Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA20_Rathvon Emails John DiMaggio <dimaggiojohn17@gmail.com> Fwd: Twana Road Proposals 1 message John DiMaggio <dimaggiojohn17@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:16 PM To: mtb222@gmail.com Begin forwarded message: From: John DiMaggio <dimaggiojohn17@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Twana Road Proposals Date: November 7, 2023 at 6:36:30 PM PST Karl, Thanks for your note. We appreciate your forthrightness about your interest and motivation. Michelle and I were interested in supporting emergency vehicle access for lower Twana. We understood this to be the driver of the proposals. Quilcene Fire & Rescue has stated that the road cannot be improved for more rapid response. The simple and elegant solution is to install a helipad at the bottom of the hill. There is a helipad on Barb and David’s land but this will not help lower Twana when weather conditions impact accessibility. We moved here eight years ago because we had the rare opportunity to become a part of this beautiful and important Natural Area Preserve (NAP). Our highest priority has always been to support efforts to preserve and protect where we all live. We voiced our concern about how this road work will negatively impact the land and we have raised concerns about the stability of our slope and for Twana Way in general. We are concerned that the proposals haven’t taken these issues into consideration. We just received a request from the DNR yesterday reminding us that we live in a very special area. We are surrounded by some of the "highest quality and most sensitive sites, such as shoreline bluff and salt marsh areas". The letter also reminds us that the Dabob Natural Area “encompasses rare examples of intact salt marsh and sand spit plant communities within one of Washington’s highest functioning coastal spit and tidal wetland systems…”. We care very deeply about preserving and protecting this environment where so much is at risk. We understand that you all can continue on your respective parcels. Everyone has the right to do what they feel is right with their land. Why is there such a strong press for us to participate when this is contrary to our core values? Ultimately, what is the size of vehicles that you want Twana Way to accommodate? If we are going to be pressured we would appreciate more transparency. Thank you, John and Michelle On Oct 25, 2023, at 10:40 AM, Karl VonBargen <karlvonbargen@yahoo.com> wrote: I agree with Richards letter and will add a couple of thoughts and examples. I think everyone has some self interest regarding their property and the road that accesses it. I have three selfish concerns. 1) I think it would be nice if I had a smooth road to drive on and I didn't have to worry about putting any of my vehicles in four wheel drive in order to get up the road without tearing it up. 2) With some work, I could probably make the road accessible to a lumber and concrete truck in order to complete my remodel project. But I would rather have a road builder do that for me. 3) I would like to be able to bring my travel trailer down to my lower property during the remodel. Those are my selfish interest, but what I am more concerned with is accessibility for all of the property owners on the road. Somewhat recently, I had my own problem getting my well repaired after my pump went out. I had to wait over 6 months for a weather window before the work could be done. That would be quite the hardship for any of the permanent residence of our road. Regarding emergency services. We need to talk with the local fire department, so we can get a clear understanding of what their capabilities would or could be regarding access down our road. I could go over everything Richard did and add argumentative thoughts backing up his, but I won't. His letter was very well articulated. I do have to say this though: Regarding doing just the minimum. I can't imagine that any of us do just the minimum in our personal or professional life. Do we want to tell the fire department... We're doing the minimal that will allow you "some" access. I would think we would rather give them some confidence that they can take some of their apparatus down our road and expect to be able to get turned around and out of there. In conclusion, I think our road standard should be that everyone be afforded the same access from top to bottom. Karl On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 02:17:39 PM PDT, <rrathvon@gmail.com> wrote: John and Michelle, I have talked with Marilyn and Karl before writing this response, as I wanted to make sure that I was not misreading your email. Let me start by saying that my objective relating to possible improvements to Twana Way was to approach this from a neighborhood (and neighborly) perspective with the objective of being upfront, transparent, collaborative, and inclusive. That being said, and while I am certainly not objecting to your opinions or viewpoints, my concern is how and what you chose to express in an email to