HomeMy WebLinkAbout042324 PRTTAB Meeting Packetlilyof
TownseM.
PARKS, RECREATION, TREES, & TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD
Agenda
April 23, 2024 1 4:30 p.m. I Virtual or In Person Meeting
City Council Chambers, 540 Water Street
• Join via computer or tablet at.http://moinwebinar.com enter 9 digit Webinar ID 752-525-115
• Join by phone in listen -only mode: (360)390-5064 Ext. 3 access code: 699-128-175#
• Submit public comment to be included in the meeting record to:
https://Publiccomment.fillout.com/citvofpt
• If you are experiencing technical difficulties, please attempt all methods listed above before
reporting any issues to: clerksupport@citvofpt.us
Welcome, Introduction & Call to Order - Chair Debbie Jahnke
Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Port Townsend Parks, Recreation, Trees & Trails
Advisory Board. The role of this Board is to assist City staff and to advise the City Council on
legislative matters concerning parks, recreation, trees and trails.
This meeting is open to the public at the City Council Chambers, virtually via this web format, and is
also being video recorded for those who could not attend the meeting today and for future
reference. Given that this meeting is in virtual format, we ask that the board members raise their
hands to be called on by the Chair. The public can do the some to comment during the public
comment periods. We take public comment at the beginning and end of the meeting.
I. Roll Call:
Thank you to Jennifer Rotermund!
II. Approval of Agenda/Changes to Agenda:
III. Approval of March 2024 Minutes:
IV. Public Comment (3 minutes per person/agenda items only):
V. Old Business (60 min)
A. WSU Involvement in USDA and DNR grants and capacity building (Emma Bolin, Steve King)
B. Tyler Street —Tree selection and planter options (Steve King, Robin Hill) Staff will make
recommendation to use $13,000 of new Urban Forestry funds to help with tree planting
costs.
C. Report on Public Lands Commissioner visit to Sather Park regarding DNR grant (Debbie
Jahnke, Robin Hill)
VI. New Business (20 min)
A. PROS Plan updates relevant to RCO Grants (Michael Todd, Steve King)
1. Golf Park
2. West side parks and 12th and Hancock
B. Brief update on EverGreen Communities effort (Robin Hill, Debbie Jahnke)
VII. Staff update — (10 min)
A. Park Operations (Michael Todd)
VII. Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting: June 25, 2024
Vill. Public Comment:
IX. Adjourn:
lilyof
TownseM.
PARKS, RECREATION, TREES, & TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD
Minutes
March 26, 2024 1 4:30 p.m. I Virtual or In Person Meeting
• Join via computer or tablet at.http://moinwebinar.com enter 9 digit Webinar ID 752-525-115
• Join by phone in listen -only mode: (360)390-5064 Ext. 3 access code: 699-128-175#
• Submit public comment to be included in the meeting record to:
https://Publiccomment.fillout.com/citvofpt
• If you are experiencing technical difficulties, please attempt all methods listed above before
reporting any issues to: clerksupport@cityofpt.us
Welcome, Introduction & Call to Order - Chair Debbie Jahnke
Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Port Townsend Parks, Recreation, Trees & Trails
Advisory Board. The role of this Board is to assist City staff and to advise the City Council on
legislative matters concerning parks, recreation, trees and trails.
This meeting is open to the public at the City Council Chambers, virtually via this web format, and is
also being video recorded for those who could not attend the meeting today and for future
reference. Given that this meeting is in virtual format, we ask that the board members raise their
hands to be called on by the Chair. The public can do the some to comment during the public
comment periods. We take public comment at the beginning and end of the meeting.
I. Roll Call: Pam Adams is briefly delayed, Russell Hill and Jennifer Roterm und are excused; Becci
Kimball, Matt Miner, Jim Todd, Debbie Jahnke are present. Staff present include Steve King, Emma
Bolin, Adrian Smith, Carrie Hite, Michael Todd, Robin Hill.
