

For the most part, I don’t comment on the Community Park issue on the blog. Anywhere else is fine. The blog is not conducive to reasonable discussion on this issue because it degrades too quickly into personal attacks.

October 9, 2010 at 9:31 am

Anonymous

Where is anywhere else! We have seen you can deal with personal attacks, this thread is about the Park rezone, nothing else. You talked about not getting your grant on the Bonnie Neely thread, that was about the Park and not Bonnie Neely. Why not talk about the Park rezone on the Park rezone thread?

How can we have a conversation about this?

I am on the fence with this one, I can see both points. Help me better understand your point as a Park rezone supporter.

October 9, 2010 at 10:14 am

October 9, 2010 at 7:19 pm

{There are legitimate questions about the process and whether the correct impact studies have been conducted, and I remain relatively agnostic on the issue of whether it’s a good idea. But the forum I attended last spring did little to enlighten. I wish somebody would organize a forum where advocates of different positions were brought together to discuss it so that they could argue with their opponents rather than the straw-men they set up}

Eric, you said this on the ‘Second lawsuit re Richardson Grove’ thread. The same could be said for the Community Parks rezone?

Anonymous

Park BOD- must be nice inviting Supervisors, Grants Founders, Foundations and Gift Givers down to the Park for a private RSVP one on one with all the fixin’s, lunch, BBQ and all that good ol’ SoHum hospitality. When is the last time the Park BOD invited the Community and the Park Neighbors down to the Park for anything other than meetings, how about just a good ol’ fashioned SoHum Pot-luck. Bring all the Community and it neighbors together. Maybe, just maybe you should try it sometime, see how it works for the Community. Think of it as a fundraiser, that money just can’t buy. Remember, it’s never too late!

October 10, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Anonymous

This blog would be an excellent forum for discussion of the Park Issue. There isn’t place for discussion or questions on the ParkBoard website. There should be.
Other than the one meeting some of the Park Board had with neighbors of the Park, there are no real discussions with the Park Board at all.
The neighbors meeting was fun, lively and seemed to be a step in the right direction. May we at least have more of those? We have not had much opportunity for discussion with the Park Board. That is a lot of the problem, the attitude of the Park Board that “you’re either for us or you’re against us”, and it doesn’t have to be like that.

October 10, 2010 at 8:25 pm

Eric Kirk

It hasn’t been a good forum for discussion of the park issue. I’ve certainly given it enough chances. But there are a few who simply cannot control themselves.

October 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm

publicparkadvocate

I really appreciate this blog. It is fun to read what other people think about issues. I don’t mind if people can’t control themselves. We’re grown-ups, we can handle it.
Sometimes people tend to get frustrated when they are not being heard or acknowledged, or are being targeted as “detractors”, when they are passionate about protecting wildlife habitat and preserving riparian corridors,or preserving the rural nature of their neighborhoods. Those who are ignored can get vociferous in frustration. It seems that the Park Board just barrels full steam ahead, determined to stick to a narrative that does not match the perceptions of those deemed as outsiders by the Park Board and their adherents. Suggestions of caution, true democratic process, transparency, ecological protections and public oversight of the Park are simply ignored.
So this blog, or one maybe on the ParkBoard’s website would be some way for true discussion to ensue. Why wouldn’t a non-profit (which is, after all, supposed to serve the Public Trust) want discourse about such an immense and important issue?

October 11, 2010 at 9:57 pm

Eric Kirk

It takes less than five minutes to start your own blog and I’ll even link to it. But what occurs here on certain topics and involving certain people is not frustration. There are some serious issues, and the park is being used as an excuse for extremely malicious and obsessive behavior. I’m simply not going to let this blog be the vehicle for it.

October 13, 2010 at 6:04 pm

publicparkadvocate

What was malicious behavior, specifically? Perhaps if you could enlighten us as to what behavior you consider to be malicious, then we can know what it takes to have a discussion, any discussion, with the Park BoaRD.

P.S. How come the promos in the papers for the Park Board’s GPA is full of changes to the GPA application?
How are people supposed to know what to comment on if it keeps changing? Is it even legal to keep changing the narrative after a Notice of Preparation has been filed and comments solicited?

October 13, 2010 at 6:27 pm

Eric Kirk

I’ve been through it over and over and over and over again. A couple of people just can’t discuss the matter without slandering people. I’ve given multiple warnings. I’m done with it on this blog.

Like I said, you can start your own blog and discuss.

October 13, 2010 at 6:34 pm