all of the neighbors. Some of your statements are either incorrect, have seemingly used information provided during our meeting out of context, or appear inconsistent with the tone and substance of our conversation on Sunday. I am sending this email only to you, Karl and Marilyn because I wanted to raise these concerns directly with you first. Once you read this email, perhaps a call among the five of us would be helpful in order to ensure that we understand each other. Now, please allow me to address some of the statements in your email. First, you conclude that Twana Way already supports certain emergency vehicles, and you point to the 15-minute response time shared by Marilyn as an example. However, the relevant issue isn’t the 15-minute response time (we don’t know where the vehicle started from). Rather, the issue is the length of time it takes to get down Twana Way. If this had been a life-threatening emergency, minutes count – that’s the point. That’s the reason for the recommended private road standards issued by the Quilcene Fire District #2, and their view that in the case of an emergency, minutes count. Similarly, you conclude that the issue of emergency vehicle access is not currently an “active issue”. This seems inconsistent with our discussions on Sunday relating to what fire equipment could traverse Twana Way and the recommended standards issued by the Quilcene Fire District #2. Recall that an action item was to talk to the FD#2 folks to get their specific views relating to what fire and other emergency equipment could traverse Twana Way and under what road conditions. I had assumed – perhaps incorrectly -- that we all believed that this information would be relevant to our current conversation, yet you seemed to have already concluded otherwise. Second, you state that your understanding is that there are only 3 areas of the road that require repairs. I am confused as to how you arrived at this understanding. I know I mentioned 3 areas that one of the Hawley’s had expressed to me relating to what they wanted to see specifically addressed, but I mentioned this in the context of whether they might support some road improvements. Also, the three areas that you mentioned included only one of those mentioned by the Hawley’s. Furthermore, neither the Hawley’s nor our Sunday discussion addressed any improvements relating to the Rathvon or Hawley properties. Finally, the information provided in the materials we discussed on Sunday does not suggest only three areas requiring repairs. Third, I am not clear as to what you mean when you say that you support the “minimum repairs necessary”, which seems to have shifted a bit from the tenor of our conversation on Sunday. To summarize the discussions in our meeting, and as suggested in the Lower Cost Option, the minimum required improvements consist of, among other things, fixing most corners because they are dipping inward, which feeds further erosion (such as what is already occurring at the Oliver corner). Specifically, the Lower Cost Option proposal reflects the scope recommended by Stewart Excavating in response to the question, “what is the minimal level of work” required in order to provide a better maintained road that would allow safe traversing by service and emergency vehicles (and, therefore, presumably property owners). This proposal did not suggest the removal of any trees, did not suggest stone/gravel for the entire road, and retained the current water bar/ditches as the means to divert water flow. Is this consistent with your view of “minimum repairs necessary”? Moreover, during our meeting when we discussed water bars/ditches versus culverts to manage water runoff, you suggested something to the effect that the repairs should be done “the right way”, which could be interpreted as suggesting repairs beyond the scope included in the Lower Cost Option. Would culverts be within your view of “minimum repairs necessary”? Finally on this third point, would non-invasive turnouts where there is already space available, which were mentioned during our meeting as needed for safety concerns (and which are recommended by FD#2), be within your view of “minimum repairs necessary”? Fourth, relating to the “Oliver corner”, while I don’t wish to debate the wisdom of or your motivation for placing the rocks where they are currently, if the rocks are not removed, then the scope and cost of required repairs would be different. I believe that you are already aware of this given the separate proposal that you received to remedy this corner. Fifth, you appear to suggest that a significant consideration for the scope of road improvements should include the walkability of the road surface. While the walkability on a non-gravel surface may be desirable and hopefully could be achieved in part, it seems that the primary purpose and priority of the road and easement is to provide owners safe and reasonable access to their property, their ability to use it, and their ability to receive services (such as propane, furniture, appliances and repair