HomeMy WebLinkAboutM041591
f ,\'\'"
MINUTES
WEEK OF APRIL 15, 1991
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner
B.G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. The Board members
interviewed a person interested in serving as a Jefferson County representative on the
Olympic Area Agency on Aging Advisory Board.
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS
CONTRACT re: Purchase of a 1991 International Model 2554. Five (5)
Yard Dump Truck; Pacific Coast Truck Center: Commissioner Brown moved to
approve the contract for the purchase of a 1991 International five yard dump truck with
Pacific Coast Truck Center as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
AGREEMENT. Supplement No.1; Base Mappin2 Project lTM0960);
Spencer B. Gross. Inc.: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that this supplement
includes the cost of flights to do mapping of Marrowstone Island. The contract is increased
for this additional work by $6,350.00. Commissioner Brown moved to approve Supplement
No. #1 to the agreement with Spencer B. Gross, Inc. as submitted. Commissioner Wojt
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Recommendation for Bid Award; One 1990 or newer Fiber21ass Hull
Outboard Boat. 175 hp Outboard Motor and one 1991 Galvanized Sin21e Axle
Trailer: Commissioner Brown moved to award the bid for 1990 Wahoo 2100 Offshore boat
to Langley Marina as recommended by the Public Works Department. The total cost of the
boat, motor and trailer is $27,189.31. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried
by a unanimous vote. "
Sam Swanson. Chairman of the Jefferson County Plannin2 Commission
re: Plannine Commission Concerns: Sam Swanson, Chairman of the Planning
Commission, came before the Board to discuss personal frustrations and concerns regarding
the Planning Commission process. He noted the following concerns:
I
'1' 7 '" - 0', h 30~:,t~, ~
r,. '.~: ' .'..-
l VOL
,-"
?I~';;: ~<0
'-
t.
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Page: 2
Stahl Road Vacation: Sam Swanson stated that the Planning Commission spent a great deal
of time going over this vacation request. They felt that the right-of-way needs to be
preserved for vehicular traffic in the future, due to the growth that is occurring in this area.
Mr. Swanson stated that he feels that the County shouldn't be vacating road rights-of-way.
Chairman Dennison noted that this vacation was reviewed on two occasions by the Board for
the transportation circulation needs. The County has a Road Vacation Ordinance which
governs this process.
Implementino Ordinance: The Planning Commission spent hundreds of hours on developing
this ordinance before it was sent to the Board. The discussion continued regarding the
process used in the adoption of this ordinance.
Hearino Examiner Ordinance: Sam Swanson asked why the Board didn't adopt the Planning
Commission recommendations for changes to this ordinance? The Board stated that they
reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations and made the changes to the ordinance
they felt were appropriate.
Chairman Dennison stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory board that makes
recommendations to the Board of Commissioners on land use projects and policies. Sam
Swanson stated that he is frustrated with the communications between the Planning
Commission and the Board of Commissioners.
Fred Grove, Planning Commission member stated that the Hearing Examiner Ordinance
eliminates 90% of the work that the Planning Commission currently does. Mr. Grove stated
that he knows this Ordinance was approved to allow the Planning Commission time to do
other policy work, but he added that several of the Commi$sion members do not understand
this. He asked the Board if a meeting could be set up with the Planning Commission to
explain some of the changes.
The discussion continued regarding the communication between the Board and the Planning
Commission and the role <?f the Planning Commission.
Sam Swanson asked that when the Board varies from the Planning Commission recommen-
dation, they send an explanation to the Commission regarding why the recommendation was
not followed. He also asked that the Planning Department staff provide information on what
is expected from the Planning Commission when a project is sent to them for review.
PLANNING AND BUILDING
State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination;
Relocate Wastewater Outflow Line; Quilcene Fish Hatchery SDP90-0007; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service: This proposal, Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported, is to
construct a 24" diameter underground pipeline to convey wastewater from the Quilcene
National Fish Hatchery to an existing settling basin. This project was originally approved
under Shoreline Permit #2-83 (DNS issued May 23, 1983). This permit expired before the
project was complete and permit #90-0007 was submitted and approved for the completion
of the project.
The pipeline, as permitted (permit #90-007), was to be a minimum of 25 feet from the river.
A right-of-way franchise was granted by the County for this pipeline. When a site inspection
was done by the Planning Department it was found that the pipeline was not installed in the
proper place. The pipeline is currently within 15 feet of the river.
