HomeMy WebLinkAbout062215_ra03Department of Public Works
O Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 1
Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Request
To: Board of Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
From: Monte Reinders, Public Works Director /County Engineer /
Agenda Date: Monday June 22, 2015, 11 am v
Subject: Review of Responses to Public Comment and Possible Adoption of
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
Statement of Issue: An update of the 2002 Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan has been prepared and reviewed. A public hearing was held and
comments were received. The final plan has been updated based on the comments. A
summary of the comments and updates has k eeenFepaled and /ill be presen},ed.
'�e-CJ, n"C' CF'['C�- Y-f6hS :-✓z� M.�[�Z s.' .o�-, FjoCC �ir�?.- i'S017 1(?0 ` /hF �lQ_LYu
Analysis /Strategic Goals /Pro's ft Con's: A thorough response to the public comments
was made. The plan has been updated accordingly, reviewed, and is ready for
adoption.
Fiscal Impact /Cost Benefit Analysis: Fiscal benefits include responsible park
development and recreation program implementation, as well as eligibility for RCO
grants.
Recommendation: Review the comments and responses, if appropriate, adopt the
plan by resolution.
Department Contact: Matt Tyler, 385 -9129
Rev" "d By:
(�W, a, 2 �
Philip Morley, oun y' Date
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING }
THE JEFFERSON COUNTY } RESOLUTION NO.
PARKS, RECREATION AND }
OPEN SPACE COMPREHENSIVE }
PLAN }
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan was last updated in September of 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan should be updated on a regular basis; and,
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board held numerous public meetings to better
develop a parks, recreation and open space plan consistent with the interests and views of the community -at- large;
and,
WHEREAS, the Exploratory Regional Parks and Recreation Committee held six public meetings between May of
2011 and June of 2012, conducted a community survey, inventoried, assessed public need, and explored alternatives
for delivery and financing of parks and recreation in our community; and,
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Parks and Recreation Committee held five public meetings, held an open house, and
further assessed community priorities for parks and recreation; and,
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Commissioners held a duly and widely publicized public hearing on the revised
Jefferson County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan; and,
WHEREAS, in the judgment of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, the policies of the revised plan
reflect input received regarding future parks, recreation and open space improvement, development and retention;
and,
WHEREAS, said revised plan encourages orderly, responsible, and knowledgeable development and improvement
of parks, recreation, and open spaces within the County;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners do hereby approve and
adopt the Jefferson County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, as attached.
SEAL:
ATTEST:
Carolyn Avery
Deputy Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
David Sullivan, Chair
Phil Johnson, Member
Kathleen Kler, Member
Response to Public Comment on Pro Plan Adoption from Public Hearing
May 11, 2015, 10am.
Public Hearing In- Person Verbal Comments
Name
Comment
Response
Chris Lunke, 360
Here on behalf on the local Backcountry Horsemen of
No reply required.
Whispering
Washington Chapter which is the Buckhorn Range, I am
Cedar Lane,
the president. Would like to thank you for such a
Chimacum
comprehensive plan and in particular including the
horse park and the new expanded Gibbs Lake in the
plan. They both have value and significance in relation
to the equestrian members of our community and
really show that the county is taking a look at all
members of the county in terms of the work that you
are looking to do.
I would like to defer to our director, Bob Hoyle, who
will also be addressing you in terms of the connection
of the work that we do locally here in the county. I just
want to thank you for in particular for those 2 new
considerations.
Bob Hoyle, 1912
Backcountry Horsemen of Washington is a 501c3
No reply required.
West Valley
organization, we are a trails advocacy organization. We
Road,
are all about trails. Specifically keeping trails on public
Chimacum,
land open for equestrian use and is so doing we keep
Director of the
trails open for everyone. Here in Jefferson County
local chapter of
we've been in existence for 13 years in our local
Backcountry
chapter and we've done a lot of projects. One of our
Horsemen of
earliest projects was building a bridge at Anderson Lake
Washington.
State Park. We have acquired grants for Anderson Lake
Park and have administered and worked on those
grants improving and hardening the trails system there.
We have a grant that we are currently administering for
the Larry Scott Trail which is part of the county trail
system. We partner with organizations across the state
including the Washington Trails Association, the Pacific
Crest Trails Association, and the Pacific Northwest
National Scenic Trails Association of which the Larry
Scott Trail is a segment of that trail. Would like to
reiterate what Chris said that we thank the group that
worked on this plan for all their hard work and for
including those segments particularly the horse park
and the new Beausite Lake acquisition for kids County
Park. We have been involved with providing horseback
rides for the campers at Beausite Lake Kiwanis camp for
the disabled for over 15 years. We feel that parcel and
Page 1 of 7
Page 2 of 7
all of that is very important. Just really want to thank
you for the opportunity to speak and let you know who
we are and to commend the committee for the fine
work they've done on this plan.