II. Approval of Agenda/Changes to Agenda: approved by consensus
III. Approval of Minutes: minutes for February meeting approved by consensus
IV. Public Comment (3 minutes per person/agenda items only): none
V. Old Business: none
VI. New Business (60 min)
A. Comprehensive Plan process update and anticipated board engagement (Emma, Adrian):
Comprehensive Plan consultants SCJ Alliance presentation. Bill Grimes, project manager,
introduced his project team. Scope is phase 1. Comp Plan update; phase 2. middle housing -
policy implications from tactical infill; phase 3. climate change/action plan; phase 4. active
transportation. 'Phase' is not intended as sequential. At what point are functional plans adopted
into the Comprehensive Plan? Plan to update PROS Plan so it will be good for another six years
and adopt it into the Comp Plan (as an appendix or by reference). SCJ is seeking a common
language between planners and engineers. Active transportation will be included in the
Transportation Element and will be funded through the Climate Change grant. Community
engagement is a priority. Project website - PT2045PIanning.org. Consider both challenges and
surprises. PRTTAB wants to be very involved to provide the public an opportunity to be engaged.
Issues of concern include recreational vs transportation trails and recreational immunity and
protection of pedestrians from other transportation modes. Nonmotorized plan didn't get carried
through past about five years of the plan. People need to see that all the elements overlap.
Who should we reach out to - who is our audience? Students for Sustainability; school clubs for
transportation, DASH, Rotary, bus riders, senior groups, employers, young adults and families; HJ
Carroll's Jump Playground community, Finn River, the Nest, senior leadership at the high school,
DNR proposal connections, environmental groups at the high school, WSU for outreach; Scouts;
ReCyclery, County Fairground Committee/Fair Board, HSN contacts, 4H, Rhody Festival, Black
Lives Matter, JCIRA; YMCA; Olympic Pride, OPEPO, the library, alternative schools, community
garden groups, grocery stores, the Coop, the Food Bank, the Golf Park; keeping an eye on
NextDoor is a good place to stop negative rumors and jumping to conclusions. We need the
policy elements to play well together. Staff have to create a system of information gathering so
data can be collated using minimal staff time due to staff shortage.
What are our hooks to ask questions? Do we address differences between city and county? How
and where do we ask questions? It is appropriate to go outside the zipcode. County Parks & Rec is
a very good source for recreational group identification and access. Ask questions like 'are you
willing to get rid of your car?' or 'do you know how much it costs to drive your car?, 'housing
costs for families?, 'where will your kids live?, 'are you willing to drive to the pool?, 'where do
you shop?'. Don't keep meeting in one place or time and make sure you get representative input
from all age groups.
B. Grant application update (Michael): DNR grant of approx. $345K for parks/trees approved for
invasives removal and tree planting (with natives as much as feasible) at Sather and Bishop;
summary of proposed work effort and community engagement was provided.
C. Engagement with WSU for various tree grant community outreach efforts (Robin): Meeting is
planned with WSU folks to help us with community engagement. Cooperative Extension is about
community outreach so this is a very helpful connection. It was noted that community
engagement is necessary for the DNR grant, both IRA/USDA grants and the Comp Plan so it
would be logical to combine outreach efforts.
VII. Staff update — (10 min)
A. River Network and realignment of match requirements/waiver for USDA Urban Forestry
grant (Emma, Adrian): River Network is the possthrough organization we have been assigned
to. The Network does not work with match, so we don't need a match but we need to adjust
our scope and include language for equitable outcomes and community -based engagement for
the grants for planting and maintenance. We need to write an RFQ to get the community
involved.
B. Updates on RCO grant efforts for golf park and 12th & Hancock (Carrie): Two grant
proposals are being prepared, one for each location. Open house site visit will be April 5 at
12th and Hancock, 3:30 - 5pm. Council authorization of the proposals is planned for May 6.