A meeting was held at the site with the Planning Department staff, the County Engineer,
representatives from the State Department of Ecology and the Department of Fisheries, Seton
Construction and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to discuss the technical issues and
solutions to the problems created. The follwing issues were discussed:
1) Non-compliance with the permit.
2) The long term stability of the river bank.
3) Measures to be taken in the future to protect the pipeline should erosion occur.
4) Impacts to the County Road and the bank above it if the pipeline were placed in
the permitted alignment.
17 00 305
. Vûl 'fArl' ':'
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Page: 3
The options available to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are to place the pipeline in the
permitted alignment or to apply for a permit revision to allow placement of the pipeline as
built. The current proposal is to approve the re-alignment of the pipeline as it was built.
The County Engineer recommends that the pipeline not be placed in the originally permitted
alignment. He was concerned that this might impact the steep bank above the road and
would also necessitate closing the road while the work is performed.
The proposed revision would provide enhanced protection of the bank, Jim Pearson added.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to apply for a permit revision to keep the pipeline
as built. The Planning Department staff authorized the backfilling of the pipeline excavation
to provide enhanced vegetation of the bank and provide a means of protecting the pipeline
and the road in the event of bank erosion.
County Engineer Bob Nesbitt stated that in order to place the pipeline as permitted a cut
would have to be made in the toe of the bluff, which would undermine the hill above the
County Road. If the pipeline was removed from where it is currently more damage would
be done. '
Jim Pearson added that the technical issues have been addressed, but the "as builtll
alignment was not placed where the permit stated and the Planning Department staff feels
that this change requires a permit revision. The environmental checklist for this re-alignment
was then reviewed.
Commissioner Brown moved to issue a determination of non-significance and lead agency
status for this permit to re-align the wastewater outflow pipeline at the Quilcene Fish
Hatchery. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Review Comments Received on Miti2ated Determination of N on-Si2-
nificance; Fairwood Villa2e. 20 Lot Sin21e Family Attached Unit Residential
Subdivision on 9.3 Acres; West side of Teal Lake Road (1/4 mile South of
Paradise Bay Road); Pope Resources: Associate Planner Jerry Smith submitted and
reviewed the comments received on the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance issued
for the Fairwood Village Plat at Port Ludlow. He noted that the Osprey nest which is located
a quarter of a mile to the east of this project on the site of the Teal Lake Village project.is
protected by a condition of approval for that project. This should address the State
Department of Wildlife's recommendation that a mitigative measure for this Osprey be placed
on this project.
David Cunningham, Pope Resources, reported that the Osprey nest and the tree it was in
were blown to pieces during the December storm. Anita McMillan, Wildlife Biologist, has
documented that the nest is no longer on this site. One of the conditions of the Teal Lake
Village project is to study this nest and protect it according to the law. The suggested
mitigative measures are beyond any legal authority that the Department of Wildlife has
regarding the protection of Osprey. The Department of Wildlife has specific regulations
regarding Osprey, David Cunningham continued. He noted that Pope Resources has asked
the Department of Wildlife for these legal requirements and for their recommendation. They
have been asked to visit the site, but they were always too busy to make the trip. They
have been very uncooperative. Pope Resources is willing to see if there are suitable trees
and snags on the project site for alternative nesting sites for the Osprey.
David Cunningham also reported that the Department of Fisheries and the Department of
Wildlife have indicated that a Hydraulic Permit Approval is required for this project. He noted
that there is no clear authority for these Department's to impose this requirement on this type
~~~ '
Commissioner Brown moved to re-affirm the mitigated determination of non-significance issued
on the Fairwood Village project as issued. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. After
review of the mitigative measures proposed for this project the Chairman called for a vote
on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
, Yûl 1 7 rAGE 00- . GOG
ø
"
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Page: 4
Preliminary Lone Plat Approval #LP02-91; Fairwood Villa2e. 20 Lot
Sin2le Family Attached Unit Residential Subdivision on 9.3 Acres; West side of
Teal Lake Road (1/4 mile South of Paradise Bay Road); Pope Resources: Jerry
Smith reported that the traffic impact study has not been completed on the Teal Lake Village
project. This study was to include the Fairwood Village project. The Public Works
Department has submitted a draft preliminary review of the project, but noted that "until the
traffic impact study for Teal Lake Road. . . has been completed. .. . it should be noted that
the traffic impact study may require road design which could significantly alter the
configuration of the lots of the subdivision. Reconfiguration of the lots or other internal
redesign could reQuire re-review of the subdivision. /I
David Cunningham reported that the /lReport of Findings and Conclusions for Fairwood Village
at Port Ludlow/l is in error. The revisions the Planning Commission made to the conditions -
- (Item 1) condition 'a' was to have the word "attached" deleted. The report says the word
is to be added. Jerry Smith reported that the Planning Commission minutes and tapes will
be checked to see what was actually stated.