Julie Dalzell, 640
1 was here for Matt Tyler's presentation that was
No reply required.
Cape George
awesome. I want to thank Matt for he did and the
Road
board and the committee for the work they did. And to
tell you how appreciative the whole horse community
is to have been considered as part of a recreational
group that is important. I am really here on behalf of
my trainer, my Ferrier, Cenex, the Tack Shop in
Chimacum, and Les Schwab for putting $1500 worth of
new tires on my trailer. So the whole community is
effected by the acknowledgement of horses in the
community. I think it has a huge economic value and
thank you very much for the acknowledgement. We
appreciate it very much.
Tom Thiersch,
We spent a lot of money on this plan. It certainly passes
The Parks and
Unincorporated
what the consultants use to call the weight test. I'm
Recreation system in
Jefferson
not sure that I would characterize it as a plan though, I
Jefferson County is large
County
would call it a very comprehensive report, an analysis.
and varied. The Plan
But in terms of planning for the future of parks in the
provides in -depth data
county, I am left with a feeling of it's not really quite
and analysis of this
there. I mean the report highlights the fact that we've
system. The plan also
heard several times over the years that we actually
provides options and
have an overabundance of parks in this county, way
recommendations
more parks than are the recommended standard and
which will aid decision
that doesn't even take into account of course the fact
makers in the process of
that more than half of the county is federal park,
addressing issues and
Olympic National Park, and federal forest land and so
meeting future needs.
on and state parks. We've just got way too much park
Balancing competing
land for the size of population that we have and for any
needs within the County
kind of possible growth in this county in terms of
is beyond the scope of
population for the next 50 years. An awful lot. The
this plan; but the plan is
problem that I see with that is we have a completely
an effective tool for
underfunded parks system. We got too much park and
decision makers in on-
not enough money and we don't have a plan for how to
going policy
maintain what we have much less how to fund it in the
formulation.
future. The funding options that are presented in this
parks plan are just options. I don't see a specific
recommendation in there that says in 2016 the county
should attempt to pass a 5 cent levy or whatever. I
don't see a specific funding source identified. I see an
awful lot of needs, I see a lot of analysis about well this
is underfunded and we think we're gonna get /try to get
grants for funding this and we're gonna try to get
volunteers for doing that. No, I think I should
Page 2 of 7
paraphrase what did yoda say, "There is no trying there
is just doing ". Thanks.
Written Comments
Name
Date
Summary of Content
Response
Debbie Janke
May 11, 2015
Detailed list of updates
The City of Port Townsend
required due to the
Parks and Recreation Plan
completion and adoption
was updated and adopted
of the City of Port
during the County Planning
Townsend Parks and
Process. The County Plan
Recreation Plan, which
has been updated to
occurred during the writing
accurately reflect the
of this plan.
updated and adopted City of
Port Townsend Plan. A
detailed point by point
summary of those changes
has been provided.
Page 3 of 7
Detailed Point by Point Summary of Responses to Written Comments by Debbie Janke
Comments received via email, with attachment on Monday, May 11, at 8:32
The section has been broken down by comment and response. The text of the comment is indented, and
in italics and quotations. The response is in bold and is bulleted.
Comment #1
"Dear County Commissioners, County Parks Manager, and County Administrator,
1 understand that the deadline for written testimony for the County's Parks Plan update was May
4. However, a perusal of sections referring to City assets and efforts in the draft County Parks
Plan brings up a number of concerns and inaccuracies that should not go to press uncorrected.
They are listed in order of appearance by pdf page in the draft but the most important concerns
are in bold. These comments are also attached as an. rtf file.
The draft County Parks Plan has some inaccuracies with regard to City assets as described in the
adopted 2014 City Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan
(http: / /www.cityofpt.us/ user / image /parks- recreation- and - open -space function- plan -and-
appendices.pdf). Many of these inaccuracies arise from the apparent assumption that the City's
adopted plan is a draft version from 2010 -2011. In fact, that draft was not adopted and the
adopted 2014 City Plan employs the inventory categories from the 1999 City Parks, Recreation
and Open Space Functional Plan. The 2014 City Plan lists City parks inventory in three categories:
urban pocket parks, neighborhood parks and community parks. It does not use the asset
categories from the 2010111 City draft, the ERPRC report or what is currently in the County draft.
County draft Table 4.11 is therefore not in agreement with the City's 2014 adopted plan. City
Plan Tables 3.1 and 3.2 describe City assets, which are also described briefly in the Executive
Summary."
