HomeMy WebLinkAboutOct. 2006 - MinutesJEFFERSON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
October 4, 2006
OPENING BUSINESS
Judith Lucia, Chair, called the meeting to order at 12:00 PM in the Humphrey Room of the
Jefferson County Library, Port Hadlock, WA.
Members Present:
Brian Miller; Phil Siemion; Judith Lucia; Judi Mackey; Steve
Crosland; Rick Tollefson
Members Absent:
Joan Linderoth, Richard Stapf
Staff Present:
Matt Tyler
Guests:
Neil Morgan, Rick Sepler
50 additional signed -in audience members
Recognition:
Certificate of Recognition for Nancy Rook (see Additional
Business and Correspondence)
Agenda:
There were no changes to the agenda.
A motion was made by Rick Tollefson to approve the agenda as
amended; the motion was seconded by Judi Mackey and
approved unanimously.
Minutes:
A motion was made by Rick Tollefson to approve the minutes
for September 6, 2006. It was seconded by Phil Siemion and
approved unanimously.
ROAD VACATION
None
CONSERVATION FUTURES FUND
Matt Tyler stated that he had previously sent out the information that he had found regarding the
open seat, as requested at the September meeting. He had learned that the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (JCPRAB) does not have a permanent or designated seat on the Conservation
Futures Fund Committee, and would not be favored in any way in the appointment process.
However, applications from PRAB members are welcome, if anyone is interested. Chair Judith
Lucia noted that the CFC meetings are held on Thursday afternoons from 4-6 PM monthly, which
presents a scheduling problem for some of the PRAB. Matt noted that the information is also
posted on the County web site.
REGULAR/OLD BUSINESS
OHV Study
In response to a question, Chair Lucia explained that OHV, or off -highway vehicle, is used
synonymously with ORV, or off -road vehicle. Matt Tyler suggested that since Tom Beckwith
had not yet arrived, Neil Morgan could present first.
Letter of Invitation to visit Tahuya OHV Area — Neil Morgan
Page 1 of 11
Mr. Morgan introduced himself as a long time resident of Jefferson County who had been
involved in the OHV Focus Group for several years. He said that because he had realized that
many people do not understand ORV or OHV recreation, he had developed an opportunity for
everyone to learn more about it. With the aid of a Power Point Presentation, he stepped through
the background material, and the specifics of his invitation.
The invitation is from the East Jefferson County OHV Focus Group to:
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Jefferson County Public Works Director
Jefferson County Fire District #2
Any interested members of the public are also welcome to attend.
The purpose is to offer those who may not be familiar with ORV sites to become familiar with
and to see first-hand a site designated as an ORV area and the surrounding areas outside that
designated site.
Information Sharing — There will be a talk presented by the Director of the Pacific Northwest 4-
Wheel Drive Association, DNR (Department of Natural Resources) and other representatives.
Topics will include the history and future of this OHV site and nearby areas; facilities such as
restrooms, parking lot, camping areas, and staging area; as well as user groups and associations,
including agreements with DNR.
Viewing the Trails — Everyone is invited to participate by taking a 4-wheel drive ride on the trails,
or a walking tour, to observe and understand trail location, relocation, construction and
maintenance. Mr. Morgan stressed that where trails are bypassed, there is active management to
correct or mitigate the situation. He said that he wants the visit to show positive attributes and to
identify any negative observations, as well.
The trip will begin at the off -highway staging area at 10:00 AM and continue until 2:00 PM.
However, visitors are welcome to stay longer as they desire and as needed to have all questions
answered, and for additional observations or experience of the trails. Mr. Morgan advised that
participants be prepared for cold or wet weather, and to bring a lunch and camera equipment if
desired.
Matt Tyler confirmed that he had forwarded the invitation to County officials, per Mr. Morgan's
request. Mr. Morgan provided paper copies of the invitation, map, and directions for anyone
interested.
A member of the audience asked if invitations had been sent to people in South County, and
suggested that that be done, since the top two candidate sites were located there.
Another member of the audience asked if he could get copies of the contracts or agreements that
the Mason county organization has with DNR.