The two locations have a very different match requirement from RCO due to differences in the
block group income and other disparities. Match required is 40% at the golf park; 12th and
Hancock is 10%. The Hancock site can accomodate folks from Avamere - ADA trails and
features; it is still zoned R-IV.
C. Grant for Lawrence bulbouts (Steve): We were awarded a $500K street grant for Lawrence
Street from the library to Tyler. This will put in all the ADA ramps to connect to Tyler and
Jefferson, but it has to be built by August 2024. Due to staffing limitations, this will delay 9th
Street's work with banked capacity so it will have to be put on hold. Richard Hefley reported
that we will have proper root volumes for the trees planned in the bulbouts.
VII. Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting: April23, 2024
Vill. Public Comment: Linda Smith, Sather Park Hemlock Society, expressed appreciation for the
success of the DNR grant proposal for Sather and Bishop Parks and addressed the issue of age for
our volunteer groups and the importance of engaging younger families and the high school,
encouraged assisted migration for planting trees; mentioned the Connectivity Fair April 20 and
suggested the School Board for outreach.
IX. Adjourn: 6:04 pm
3
L a
d
R
3 m
o s s
N 3
7
N a
= R C
N O
U E U
> a E s
O O O
O
y
- a u a
z
r
9
a
R
c
a
`>° E
N y
y
� �
m
3
�
�
_
�
u a
o @
� N
a N
3 �
�
O
R
N
N
U
J
a
N
� �
d
�
x
d
c
N p
N
�
�
a y
c
R
Q-
O N
� a
N
L
J
nLn
N _
y
N
m Y
� L
p
V
.
N
N
L
U y
U
O
N O
M N
m p
O y
KS N
a u
N @
a s
c
N
E u
�p
@ N
Y N
C N
G7 y
N Y
Y
U y
C C
0 d
O
a +'
U E
6 U
U E
N
a u
L
a
a �
a m
=
@
� m
�
O a
c E
9
t6 N a
G
L
C01
E
a
s
u 9 u
a
a
E
d d
� O O
L
� � u
¢ d
= a 3
c
O U E
0
@ U E
N ._
N
a s E
� o
E
o D o
, R
E
O J
a E
0
y N 21
J
o
D a U
U
0
o
ti
0
3 �
E
y 0 O
R
C
a
a
o
¢ NO
N H OU
@
> N
@
J 3
O
a � H
Eric W. Nagle
1298 Hancock St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
ericwna le igrnail.corn
April 22, 2024
Mayor David Faber
City of Port Townsend
250 Madison St., Suite 2
Port Townsend WA 98368
Re: Proposed Construction of a Playground and Picnic Shelter in the 13th & Hancock
Neighborhood Nature Park
Dear Mayor Faber:
The Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department has proposed to build a playground,
picnic shelter with grill, toilet, and parking lot at the 13th & Hancock Neighborhood Nature Park, which
is across the street from my house. Construction of such a facility would be illegal, because it would
violate the restrictions on development of neighborhood nature parks set forth in the City's 2020 Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan (PROS Plan). The PROS Plan was approved by the City
Council on March 16, 2020 (Ordinance 3246), implementing the City's Comprehensive Plan, and hence it
is binding on the City's departments. See RCW 36.70A.070. Construction of the facility would also be
inconsistent with the City's purposes when it acquired the parcel in 2005 for use as a "passive park."
This project will cost several hundred thousand dollars, plus annual maintenance costs. To cover
most of the construction cost, the Parks Department intends to apply for a grant from the Washington
Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). I believe the RCO will deny the grant for two reasons: (1)
The proposal is inconsistent with the standards set forth in the PROS Plan for neighborhood nature parks;
and (2) The capital facility plan set forth in the PROS Plan does not meet the standards set forth in the
RCO's "Manual 2 — Planning Guidelines," and the PROS Plan does not identify development of the 13th
& Hancock Neighborhood Nature Park as a planned capital project.
I. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE 13TH & HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD
NATURE PARK WOULD VIOLATE THE PROS PLAN'S RESTRICTIONS
The PROS Plan at p. 77 places the City's parks into several categories, including neighborhood
parks. Neighborhood parks, in turn, are divided into two sub -classes: "active" parks, and "nature" parks.
The 13th & Hancock Park is classified as a neighborhood nature park. The Plan states:
Seven parks are considered Neighborhood Parks and serve residential areas throughout the
community. Neighborhood Nature Parks such as Sather Forest Park provide passive enjoyment
opportunities and Neighborhood Active Parks like Bobby McGarraugh Park provide more intense
play, sports, and other active recreation opportunities (p. 77)
The Plan goes on to state:
The Nature sub -classification identifies parks where the primary purposes include nature and
wildlife habitat conservation, passive recreation such as trails and viewpoints, and educational
and cultural appreciation elements. Intensive areas of development are limited based on the
environmental characteristics of the park (p. 77, emphasis added.)
The Plan then details at pp, 83-85 what sorts of developments are appropriate in the different
classes of parks. "Active" neighborhood parks may support family activities such as picnicking and play
equipment. But "nature" parks have much more limited amenities:
Neighborhood Nature Park
Often sought after for: natural and or cultural environment, passive recreation, nature and
wildlife habitat.
At a minimum the parks should aim to provide:
• Limits on the amenities provided to the numbers and types of visitors the area can
accommodate while retaining its resource value, natural character, and the intended level
of solitude
• Natural character and restoration and maintenance as needed to ensure health and
longevity
• Supportive of solitude and passive or quiet experiences and recreation
• Trails, soft -surface or permeable materials
• Low -intrusion Interpretive or educational facilities
Where possible, and appropriate in their contexts, parks falling into this sub -typology should
consider:
• Trash receptacles, and leash and scoop dispensers, where applicable
• Viewpoints or viewing blinds
• Restoration of the natural resource values of the site (p. 84, emphasis added)
2
The current management of the seven neighborhood parks is consistent with these standards.
Four of the seven neighborhood parks are classified as "active": Bobby McGarraugh; Bishop Play Park;
Sather Park East; and Baker View. Each of these parks has play equipment, picnic facilities, or both. The
three neighborhood nature parks are Bishop, Sather West, and 13th & Hancock. None have play
equipment or picnic facilities. Consistent with their dominant purposes of providing passive recreation
and solitude, the only improvements are trails.
It should be obvious to any fair reader of the PROS Plan that a playground is an "active" park
feature, and hence cannot be placed in a park designated for passive recreation and solitude. In a
telephone conversation on March 27, Parks and Facilities Manager Michael Todd conceded to me that the
playground and picnic area would be "active" features, but claimed that the trails would be "passive"
features, making the park a sort of hybrid active/nature park. Of course, that is not the park's
classification in the PROS Plan. The Plan states at p. A-8 that the only "opportunity" for the 13th &
Hancock Neighborhood Nature Park is for use as a "passive park" with no amenities.
The 13th & Hancock Neighborhood Nature Park is currently zoned R-IV. Any development as a
park will require that it be rezoned as P/OS. A hearing examiner will consider that rezoning request, and
the inconsistency of the proposed development with the PROS Plan will be obvious in that proceeding.
As a nature park, the only permissible improvements in the 13th & Hancock Neighborhood
Nature park are trails and trash cans. 1 would support construction of a trail in the park. I am an
experienced volunteer trail builder, as well as a volunteer steward of the public trails near my home, and
would be happy to assist in that effort.
II. THE PROS PLAN INCLUDES NO PROVISION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT
THE 13TH & HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD NATURE PARK
The RCO's "Manual 2 — Planning Guidelines," sets forth the mandatory elements of any parks
plan used to support a grant application. One of those elements is a capital improvement program:
Include a capital improvement program (capital facility plan) of at least six years that lists land
acquisition, development, renovation, and restoration projects.... The capital improvement
program should include the list of projects ranked in order of preference, the year of
anticipated implementation, and the plan for financing the projects.... Include any capital
project that will be submitted to the RCO for funding (p. 13-14, emphasis added).