Commissioner Brown moved to table action on this preliminary plat until the recommendation
of the Planning Commission can be checked to make sure that it is correct. Commissioner
Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Request for Variance from the Requirements for a Short Subdivision;
Twelves Short Subdivision SP2-91 Eliminate Requirement to Improve Baldwin
Road to Minimum County Road Standards and Allow Access onto Robbins Road
for 0 e Lot· Two Lot Residential Short Subdivision on 4.55 Acres· Lois Twelves:
This v riance request is from two conditions of the administrative summary short subdivision
approv I granted February 15, 1991, Jerry Smith reported. Condition 5 required improve-
ments 0 Baldwin Road, a dead end County road, and Condition 6 required the approach for
propos Lot 1 to be off of Baldwin Road instead of Robbins Road. The variance from
Conditi n 5 is being requested to preserve the rural atmosphere of Marrowstone Island, to
minimi e the cutting of trees and to minimize traffic problems on this quarter mile dead-end
road. ere is a well known eagle's nest a short distance from the end of Baldwin Road.
The PI nning Commission findings and conclusions were then reviewed by Jerry Smith. The
Planni g Commission recommendation is to approve the variance subject to four conditions.
Lois T elves stated that this lane (Baldwin Road) is only two tenths of a mile long and the
road w uldn't ever go any further than her property. The right-of-way is only 30 feet in width
beyon her property. She reviewed the map of the short plat and the surrounding area with
the Bo rd.
Commi ioner Brown moved to approve the preliminary Twelves Short Subdivision SP2-91
and va 'ances as requested. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote. Jerry Smith reported that the preliminary plat is not ready for review yet.'
This re uest is for approval of the variances. Commissioner Brown retracted his motion and
Commi sioner Wojt retracted his second.
Commi sioner Wojt then moved to approve the variances as requested with the conditions
as pro osed. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
From 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. the Board met in Executive Session to interview a candidate
for the Director of Community Services. After that session the meeting was recessed. The
meetin I reconvened on Tuesday morning after the Health Board meeting. Commissioner B.
G. Bro n and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. Chairman Dennison was
in Oly pia testifying before the State Legislature.
LYQ1,. 1 7 rÂÍr! or
307
·
"
Commi sioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Page: 5
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP91-001; Construction of
a Sto a e Buildin . Point Whitne Shellfish Laborato · State De artmentof
Fishe es: This proposal, Jim Pearson reported, is to construct a one story metal frame
storag building at the site of the Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory on Hood Canal. This
project has been classified as a primary use in the conservancy designation. Hood Canal
and adj cent uplands are considered Shorelines of Statewide Significance and this project has
been r viewed for consistency with the specific policies and performance standards for such
shoreli eSt
The S oreline Management Master Program allows the Planning Department staff to make
recom endations on primary use permits. The Planning Department recommends that the
propos is consistent with the relevant policies and performance standards.
Commi sioner Wojt moved to approve Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP91-
0001 f r the Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory as recommended. Commissioner Brown
second d the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination;
SDP9 -0013 Construct oint Use Dock· Pleasant Harbor· Clifford Center: The
Shoreli e Management Master Program states a preference for joint-use docks over private,
single- urpose docks, Jim Pearson reported. Clifford Center submitted an application for a
single se dock and a Determination of Non-Significance was issued for it on November 5,
1990. After the Shoreline Commission hearing on the original project, Mr. Center submitted
a revis d proposal for a joint use dock. This dock will be for his use and the use of his
neigh rs on Lots 2 and 4. '
The ori~inal project included a 57 foot long pier and ramp connected to a 44 foot dock lying
parallell~o the shoreline. The revised proposal is for a pier, ramp and 55 foot T-shaped dock
extending 98 feet from the shoreline. The larger dock is to accommodate three boats instead
of one. Jim Pearson then reviewed the environmental checklist on the project and reported
that he did not feel this revision would require any changes in the checklist.