OHV Study — Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting
Mr. Beckwith noted that he had brought copies of the OHV Study Workshop News Release that
had been prepared prior to the September 19`h Public Workshop. He said that it describes the
Page 2 of 11
purpose of the feasibility study, shows news releases and what preceded the study: listing of the
11 different sites suggested by DNR for evaluation; initial rankings and graphics for those; results
of the workshops held for users wherein they critiqued those sites from a users' standpoint as to
feasibility; list of 5 sites narrowed down by users; assessments of the five sites with regard to
soils, conditions, etc.; two highest ranked sites and details presented at a public workshop;
detailed comments from the public workshop.
He noted that there were some questions raised at the workshop that will require further study.
Mr. Beckwith said that the goal initially was to finish the feasibility work by September and to
consider implementation particulars: if a site is selected, who would manage it; how it would be
managed; costs to operate; how security would be managed. He said that work would be done in
October, and he would return to this committee's next meeting in November with the results. The
consultant will also answer questions from the last meeting, as well as present some of the
implementation particulars at the next public meeting in Quilcene in early November. There will
be a progress briefing with the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on
October 16, and likely a follow up in late November or early December with the combined
comments from the PRAB, and public and written documentation on the results of the feasibility
study.
Mr. Beckwith then asked for questions. A PRAB member asked when the first meeting with the
County Commissioners would be. October 16"' at 10 AM during the regular meeting will be a
status report covering the information developed since the workshop, the specifics of the
invitation from Mr. Morgan, and the remaining schedule.
Ms. Lucia asked Mr. Beckwith to expand upon the open questions. Mr. Beckwith said that there
were site specific questions that had come up at the workshop in Quilcene, and to the degree
possible, he would have answers developed. He said that noise was one of the issues that could
not necessarily be fully known, at this time. He added that noise profiles that are typical can be
provided, and that DNR is doing a study at the Burnt Hill facility. Such information would be
indicative, but not conclusive. It is likely that a site specific study would need to be done at a
later stage, if and when sites are selected. Mr. Siemion confirmed that noise was an important
issue, and noted that the point in the future for completely answering that question was unknown.
Mr. Beckwith responded that if the results of the feasibility study identify a preferred site (with
the BoCC's agreement), and "if the terms of the implementation plan state how it could be done,
then you would be bound by a Master Plan and agreement of how it is developed and what the
environmental issues and mitigation would be", then the noise study would be done.
In response to a follow up question about the particulars of such a study, Mr. Beckwith said the
Burnt Hill instance would be an applicable prototype. He said that first there is a baseline study,
documenting the noise levels on -site and at various locations in the surrounds, and the types of
use before any site development. They also establish a tolerable noise level, and the possible
mitigations. Typically, the type of mitigations include: controls on hours of operation; types of
vehicles permitted; controlled locations of certain activities on site — much of which is dependent
on the study itself. He clarified that if a candidate site is chosen, it is subject to due diligence,
including these kinds of studies. Depending on the arrangements for ownership or management,
such studies might be initiated by the BoCC or the DNR. Mr. Siemion asked Mr. Beckwith about
the ownership and responsibilities at the Penny Creek site, which has been a focus at recent
meetings. Mr. Beckwith said it was state DNR land of two types: school trust or timber trust. He
referred to the map on page 3 in the status report, site 11. Within the circle, the darker shadings
are school trust, and the lighter areas are timber trust. On page 34, the potential areas targeted
shown are school trust, meaning that any proceeds from harvesting go to the school trust fund.
Page 3 of 11
When asked if that designation would change, Mr. Beckwith said it could stay in DNR, and be
harvested, or it could be transferred to the County.
The options for the disposition of the land, if chosen were described as follows:
1. Land remains DNR owned and managed;
2. Land is transferred to the County and DNR manages it;
3. Land is transferred to the County and County manages it;
4. Land is leased from DNR and County and/or other entities manage it.
Each has different options as to how the revenue would flow and how it would be managed.
Deeper investigations into those questions are in progress during October.