The PROS Plan candidly admits that "Port Townsend does not have a current park capital facility
plan" (p. xiii). Rather, the Plan states that the City's goal is to "Establish an ongoing six -year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for parks and recreation facilities (p. 19).
Chapter 7 of the PROS Plan is titled "Funding and Facilities Plan," but it does not meet the
requirements set forth in RCO Manual 2. Indeed, it states: "Port Townsend has not included a parks
capital improvement program in its 2019 budget due to competing priorities and lack of resources" (p.
122). Chapter 7 does list a variety of capital improvements that might be carried out, but does not rank
3
them in order of priority, and does not identify which would be supported by an RCO grant. None of
these listed improvements include any work at the 13th & Hancock Neighborhood Nature Park.
To address "equitable access and distribution objectives," the Plan mentions only two potential
capital improvements: (1) fill in missing trail links to improve access to existing parks, and (2)
implement minimum improvements for 35th Street Park serving the western portion of the city (p. 124).
The City adopted a separate Capital Facilities Plan on December 5, 2022 (Ordinance 3301),
covering 2023 to 2028. At pp. 33-34, the Plan lists a number of potential park projects, but does not rank
them by priority as the RCO manual requires. Conspicuously absent from this list is any mention of
improvements at the 13th & Hancock Neighborhood Nature Park.
III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE 13TH & HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD NATURE PARK
WITH ACTIVE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE CITY'S PURPOSES FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY
The City acquired the .78-acre forested parcel called the 13th & Hancock Neighborhood Nature
Park in 2005 in a land exchange with the developer of Seaport Landing (now Avamere Assisted Living).
To build the facility, the developer needed the City to vacate four blocks of unopened street rights -of -way
on 12th and McClellan streets. The total acreage of vacated right-of-way was .9 acres. The developer's
representative made clear what the purpose of the transfer was: "creation of a passive park with the
dedication of the property creates a buffer between the neighborhood and the large building." City
Council minutes of Nov. 7, 2005, at 2 (emphasis added).
The terms of this land exchange are set out in City Council Resolution No. 05-044, dated Nov. 7,
2005.
As the resolution states: "Lot 2 is .78 acres in size and contains heavily forested land the
applicant proposes to dedicate to the City as passive open space in partial fulfillment of the PUD
approval criteria (emphasis added). The resolution goes on to state:
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2005, the City Council referred to the Park and Recreation Advisory
Board for recommendation on whether the City should accept the proposed dedication of .78
acres for park purposes, and the Board recommended in favor of accepting the parcel and that it
be used as a passive park (emphasis added).
The resolution concluded:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby APPROVES the Seaport
Landing Planned Unit Development and the dedication of Lot 2 as a passive park space to be
included in the City's park system (emphasis added).
4
IV. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A PLAYGROUND AND PICNIC AREA AT THE 13TH &
HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD NATURE PARK
I have met with Parks Director Carrie Hite. She asserts that a playground is needed at this
location because this part of the City is a "park desert," where there are insufficient play facilities within
walking distance. This is simply untrue. Bishop Play Park, with a playground and picnic shelter, is a
nine -minute walk south of 12th & Hancock. Salish Coast Elementary School, which probably has the
best playground in the City, is a five-minute walk to the northeast. It's a public school, it's where most of
the City's elementary -age kids go to school, and it's open to all kids outside of school hours.
Other west -side playgrounds owned by homeowners' associations are serving the needs of kids in
those communities. Hamilton Heights, Laurel Heights, and Roscwind all have playgrounds for their
residents. Towne Point has a picnic shelter, playing field, tennis court, and basketball court for its
residents.
Port Townsend Business Park maintains a lovely park open to all, with a duck pond and picnic
tables. It's a 13-minute walk from 12th and Hancock. The recently -approved Madrona Ridge housing
development off of Rainier Street will also have a public park where a playground could be installed.
