Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Art Signage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Parks board tables decision on Route 66 sign placement at Jensen's Point

2828075 · February 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board tabled a vote on placing a new Route 66 sign at Jensen's Point to gather more information; the tourism committee obtained a $15,000 grant toward a $19,200 sign, but board members raised concerns about lighting, accessibility, vandalism risk and installation costs.

The Pacific Parks Board tabled a decision on siting a new Route 66 sign at Jensen’s Point until its March meeting so members can obtain more information from the tourism committee and review site logistics.

Board members said the tourism committee had secured a $15,000 grant toward the sign, which the parks packet listed at $19,200 total, leaving an unfunded difference of $4,200 before installation. Board members raised concerns about the proposed placement behind the parking lot on the hillside: limited lighting, lack of camera coverage, vandalism risk, and difficulty providing ADA-accessible approaches without extensive retaining walls, switchbacks and higher installation costs.

Several board members suggested an alternative placement near Red Cedar where lighting and a camera already exist and where people currently pose for photos by an existing Route 66 sign. The tourism committee — represented in discussion by references to liaison Kelly O’Malley — appears to have proposed Jensen’s Point; the board did not overturn that request but requested further information about whether the tourism committee would fund additional lighting or accessibility work if the sign were sited at Jensen’s Point.

A board member moved to table the decision to the March meeting so a parks representative could attend a tourism committee meeting and gather answers; the motion was seconded and carried. The board asked the parks liaison to email Kelly O’Malley and to report back with specifics about the tourism committee’s plans for lighting, ADA access, and installation timing. The tourism committee has indicated a preference for an in-County placement tied to grant conditions; the board emphasized the need for staff-level answers about site preparation and potential added costs before final placement is approved.