Chair Lucia commented that in her understanding DNR would prefer to stay out of managing this
property, and to sell or lease it to the County. Mr. Beckwith said that currently DNR manages
some facilities on their lands, and their primary concern is how they fund recreational DNR sites.
They are charged with generating revenue from harvest timber. In some respects, they would
prefer not to manage land unless there is revenue associated with the arrangement. As funding is
decreasing, they are closing campsites where there is no guaranteed source of revenue within
their own department.
In response to a question about who manages Tahuya, Mr. Morgan said that it was DNR, and
confirmed that it was not co -managed by Mason County.
Chair Lucia noted the PRAB is going to advise the BOCC on this entire issue, and noted that
there was about two months in which to do so. After discussion about the schedule, Mr.
Beckwith said that he would brief the PRAB on new findings at the next regular meeting,
November 1, in Quilcene, and arrange for the next public workshop shortly after, also in
Quilcene. This would be followed by the written report and the recommendation from the PRAB
to the BoCC. Chair Lucia thanked Mr. Beckwith for the documentation.
There were a few additional questions and responses. How does the Tahuya site compare in
topography, elevation, and nearness to communities to the sites under consideration? Mr.
Beckwith said that, as part of a much larger holding by DNR, it was certainly more remote. Mr.
Siemion said that noise is one of the major issues in that area around Quilcene; any noise from
engines would be very evident to boaters and kayakers on the bay.
Mr. Siemion asked if there is a fee charged. No, the DNR does not charge for access to any of
their facilities; the basis is partly philosophical and partly due to the difficulty and cost of
collection. Mr. Beckwith said that options for funding a project such as this will be provided at
the next meeting.
Mr. Siemion said that he would like to address one more item. He read a portion of an editorial
from Doug Sutherland, Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands
Unfortunately, we find that the environment cannot support the intensity and concentration of
ORV use on the roads and especially on user -built trails in these two popular riding areas. In these
times, significant and costly measures are being taken on forest lands to ensure the survival of
threatened species, maintenance of clean water, and the health of the forest ecosystems. We cannot
afford to risk these valuable investments through unmanaged, off -trail use of these protected areas.
In addition, the increasing incidents of serious injury pose an unacceptable risk to public safety,
and potentially costly legal liability when accidents do happen.
[ Ref: www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/lm/recreation/orv/oped_orv_final.pdf ]
Page 4 of 11
He said, "This is talking about two specific areas of ORV sites that are in question — there are 17
of them right now. He and Ms. Lucia both mentioned that there were many websites with
detailed information about sites in the state, some of which are being closed on the other side of
the Sound. Mr. Beckwith added that where studies are done, they must be done well, and if not
done well, they (DNR) want them shut down.
Comments/Questions from the Audience:
Carol Christiansen stated that the length of one's residence in the County or area is irrelevant; all
those who live here now have a stake and should have equal voice in the process. She asked for
clarification on the process, that is who recommends to whom and who makes the decisions. Mr.
Beckwith said that any studies that involve the Parks and Recreation Division come before this
board (PRAB), and then the PRAB gives their recommendations to the BoCC. Ms. Christiansen
said she did not understand why the consultant was briefing the BoCC before the PRAB made
their recommendation. Mr. Beckwith said it is a progress report only. Chair Lucia added that the
BoCC had asked for the feasibility study, and the BoCC approved arrangements to get grant
monies for the study.
John Pitts asked Mr. Beckwith if he meant that the County Commissioners had to make a choice
of one the finalist sites in Quilcene, or that they may select one of them, or that they may choose
other options. Mr. Beckwith said that the BoCC probably cannot select any sites that haven't
been studied (unless they open up a new study for a site not in the original set of 11 sites). Mr.
Pitts also asked what the income stream is to DNR, if not from fees for a recreational site. Mr.
Beckwith said that some sites are multi -use with revenue from timber harvest, and others are
supported with funds from other holdings. In response to Mr. Pitts inquiry about DNR staff
resources, Mr. Beckwith said that would entirely depend on the agreement as to management
responsibilities, and that he would provide more details at a later stage. Mr. Pitts also asked
"What year was the Tahuya site opened?" Mr. Morgan ventured a guess of early seventies
(1970s); no one present knew the date with certainty.