Response #1
• The City of Port Townsend Plan (the City Plan) was modified, updated and adopted during the
planning process. All citations, tables, and information throughout the County Parks and
Recreation Plan (the County Plan) have been updated with the most current information from
the new, adopted 2014 City Plan.
• The County Plan has been updated to reflect the new asset categories.
• Table 4.11, located on page 43 of the County Plan, has been updated.
Comment #2
In Table 4.14, it should be noted that the Port of PT now owns and operates both City Dock and
Union Wharf, transferred to the Port from the City as a part of the process to transfer the Port-
owned land at Kah Tai to the City in 2013.
Response #2
• Table 4.14, located on page 56 of the County Plan, has been updated.
• All references to Union Wharf and Kah Tai have been updated.
Page 4 of 7
Comment #3
"Section 5.1 incorrectly categorizes City assets by referral to a non - adopted 2010111 draft plan.
In addition, Table 5.1 notes incorrectly that the Port owns 29 acres of Koh Tai Lagoon Nature
Park. Transfer of all public Koh Tai land to the City was completed in 2013."
Response #3
• The table referred to is actually table 5.4, and is found on page 69 of the County Plan. All
references to the City categorization system and to Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park were updated.
Comment #4
"County draft pdf p. 63 refers to the City's 2011 draft which was not adopted and describes
incorrectly the City inventory as provided in the adopted 2014 plan. As well, it indicates (text on
draft pdf page 80 and draft Table 5.4) that the City LOS falls significantly short in acreage ( -12.2
acres), while Table 5.1 in the City plan shows that the City inventory is nearly identical to the
conventional LOS at this time. This inaccuracy is in part because several City parks are listed as
'Natural /Open Space' in the County draft and excluded from LOS calculations."
Response #4
• See Response #1
• Table 5.4 has been completely updated to reflect the new, adopted 2014 City Plan; including
corrected acreages, classifications, and level of service analysis.
Cnmment #5
"Section 5.1.5 Special Use Areas states that the City has a number of special use areas. The City
Plan does not employ a Special Use category. The skate park is included as a Community Park in
the 2014 City Parks Functional Plan."
Response #5
• The reference to City special use areas, found on page 78 was removed.
Comment #6
"Pdf page 95: City Non- motorized Transportation Plan and adopted Parks Plan list 31 miles of
trails. In several other places in the County draft, 31 miles is used. The paragraph here about
trails should be corrected to be consistent."
Response #6
• The County Plan states in several places that the City has 25.2 miles of trails. All references to
City trail mileage found in the County plan were updated to the 2014 figure of 31 miles.
Cnmment #7
Page 5 of 7
"Pdf page 99, last paragraph: It would be helpful to update this information about Mountain
View Commons, including that it is owned by the PT School District, operated by the City under a
15 year lease with a 15 year extension. It might also be helpful to summarize current and
pending efforts by the YMCA and its partners."
Response #7
• Additional updated information regarding Mountain View Commons was added to the bottom
of page 87 of the County Plan.
Comment #8
"Pdf page 102, first bullet in the list - question in survey dealt specifically with INDOOR
recreational space and perhaps that should be explicit in the bullet. Swimming pools were not
ranked #1 against all recreation, just within a subset of indoor recreation."
Response #8
• The phrase "subset of indoor recreation space identified" was added to clarify this statement,
found on the top of page 90 in the County Plan.
Comment #9
"Second paragraph is very inaccurate, funds were intended for more than Rec Center and far in
excess of amount quoted. City has provided in excess of $800,000 from the City's share of the
Public Safety Sales Tax. Recommend that accurate numbers and information be requested from
Port Townsend City Manager prior to approval of draft."
Response #9
• This comment refers to the second paragraph on the top of page 117 of the County Plan. No
change has been made because the information is correct. The dollar value of $404,000 in this
paragraph explicitly refers only to the Rec Center portion (50 %) of the Proposition One special
sales tax funding provided by the City to the County.
Comment #10
"Third paragraph: name is Mountain View Commons, not 'Community Center'; this whole section
should be updated with current information about long -term lease, City -voted February 2015
bond (71% support) to repair and maintain facility. Recommend confirming numbers about
YMCA with City Manager prior to approval of draft."
Response #10
• The third paragraph of page 117 was updated to reflect new, additional information about
Mountain View Commons.
Comment #11
"Last paragraph: 'complementary' not 'complimentary'"
Response #11
Page 6 of 7
• Correction was made.
CnmmPnt #12
"Pdf page 130: Current funding statement is both incorrect and not up to date. Bond amount is
wrong by nearly an order of magnitude! Text should be updated to include the results of the
February 2015 vote. City Manager can provide accurate data for this section prior to approval of
draft."
Response #12
• The bond amount was corrected, and information about the election result was added.
Page 7 of 7