Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public and staff urge keeping Miller Peninsula State Park primitive; commission retains policy language
Summary
Planning staff told commissioners the county's comprehensive plan already contains supportive policy for Miller Peninsula State Park and recommended preserving language that supports primitive, day‑use park design to avoid intensive resort development; the commission discussed edits and retained the policy.
Staff summarized public testimony and the policy history for Miller Peninsula State Park, telling commissioners the county had long supported the idea of a state park as a way to avoid more intensive destination‑resort development on the peninsula. Planning staff described past proposals for large destination resorts at Miller Peninsula and said current park concepts by State Parks appeared to favor more primitive facilities (trails, vault toilets, day use) because of funding constraints.
Why it matters: Several public commenters and commissioners expressed concern that removing policy language would leave the county without a say if State Parks pursues a more intensive development plan in the future. Staff recommended retaining a policy that supports a state park "only upon a demonstration that implementation will not adversely impact potable groundwater resources, increase fire risk, exacerbate erosion or other environmental impacts, and transportation improvements are implemented to ensure no adverse impacts to area residents." Staff suggested ending the policy wording with "pristine environment" to align with community sentiment.
Public input: Darlene Shandful (speaker 4) — who described herself as a co‑leader in saving the land for a park — urged commissioners to preserve Miller Peninsula as a natural, day‑use area. "Miller Peninsula State Park should remain natural," she said during public comment, and proposed a succinct policy edit to emphasize day use and nonmotorized access.
Next steps: Commissioners generally supported retaining the current policy wording with staff‑suggested edits and asked staff to ensure policy language will require consultation with State Parks as designs advance. Staff also noted parks will carry out their own public outreach when developing formal park designs.