Davis Steelquist identified himself as a non-ORV enthusiast, and requested a copy of the ORV
study. He also asked how many people were expected to use the site. Mr. Beckwith explained
the 7% figure as "the percent of the population, in general, that does this activity". He said that a
survey at the onset of the project was not conclusive because there was no site in the County at
the time. Mr. Steelquist and Mr. Beckwith discussed known statistics, such as registered ORVs
within the County and club memberships. Mr. Steelquist suggested that it is necessary to have
credible projections of users in order to evaluate potential revenue to businesses in the vicinity of
any site chosen.
Jim Christiansen asked when the decision to choose between the two potential sites would be
made, and by whom. Mr. Beckwith said that the feasibility study/report will rank all eleven sites,
with information and recommendations about feasibility, impact, issues and outstanding
questions. The PRAB will decide and communicate to the BoCC whether or not they agree with
all or parts of the report and its recommendations, and/or what recommendations they will make
to the BoCC. The BoCC will then conduct the public hearing process and make the final
decisions, likely by the end of 2006 or beginning of 2007.
Pamela Roberts asked if the documentation about all eleven sites was available. Mr. Beckwith
confirmed that the OHV Study contained all the sites, as well as the narrowed down lists of five
sites, and two sites. He said it also contained the comments from the public hearings. The
researched responses to questions raised will be provided in November.
Page 5 of 11
At this point (12:50 PM), Chair Lucia called for a 5 minute break to allow for logistical shifts of
speakers, chairs, and audience. She requested that members of the audience sign the guest list,
and apologized that the newspaper had erroneously listed the start time of the meeting, causing
several members of the audience to arrive late for the OHV topic.
Chair Lucia called the meeting back to order at 12:55 PM. She asked Matt Tyler to provide his
report while awaiting the arrival of Mr. Sepler for his presentation planned for 1:00 PM.
NEW BUSINESS
Manager's Report
Fee Ordinance — Mr. Tyler stated that he had been working on the Fee Ordinance, which had
been discussed previously at several meetings. He explained that concerns had been raised in
particular about the planned Membership Program at the Recreation Center. He reviewed the
objections which were related to tradition, loss of services, and the likely impact of a "No pay, No
access" policy on lower income families. He suggested the alternative of Optional Membership.
He described the idea of a membership drive/fund-raiser, which would provide benefits or
recognition to contributors, but not restrict access. Distinctive hats and T-shirts, community
pride, and posting/publishing of names of members were mentioned as possible incentives.
PRAB members agreed that Mr. Tyler should draft those changes.
Recreation Report
Nancy Rook Transition — Mr. Tyler noted that Nancy had left the meeting to work on the Grant
Street program. He said she had been the perfect hire, that she had enjoyed her job (as Assistant
Recreation Manager), and would like to stay but is unable to do so for personal reasons, at this
time. He said that he was working on a back up plan, and would attempt to fill in her
responsibilities with part-time staff and his own support.
Soccer League — This program is "proceeding beautifully". There are 320 participants; 40 teams,
80 coaches, with participants engaged in two practices and one or two games per week. Games
are held in Brinnon, H.J. Carroll Park, and Port Townsend's Memorial Field. He noted much
positive feedback from families about the benefits for their children. The program for this season
will end by Halloween.
Open Gym — Chair Lucia asked about this program in Quilcene. Matt said that the program is
supervised by Joanie Mahan, and funded by UGN grant. Open Gym provides a place for students
to play sports, hang out, or do homework after school, and has been very successful, as well as
worthwhile.
Facility Report
Quilcene Park — The playground equipment is in, and looks good. Plans and directions for the
skateboard equipment changes are being drawn up. Surfaces appear to be in fairly good shape
and only minor repairs are needed. Matt Tyler said he would like to do a Grand Opening
ceremony and will make the arrangements for an early November event.