Commi sioner Wojt, moved to issue an addendum to the original determination of non-
signific ce for the revised joint use dock proposal submitted by Clifford Center and to uphold
the ori inal DNS. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried by a
unani ous vote.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA:
Commi sioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve the items as presented on the consent
agend. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RE OLUTION NO. 31-91 re: In the Matter of Adoption of Standards for Public Defense
Se ices for the Superior and District Courts
2. CO TRACT No. 91-19-05; Washington State Energy Code Implementation and
Enf rcement Program; Washington State Energy Office
3. Re uest for Payment; Second Quarter Allocation; Domestic Violence Sexual Assault
Pro ram
4. CO TRACT, Personal Services No. 91-10-18; Mental Health Services at Western State
Ho pital for Jefferson County Human Services; Kent Devine
5. Aept Resignation from the Storm Water Advisory Committee; John Heal
6. Ap lications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Earl S. Thomas
$ 0.00 and James Rogers $227.82
7. Re$oLUTION NO. 32-91 re: In the Matter of Increasing the petty Cash Fund for the
He~lth Department
8. Sigr Corrected Shoreline Permit #SDP90-o013 (Approved and signed April 1, 1991);
Cor ection to description
9. Ac ept Resignations from J. E. Mincks and John Reep; Civil Service Commission
lV01.
17 tV:
"r"
I ,
~~.
'308
^Jf:
';,'}'~
~, ,
..
"
Commi sioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Page: 6
The Board met in Executive Session from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. to interview a candidate
for the Director of Community Services. After that session the meeting was recessed. The
meetin was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. at the Gardiner Community Center for a workshop on
the 01 mpic Discovery Trail.
Public Meetin2 re: Olympic Discovery Trail Project; Gardiner Com-
munit Center: Chairman Dennison introduced the Board members, Public Works Director
Gary owe and the Clerk of the Board, to approximately 100 interested County residents.
He ex lained that the intent of the meeting is to clarify the position of the Board on this
issue, rovide some background on the project and to discuss the involvement of the National
Park S rvice and the Peninsula Trails Coalition in the project.
The C airman then explained that the position of the Board of County Commissioners is one
of sup ort of the project because they believe the idea has merit and support a planning
proces to look at the concept. The Board has stated publicly, on the record, that they do
not su port the use of condemnation to acquire right-of-way for a trail. They believe there
are alt rnatives including access across public property, that can be explored. The Board
does n t and will not support condemnation of private property for this purpose. The County
applied for a grant from the State Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation for the
Olympi Discovery Trail. Proposition 1 was put on the ballot and if it had passed would have
been u ed as a source of funding for the County's match for this grant. Chairman Dennison
explain d that lAC grant funds cannot be used for any project that includes condemnation.
Public orks Director Gary Rowe then reviewed a report he prepared for the Board regarding
the his ory to date on the Olympic Discovery Trail project.
Chairm n Dennison then read a letter from Charlie Sundberg, Project Coordinator for the
Nation I Park Service regarding their involvement in this project. He then introduced Mium
Rubin- rump of the Peninsula Trails Coalition to explain their involvement in this project.
Mium ubin-Crum reported that the Peninsula Trails Coalition is made up of residents of
Jeffers nand Clallam County who are looking to the County to take a leadership role to
make t is trail a reality. They hope to have a safe and beautiful trail that connects Port
Towns nd and Port Angeles. She stated there Is support for this trail from the State of
Washi gton and the National Park Service.
The tr iI is primarily for the local people. The Jefferson County Parks survey indicated that
this ty e of trail would provide opportunities for seven of the top 12 recreational past times
identifi d by Jefferson County residents. In that survey 81.6% of the respondents indicated
that th y walk; 58.5% picnic; 51.9% hike; 41.4% watch birds; and 36.4 bicycle.
In addi ion, local use trails are an attraction for tourists. The economic benefits of a non~
vehicle trail have been well documented. Experience has shown that trail users tend to be
a grou that take care of the land and resources, do not litter or vandalize property, and
bring b siness to area stores, hotels and restaurants.
The P ninsula Trails Coalition can provide research into such areas as creative funding,
design tandards and how to utilize volunteer labor in construction and maintenance of a trail.
They also assemble the planning information, in conjunction with the National Park
Servic , to provide the necessary information to the County in making decisions on
implem nting this trail plan, and assembling the local match in the form of soliciting land or
easem nt donation. The local match is needed for the lAC grant by June 15 and does not
have t come from general treasury funds.
The P ninsula Trails Coalition, Ms. Rubin-Crump continued, is in full agreement with the
Commi siòners position regarding the use of condemnation for acquiring property for any
portion of this trail. This is a strictly cooperative venture which can be financed through a
variety f creative means that won't cost the County a great deal. The Coalition has obtained
plannin grants to assemble the information for the trail.