The City's public trails are part of the park system, and there are many trails on the west side.
Most pass through forest, and offer a lovely natural experience.
Finally, it's important to note that the Birkenfeld Community, a Habitat for Humanity housing
project located a half -block away from 12th & Hancock, recently removed the playground that had been
installed in their Nora Porter Neighborhood Park. The playground had become a nuisance because it was
a magnet for late -night partying by young people.
V. IF A NEW WEST -SIDE ACTIVE PLAY PARK IS NEEDED, IT SHOULD BE BUILT IN
THE PARK THAT THE PROS PLAN DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE: THE 35TH
STREET PARK
The neighborhood around the 13th & Hancock Neighborhood Nature Park is dominated by senior
citizens. It is adjacent to the Avamere assisted living facility. Next door to Avamere is Discovery View,
an apartment building for seniors. Most of the single-family homes in the neighborhood are occupied by
retirees or older adults without young children.
The 35th Street Park consists of 14 acres of forested land, with several trails (PROS Plan at p.
A-2). Six acres of the park were previously owned by Jefferson County, and were deeded to the City in
1995 for the purpose of developing it into an active use park with playfield, parking, restrooms, basketball
court, and playground. In accordance with this purpose, the PROS Plan classifies the park as an
"active/nature" park. Hence, playgrounds and picnic areas are permissible uses.
5
The PROS Plan at pp. 94-95 sets forth a concept plan for improving the 35th Street Park,
including a loop trail with play and fitness nodes and a forest play area, picnic shelters and tables, a
restroom, and parking. The Plan at p. 124 identifies improvement of the 35th Street Park as a capital
project to address equitable park access on the west side. Similarly, the City's 2022 Capital Facilities
Plan at p. 33 calls for a master plan and development of the 35th Street Park.
VI. DEVELOPMENT OF THE 13TH & HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD NATURE PARK
WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GOAL OF INCREASING FOREST
CANOPY
Last year, the City obtained a "Climate and Economic Justice Grant" from the U.S. Forest
Service, totalling $230,000, to improve tree canopy in the Castle Hill neighborhood. The City's grant
application stated that "[w]c must address our disappearing tree canopy as we create more housing for
underserved populations who deserve to have access to tree canopy and all the benefits that come with
neighborhood canopy (p. 1). The application goes on to say that "[w]e need to incorporate trees at all
scales into our community improvement, from parks and streets all the way down to individual rain
gardens and swales" (p. 3). The City expects to plant 51 3-inch trees, at a cost of $2500 per tree, and 25
2-inch trees, at a cost of $1000 per tree. Thus, for a total cost of $230,000, the City will add 76 saplings
to its canopy in the Castle Hill neighborhood.
The 13th & Hancock Neighborhood Nature Park is already heavily forested with a mix of mature
Douglas fir, western red cedar, Pacific madrone, Scouler's willow, and alder. There's a dense understory
of salal. It provides rich habitat for songbirds and raptors. The dead snags provide excellent woodpecker
habitat. And of course, the trees and the organic matter on the forest floor sequester carbon.
It would be impossible to build a playground, picnic area, and trails there without removing a
number of those trees. The playground alone is projected to occupy 2000 square feet, and the picnic area,
pavilion, parking area, and toilet would occupy at least as much. To protect all of these facilities and the
people using them, it would also be necessary to remove potential hazard trees. Management of hazard
trees will be an ongoing maintenance cost.
It should be obvious to any fair observer that it would be contradictory for the City to seek a grant
from the RCO for a project that will remove trees in the same neighborhood where the City received a
federal grant to plant trees.