Football — Quilcene will be playing a game at Memorial Field on October 13. Field maintenance
is a challenge there and at H.J. Carroll Park due to hard use. He said Phil Saxton and his crew are
working hard to keep the surfaces in good condition.
Page 6 of 11
Campgrounds — Matt reported that the season is ending and campgrounds are closing. The season
was very busy and successful, and budget projections were met and exceeded. Matt commended
his staff and, particularly Molly Hilt, for her dedication and effectiveness in managing overall.
Judi Mackey suggested that a letter of recognition for Ms. Hilt from the Parks Board may be in
order.
OLD BUSINESS, continued
Final Review of the Cape George Trailhead Master Plan
Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning and Development Services
Mr. Sepler said that extra copies of the Cape George Trailhead Master Plan were available.
Mr. Sepler began by stating that this is the outgrowth of the overall Cape George Planning
process for the Ramage property, acquired with an IAC (Inter -Agency Coordinating Committee
for Outdoor Recreation) grant. Since the County has no specific plans or resources to apply here,
the purpose of the planning process is to evaluate innovative options. The proposal was a
public/private partnership process to allow individuals to propose appropriate uses to implement
long-term benefits that could occur there, within the "bookends" of what is acceptable at the park.
The process provides for individuals to identify a use, and seek guidance from the JCPRAB and
the BoCC. After that initial step, the long term plan is prepared to establish that use. This would
include removing liability to the County, where appropriate, establishing a funding source for
operation and maintenance, establishing guarantees that the project would be completed, and a
logical site plan and schedule, subject to public consideration. A limited pallet of uses had been
determined. There is also a series of strict guidelines established for the future use of the park:
compatibility with basic uses allowed by its acquisition grant (non -covered structures, non -
motorized, etc); compatibility in terms of environmental impact; compatibility with surrounding
land use (i.e., no adverse noise or traffic impacts). The burden of proof is on the proponents to
assess all aspects of the planned use in terms of each of the guidelines. The guidelines are
intended to ensure appropriate type of use, scale, hours of operation, and compatibility with other
uses and surrounding land use.
In summary, what is proposed are non -motorized trails within the park itself. There is the
potential to establish a mountain bike skills park, and an equestrian center. Both would have to
follow a rigorous review that would allow assurance of feasibility and compatibility early in the
process before a great deal of time, money and effort has been expended.
Mr. Sepler noted that the plan contains alternatives A and B, developed at the workshops. The
intended insertion, alternative C, is a separate document (due to a copying error). In essence,
hybrid C would have the equestrian uses moved closer to Cape George Road, and would
eliminate the access from Sand Road, consistent with discussions from community members.
Ms. Lucia asked if the Larry Scott Trail is completed up to the parking lot. Mr. Sepler said that
the trail is complete within the park (dark black line), and tangentially touches the parking lot.
He noted that the best way to address inappropriate uses of the area is to complete the missing
link, and thereby promote use of the trail. Jefferson County Public Works is hoping to rough in
the connection that was not completed earlier due to limited funds from the IAC grant.
Questions from the JCPRAB: In response to an inquiry about an equestrian group that had
formed, Mr. Sepler said that he had met with some representatives of an ad -hoc group on several
occasions. Should this plan be adopted, it would provide the process for them to follow in
Page 7 of 11
pursuing an equestrian use. He reported hearing concerns that a previous attempt by a group had
met with a change in direction, and funds raised had been used for a different purpose.
Ms. Lucia asked about expected impact on Parks staff. Mr. Sepler said the plan spells out that
Parks staff could do some project management, could assist in grant preparation, and some
coordination of proposals that come forward. However, they could not operate and maintain the
facilities, oversee or assist with construction, or be involved in the detailed crafting of the
proposal.