Chairm n Dennison then asked the audience for questions and concerns.
Q. A man asked how many people at this meeting are opposed to a trail through their
yard down the right-of-way? (A majority of the people in the room raised their
t VOl
17 r~r,~ or
'309
,. ,.
Commi sioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Page: 7
hands). How many people would sell or give a lease through their yard on the
right-of-way? (No one raised their hands).
Tom adsen Tom Madsen questioned the date that the National Park Service (Charlie
Sundb rg's letter) became involved in the project. He read from a letter about statewide
·'Rails 0 Trailll plans.
Q. Are you prepared to oppose any agency condemning property for this trail?
A. Commissioner Bro~n responded by noting that the Board has stated their
opposition to condemnation at every meeting where this project has been
discussed.
Q. The Board says that they do not, and will not support condemnation. Does that
mean it cannot occur?
A. Chairman Dennison stated that it will not happen through the County.
Chairman Brown stated that he doesn't know who else has the authority to
condemn property.
Q. Have you considered any other alternatives if people do not want to sell their
property or lease it? What other alternatives can you' tell us?
A. Commissioner Brown responded that alternatives will be explored in the plan.
The plan from the start has been that only willing participants would be
considered. Other routes would be chosen to fill in between.
Q. Does the railroad property definitely belong to the landowners that are adjacent to
it?
A. Any ownership that the Milwaukee Road had which was purchased by the
adjacent property owners is their property, Commissioner Brown noted.
Some of the railroad right-of-way deeds were questionable.
In res nse to a question about the State's effort to purchase the railroad corridor from the
Milwau ee Road, Commissioner Brown reported that the legislature appropriated the money
to buy e trail, but the titles to many pieces of the property were in doubt and title insurance
could n t be purchased for them.
The dis ussion turned to citizenship and the need for a low country trail in this area.
Q. A man asked for a show of hands of the people in the room who would be
interested in seeing some kind of a trail if one could be put together without going
through any personal property?
A. Observation - A majority of the people in the room raised their hands.
Q. Was grant money obtained to buy the first part of trail corridor from the area of the
Boat Haven out past the paper mill to Nelson's Landing Road?
A. Chairman Dennison reported that the matching money for the grant is not
available. The County has to make a, decision by June if this grant money
will be turned back to the lAC.
Q. Can this (the grant) be matched by work equivalent.
A. Gary Rowe reported, that part of the grant can be matched with work, but
there is a limit on how much lIin kindll match can be contributed.
A lady tated that she has five acres with the railroad corridor going through the middle of
it. She has planted 1,000 trees in the area, and a well sits in middle of the railroad right-
of-way. She stated that it doesn't seem logical to have a trail through it. Chairman Dennison
reiterat d that if a property owner doesn't want a trail across their property, it will not go
across heir property. .
,'lot
1 7 rA~t 00 ,.
~o
(',t
Commi ioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Q. What, so far, has been spent on this trail?
A Chairman Dennison stated that the County hasn't spent anything on the trail
so far. The County has dedicated some staff time. The County would be
willing to consider using County Road rights-of-way, either open or unopened,
as part of the grant matching funds. Gary Rowe added that a portion of the
old railroad right-of-way near the State Highway 20 overpass near Port
Townsend was dedicated to the public in several plats as streets. When the
right-of-way was sold, the County negotiated for a portion of it' to continue
the county road in this area. This wás done before any efforts were started
to obtain grant funds through the lAC. The County purchased about a 1/4
mile of right-of-way in this area for $11,000.00.
Page: 8
Q. Has the County benefited financially from the sale of the right-of-way where it was
purchased outright? If so, how much in taxes is the County receiving from this
property?
A Chairman Dennison stated that he has no idea how much more in taxes the
County gets from this right-of-way, but it is now being taxed. Gary Rowe
reported that there is a Real Estate Excise tax in the County that is charged
on any real estate sale. The tax is 1.53%. Of that, 1/4 of 1% goes to the
County's Capital Improvement Fund. The difference goes to the State of
Washington. The County did not get any portion of the proceeds of the
,sales. A man reported that the purchaser of the railroad property was
required to pay the Real Estate Excise Tax.
Q. Was a grant received for the railroad corridor from the City limits to Highway 20?
A Gary Rowe reported that a grant was received for right-of-way acquisition
from the City limits to the west end of Nelson's Landing Road. This right-
of-way was acquired to provide a truck route corridor to Port Townsend
Paper Company. In conjunction with the development of this road as a truck
route a trial/bike access will be provided.