VII. PUBLIC INPUT ON THE PROS PLAN REVEALED NO SUPPORT FOR A NEW
PLAYGROUND OR PICNIC AREA IN THE 13TH & HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD
The summary of public comments in Appendix B of the 2020 PROS Plan does not identify any
support for a playground or picnic facility in the 13th & Hancock area. Indeed, the analysis of the City's
park facilities indicates that Port Townsend already has a significantly better ratio of population to
playgrounds than comparable cities, and exceeds the benchmark recommended by the National
Recreation and Park Association. That benchmark is one playground per 3163 persons, while Port
Townsend has one public playground per 1922 persons. See Appendix B, Park System Analysis, at 20. If
59
you consider the playground at Salish Coast and the two playgrounds provided by homeowners'
associations, the City's ratio is even better.
The public comments revealed what was actually most important to the City's residents: "Most
survey respondents depend on parks and open space to provide opportunities for passive recreation
purposes like hiking, walking, or enjoying nature, and to provide environmental benefits for green space
and wildlife." App. B at p. 2. Respondents' three highest priorities for park funding were trails, an
aquatic facility, and open space and wildlife habitat. App. B at p. 3.
VIII. A DEVELOPED PARK AT 13TH & HANCOCK WILL NOT BE LOW MAINTENANCE,
BUT IT WILL BE HIGH -RISK
Parks Department staff claim that the playground and picnic area will be a "low maintenance"
design. This is untrue. The park would be located in a forest, which means that there will be an ongoing
risk of trees falling and damaging facilities or injuring park users. This risk will require constant
vigilance by City staff, and rapid response to hazards. A U.S. Forest Service manual advises:
[P]laygrounds should always be considered high -risk zones based on high public use patterns and
the presence of relatively large tree populations. Inspect these areas frequently and implement
corrective actions on an expedited basis ("Urban Tree Risk Management: A Community Guide to
Program Design and Implementation." USFS 2003, at p. 22).
The Forest Service, the National Park Service, and Washington State Parks have often been
forced to close campgrounds and picnic areas on the Olympic Peninsula because of the risks posed by
hazard trees. The campground at Fort Townsend State Park opens for the summer camping season only
after park staff have removed hazard trees and cleared blowdowns that accumulate during winter storms.
An additional risk is a disease called laminated root rot, which often affects Douglas firs in the
Pacific Northwest. This disease causes apparently -healthy trees to fall down, and has required land
managers to close many facilities around the Olympic Peninsula. For example, the Forest Service closed
Falls View Campground near Quilcene for this reason. If the stand at the 13th & Hancock Neighborhood
Nature Park becomes infected, the City will have to close the park and all public investment will have
been lost.
IX. SEEKING A GRANT FOR THE 13TH & HANCOCK NATURE PARK PROJECT WILL
REDUCE THE CHANCES THAT THE RCO WILL FUND OTHER WORTHY
PROJECTS IN PORT TOWNSEND
The RCO funding process is a competitive, zero -sum game. Because the RCO's funds are
limited, every grant that's approved means another grant application is rejected. The RCO awards grants
with an eye toward an equitable geographic distribution, so the more applications there are for projects in
one location, the less likely it is that all will be funded.
7
The Parks Department plans to apply for a grant to fund a playground at the golf course. The
Jefferson County Fair Association plans to apply for a grant to fund a pump track at the fairgrounds. The
pump track will serve residents of all ages. If the City also seeks a grant for the 13th & Hancock Nature
Park, these two other worthy projects are less likely to be funded.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I urge you and the other members of the City Council to reject the
Parks Department's proposal to install a playground and picnic area at the 13th & Hancock Neighborhood
Nature Park. The proposal would be legally indefensible because it would be inconsistent with the 2020
PROS Plan, which is binding on the City. The PROS Plan represents the City's promise to its residents
about how our parks will be managed, and the City is obliged to keep its promises.
The Parks Department has already spent thousands of dollars of public funds on surveying and
design work for this project, which is almost certainly doomed to fail. It's time for the City to cut its
losses.
I understand that the grant application must be submitted to the RCO by May 1, and this matter is
going before the City Council on May 6. I would like an opportunity to meet with you to discuss this
prior to May 1. You can reach me at the email address above.
Sincerely,
E1-;c W Nagle
Eric W. Nagle
E:1