Comments/auestions from the audience:
Sharon ❑embro had provided recommended changes to the Plan in writing, on behalf of a group
of people from the equestrian community. She identified herself as a member of the Olympic
Dressage Club, which has 35 members, many of whom are also trail riders. She requested that
future meetings on this subject be held at a time more convenient for others interested in the
project. She said that members of the organized horse community had met on September 21 to
discuss the needs equestrian users with regards to a public facility, uses to which it would be put,
infrastructure necessary to make it a viable equestrian center, and a commitment of the organized
community to make such a center a reality. She said that the key points developed were
documented in the letter to the JCPRAB mentioned earlier. Ms. Dembro stressed several themes,
including the importance of addressing the needs of young riders, i.e., a place for lessons, clinics,
and holding competitions, and the opportunity to develop various skills and values. She noted the
financial and time burden of traveling to participate in any equestrian activity. Another important
theme is the desire to fit the equestrian center into the landscape, to make it aesthetically pleasing
and safe, and to conserve/enhance the natural setting.
Kim McGuire said that she had been involved in equestrian activities for 30 years, and with 4-H,
and is an active instructor both within this area and outside of it. She assured those concerned
with noise that equestrian events are quiet, that horses need a peaceful environment, and that most
functions would not require a loud speaker system. She invited those with concerns to attend the
Coupeville Equestrian Center event on October 22, 2006 to see/hear first hand the nature of a
horse show. She also said that there would be no night time events in the envisioned center, thus
obviating the need for disturbing, bright lights.
Christina Pivarnik identified herself as an avid dressage rider, owner of three horses, former 4-H
member, and proprietor of a marketing/business development consulting business. She expressed
her interest in the economic viability of the proposed "horse park". She stressed the commitment
and effort that will be needed to raise the funds and support to develop the center to fill the void
that exists today. She urged that restrictions on the use and operation of such a center should be
left to those responsible and committed to its success, rather than imposing arbitrary limits on
use. She said that the center would be all-inclusive, inviting use by Discovery and Equitese Pony
Clubs, several 4-H Clubs, Olympic Dressage Club, Back County Horsemen and others. The
youth -oriented clubs will use money raised at events to help lower cost of lessons, etc. thus
making participation more affordable to lower income families. She stressed the lack of impact
on neighbors, and the unfairness of placing limitations on a privately -funded public facility.
Leanne Shuff identified herself as affiliated with the Equitese Pony club since 1993, 21 years old,
and riding since she was 5 years old. She spoke of the importance of the Pony club in shaping the
lives of young riders. She noted the difficulty of maintaining monthly lessons and activities
without a permanent site, and having to rely on various arenas and owners for space and facilities.
Ms. Shuff referred to good examples of horse park facilities, Bainbridge Island Saddle Club and
Page 8 of 11
Vashon Island Horse Park. She urged that the proposed park be well designed and implemented
in terms of safety and suitability for many types of users and needs.
Linda Mattos said that she had three daughters who grew up with Pony Club, and that she
attributed much of their success as adults to that experience. She spoke of the need to haul all
over the northwest, especially with the lack of a local facility. Ms. Mattos described the need to
camp overnight at times due to traveling distance, but stressed how quiet an activity this is. She
said she lives close to the Ramage property, and wishes neighbors to realize that there would be
no adverse impact to them.
Chris Hanson was introduced by the previous speaker as the originator of the Ramage project.
Mr. Hanson introduced Bill Leavitt and Nik Worden as co -participants. He said that years ago
they had heard about federal grant money and, with the intention of convincing him to sell his
property, arranged for Mr. Ramage to visit Port Townsend. He said that they had urged him and
explained the significance and benefits for the community, and persuaded him to sell. Mr.
Hanson reiterated the importance of providing this type of opportunity to children and youth, and
urged people to visit the facility on Whidbey Island. He also noted that there were items in the
Plan that may need adjustment, but thanked Mr. Sepler and others for their good work.
Harold peacock advocated for the equestrian center idea. He said that he had five children, three
of whom were involved in the Pony Club. He said that his children had to forego some of the
activities due to the expense of traveling for competition. He strongly urged the JCPRAB to
support the proposal because of its importance for the youth of Jefferson County.
Pamela Roberts identified herself as the 4-H Coordinator for Jefferson County, and a non -rider.