services). Finally, I have additional concerns and questions relating to some of your other statements including: (i) large trucks “continually driving near” the slope at the Oliver corner; (ii) trucks larger than “a well digging truck” are not needed or “realistic” for Twana Way; (iii) you don’t want to “encourage increased traffic”; and (iv) homes have been built in the past with the “current road”. To summarize, Twana Way has clearly changed over the last 30 years, and service vehicles now resist or refuse to traverse the road. I recognize that our views, and the views of the other neighbors, may differ as to what repairs are needed for Twana Way. And I understand that views may evolve as we each collect more specific information/facts and have additional discussions. My objective is and has been to facilitate an open and constructive dialogue among us and among our other neighbors. Certainly, the needs of those property owners below your driveway – the point at which the road needs improvements – differ from your needs. But my hope is that we are able to align the various views as a neighborhood, but to do so will require continued clear, open and well- informed communication. We are happy to chat by phone or in person as needed. Best regards, Rich -----Original Message----- From: John DiMaggio <dimaggiojohn17@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 3:43 PM To: shawnbennett@yahoo.com; Nils Glomset <bglomset@comcast.net>; Nils Glomset <nglomset@gmail.com>; deedeehawley@yahoo.com; adleorocks@yahoo.com; shawley11@gemail .com; Paul Kooiman <Paul@kooimanphoto.com>; starphanie@gmail.com; mogul33@msn.com; karlvonbargen@yahoo.c om; ptatermwwalker@gmail.com; Richard Rathvon <rrathvon@gmail.com> Subject: Twana Road Proposals Hi everyone, First off, thank you Rich for organizing the meeting this past Sunday and thanks to Marilyn for hosting in her beautiful home. Michelle and I have thought about what we heard and what Rich presented as options for road repair. It was clear from the discussion that the road currently supports emergency vehicle access. The emergency crew reached Marilyn within 15 minutes of her call which is nearly unheard of in Quilcene. Karl, a retired fire fighter, explained that a large fire truck will never make it down Twana Way but the current road supports the smaller fire vehicles. Our understanding was that the two proposals were driven by the need to ensure emergency vehicle access. Though this is not an active issue we agree that some amount of road maintenance needs to occur. There are three spots we understand that require repairs: the curve above our driveway, the steep slope by Paul and Stephanie’s home and an area beyond the gate near the Rathvon and the Hawley properties. We fully support the minimum repairs necessary and it is our hope that the current road be changed as little as possible. Specifically, we would like to avoid the suggested tonnage of stone that would pave the entire road. We also do not favor removal of any trees or creation of larger turnouts. To let you all know, the rocks we placed above our driveway are to protect both the drivers and our fragile slope. Large trucks were continually driving near the top of the slope which triggered erosion. We also witnessed a car nearly tip down the slope. For these reasons, moving the rocks, as required in the two proposals, is not an option. We don’t want to encourage increased traffic and especially do not want to encourage even larger trucks using the “goat road". We recently saw a well digging truck successfully navigate Twana all the way to the Rathvon property; anything larger than this seems unrealistic and damaging to the road and to the environment. Houses at the bottom of Twana have been built in the past with the current road. We are not seeing a need to “improve” access for this reason. As full time Twana residents, we walk this road multiple times a day. We do not want the surface to become similar to Toandos as it will take well over two years for the stone to settle and become walkable again, and there is no guarantee that it will. Anyone that walks this road would be negatively impacted and this is a significant lifestyle concern. Even with the relatively higher traffic that Toandos receives it took around two years for the surface to become comfortably walkable again, and the stone still hasn’t completely settled. The smaller amount of traffic on Twana would require a much longer period of time for comfortable walking. We moved here specifically to get away from things like paved roads, high traffic and large trucks. We live in an area that is actively being preserved as a wilderness area and would like to minimize any disruption to that effort. It would be great to get a proposal that addresses the minimum maintenance needs so we can ensure continued emergency vehicle access and greater safety for the residents with as little disruption to residents and the environment as possible. We would love to hear from the folks who were unable to attend the meeting. Thanks, John and Michelle