She spoke of the importance of horse and pony groups and activities for children/youth, which
she described as a wonderful, positive, respectful climate. She said the arena facilities at the
Fairgrounds are heavily used, have bad drainage, and are actually unusable for portions of the
year. The participants contribute many hours for maintenance and fund-raising, but must share
the facilities and accept less than ideal conditions due to many other competing factors. She said
she also wished to dispel the myth that all horse people are wealthy!
Robert Chandler stated that he lives near the corner of the park property. He said he is in favor of
Plan C, and the conditions placed on it. He said that camping is not quiet, and that children by
their nature are going to be noisy. He said he was also concerned about garbage, litter, and
manure. He is suggesting that the facility have limits placed on it, and that garbage, litter and
horse manure be dealt with in an ecologically responsible manner. Having lived on Bainbridge
Island for many years, he recalled that the horse facility there is very remote from any residential
areas, and is not certain if it is comparable to the proposed site for that reason.
Jeff Chapman said that he had lived adjacent to the Ramage property for 30 years, and this year
sold the access to the County for the Larry Scott Trail there. He identified his affiliations: Back
Country Horsemen of WA (Board Director), Jefferson Trails Coalition, Olympic Discovery Trail,
Pacific NW Trail Association. He spoke of the Larry Scott Trail as the trail common to various
associations, including mountain bikers and hikers. He thinks an equestrian horse park will
nicely complement the trail uses already enacted. Having optional overnight parking will serve
for emergency parking situations for trail users since the next trail overnight parking targeted is at
Anderson Lake State Park. He noted that the trails groups, via Adopt- A -Trail, works with
Jefferson County for maintaining the trails, and built the horse trail across the Ramage property.
He said that some of the dotted lines on Plan C may not be the best choices for trails, and hopes
Page 9 of 11
they can be adjusted. He also noted that better trained horses and riders will enhance the safety of
all trail users.
Teren McCloud said she is the closest adjacent neighbor to the site; the improved Scott trail
comes out at their property and they have an easement. They also have a small horse
farm/breeding operation, and are equestrians, as well. Ms. McCloud spoke of the need for a horse
facility for young people; she said that it brings a high intrinsic value. She said one specific
interest should not take a huge priority over all others. She said that there is a need for order,
protocols, signage and ground rules for how people use the facilities and trails. She referred to
the draft which speaks of limited or no impact on environmental qualities. She said that "some of
the proposals that might come before you (JCPRAB) seem to be quite extensive in terms of land
use." She said that in her understanding the equestrian proposal limits the size to seven acres.
She also asked that, as much as possible, the project should be integrated into the natural
environment and that it not entail a huge disruption in the natural environment. She expressed
her concern that the 50 MPH speed limit should be reduced to 40 MPH on Cape George Road in
consideration of increased traffic and the curve of the road that limits visibility. She said despite
her overall support of the project, she does have a concern about overnight camping and its
potential adverse impacts. Ms. McCloud then read and submitted a letter from her neighbors,
Teresa and Clause Jansen, which has been placed on file. The letter states general support for the
project, but expresses two objections, one of which is the concern about access from Sand Road,
and the other is with regard to overnight camping.
Chair Lucia paused the meeting briefly to inform arriving guests of the newspaper error reporting
the meeting time as 2:00 PM, and that the OHV topic had been concluded.
Norman McCloud, 241 Sand Road, adjacent neighbor, expressed his support for an equestrian
facility, but questioned the lack of communication from the potential "new neighbors". He said
that typically he has learned of plans and intentions by e-mail forwarded from others. He asked
that proponents not pretend that there will be no noise. He also asked that, as a neighbor who
does not belong to any horse organization, he be invited to participate in the discussions. Further,
Mr. McCloud said that when he sold his easement, it was predicated on the notion that the trail
was going to be a day use facility only. "If we are going to make changes there, we need to start
talking about that."
Chair Lucia said that she would like to make clear to everyone that if the JCPRAB recommends
that this Master Plan be considered, there would be ample opportunity to address all concerns and
to have all questions answered.
Ted Edwards, neighbor, said that he appreciated the work on Plan C and had a question about the
dedicated acreage for the Equestrian Center. Chair Lucia responded that it was seven acres out of
38 and determined, with the help of staff, that the drawing was not to scale and that it was
intended to be a Use Diagram only.
Mr. Sepler attempted to clarify that the Plan does not advocate a specific use; it lays out a
process. It advises that proponents organize, collect materials, get a site plan together, and come
forward with it.
Mr. Edwards said he was not familiar enough with the plan to evaluate whether there would be an
opportunity for a phased approach and a means to address issues step -wise. He said that he and
his spouse are opposed to lights and overnight camping, and are curious who would manage this
facility, as far as scheduling and commercial operations, including training, etc.
Page 10 of 11
Mr. Sepler said that the plan suggests that this is an appropriate place for something to happen; it
cannot establish a fairly clear road map. It can neither establish in detail nor guarantee what can
and can't be done. That needs to be developed and aired. The proponents of the use of the
property as an equestrian center will need to provide the follow through and satisfy the standards
and requirements of the process.
There was a question from the audience about the next step and timing, with the hope to avoid
repetitive meetings with no forward movement. Mr. Sepler said that the Parks Board had three
options. They may recommend the Plan as it has been submitted to the BoCC (who will hold
public hearings on it); they may modify it based on comments received today, or they may make
additions or modifications beyond those voiced today. He said that once reviewed through public
hearings and approved, this plan would become part of the Comprehensive Plan. Once adopted,
those interested in promoting a particular use would follow the process to a conclusion. He said
the Parks Board may need another meeting to complete their recommendation.
Chair Lucia said that the item would appear on the agenda again in November. Based on a
suggestion from Mr. Sepler, she established October 15 as the final date for submitting comments
on the Plan to the JCPRAB. She advised people to submit their input to Matt Tyler, who will
forward it to all board members. She advised that the next meeting will be held November 1,
2006 from Noon to 2:00 PM at the Quilcene Community Center.
Additionally, there was a question and brief discussion as to whether all adjacent neighbors had
been informed by mail about meetings throughout this process. Mr. Sepler said that neighbors
had been contacted, but that attempts will be made to close any gaps. In response to another
request to hold future meetings in the evening, Chair Lucia and other board members explained
that they are unable to meet that request for various reasons. Board member Judi Mackey again
advised the audience that the JCPRAB has an advisory role only, but that the all comments
submitted before October 15 would be taken into consideration. The official hearings would be
those that take place before the BoCC.
A final question was to clarify exactly what materials would be passed along to the BoCC. The
Board explained that only the Master Plan, as written or as modified by the JCPRAB, would be
submitted. Citizen letters and testimony would be considered, but not actually forwarded.
However, citizens are welcome to submit their letters and comments directly to the County
Commissioners.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE
As the first order of business, before approval of the agenda, Matt Tyler presented a Certificate of
Appreciation on behalf of the JCPRAB to Nancy Rook, Assistant Recreation Manager, to
recognize her dedication and accomplishments. Ms. Rook is resigning her position effective
October 13, 2006, for personal reasons.
SET MEETING DATE/ADJOURNMENT
As noted above, the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, Noon to 2:00
PM at the Quilcene Community Center.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 PM by Judith Lucia, Chair.
Page 11 of 11
Jefferson County
W � Parks and M&L ANN& wn
ASH IN Serving the Community
ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA
Wednesday, October 4t", 2006
12 noon to 2 p.m.
TO Area Community Center
:tbl+] LTA s 11N
A. OPENING BUSINESS
i. Call to order
ii. Introductions
iii. Agenda
A. Additions or changes
B. Adoption
iv. Minutes
A. Additions or changes
B. Adoption
B. ROAD VACATION
i. To be announced
C. CONSERVATION FUTURES FUND
i. Update on information Matt Tyler found
D. REGULAR / OLD BUSINESS
i. Final Review of the Cape George Trailhead Master Plan
ii. OHV Study-30 Minute Presentation by Neil Morgan, Focus Group Member
E. NEW BUSINESS
i. Manager's Report
ii. Recreation Report
iii. Facility Report
F. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE
G. SET NEXT MEETING DATE/ ADJOURNMENT