Q. What other alternate trail plans are there, other than the railroad corridor?
A Chairman Dennison stated that alternatives are being worked on. One
possibility is to use road rights-of-way, both opened and unopened.
Q. How many people on the Olympic Trails Coalition are being paid by the State?
A Mium Rubin-Crump stated that she is the only staff person with the Olympic
Trails Coalition. She started in November under a Department of Ecology
planning grant. She is a professional planner who is paid $15.00 per hour
for working half time.
Chairm n Dennison asked if people still think a trail will go across property if they don't want
it to? ( number of people responded, YES.) Chairman Dennison asked what it would take
to mak the people feel comfortable that this won't happen? Several' people responded that
an alte ative route would help. Chairman Dennison reiterated that if a properly owner
doesn't want the trail on their properly IT WILL NOT BE ON THEIR PROPERTY.
Q. What about beyond the initial cost? Who is going to take care of the trail?
A Chairman Dennison answered that answering these questions is the reason
for the planning process. The Board of County Commissioners isn't going
to accept a project that isn't going to work.
A lady tated that she doesn't think the County can guarantee that a trail won't go through
a perso s private property. This has gone beyond that. There is no way to police a trail like
this. Sh then read from the March 27 meeting minutes of the Peninsula Trails Coalition: /I.
. . Clall m County Chapter Peninsula Trails Coalition. . . Rick Tollefson explained the scope
of PTC ctivities in Jefferson County. The Jefferson County section of the trail is 22 miles,
Clallam County 34. PTC in Jefferson County decided to maintain a small group infiltrating
the pol' leal system. ... Rick, chairs the Jefferson County Parks Board and Larry Scott
VOL
17 rAr,E 00
31-1
~
'.
Comm ssioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Page: 9
serves on that Board as a means of infiltration. This lady asked if we want these people
control ing our property?
Anoth r lady urged everyone to cooperate in developing some alternatives for a trail.
Reed unstone, Advisory Committee Member, stated that he is concerned because he is
getting contradictory statements. The Articles of Incorporation for the Peninsula Trails
Coaliti n specifically stipulate that the railroad corridor is going to be the route for the trail.
The tr iI is named. Any alternation of the route will be in violation of their Articles of
Incorp ration. They list the railroad corridor route as a public transportation corridor. This
is fals . It was a private, for profit, transportation route. These errors need to be changed.
Who i the lead agency? Where does the buck finally stop? Who' choose the Advisory
Commi ee? Mis-information needs to be stopped and is what is causing the landowners
concer. He added that as long as the National Park Service and the Peninsula Trails
Coaliti n are involved in promoting this trail, on this route, there will be opposition to it. The
whole roces must change which means getting local people and more property owners
involv . The County needs to take the lead on this project.
Commi ioner Wojt stated that the railroad right-of-way was the focus for the trail, it wasn't
the tra I. If a person owns the right-of-way and they don't want the trail on that right-of-
way, en they won't be a property owner along the trail. How will the County ascertain who
the Ian owners are if there is an alternate route?
Reed unstone asked if the plan right now is for the County to take the lead on this project?
Commi sioner Wojt stated that part of the reason for this meeting is to establish who is in
charge Reed Gunstone then asked for clarification of the Board's position on this project.
Chairm n Dennison stated that the project will go ,through a planning process to develop a
project plan. Nothing happens with that plan unless the local governments (Clallam and
Jeffers n Counties and the Cities that are involved) take the option to implement it. These
are th only agencies that can implement that plan. Once the plan is complete the County
has to go through its' complete public hearing process on it.
Reed unstone stated that there were eight other agencies that signed the Memorandum of
Unders anding, and that's the problem. Chairman Dennison stated that the Clallam County
Commi sioners and the City of Port Angeles, can not commit Jefferson County to anything.
The di cussion turned to the problems that the property owners have had with people
trespassing on the railroad right-of-way because they have heard that it is a trail.
A man stated that there are two issues with this project: 1) The issue of condemnation and
prope rights, and 2) What is happening to the communities involved. The property owners
don't t ust the leadership of Peninsula Trials Coalition. They feel, even though the
Commi ioners have stated that they won't condemn property that there may be a way
throug some State or federal office to get this trail on this right-of-way. How do you get the
good f ith back? If the leadership of the Peninsula Trails Coalition is really interested in
seeing this trail have a chance, they should resign and let a new Coalition and Advisory
Commi ee be selected.
A lady sked why people are so locked into having the railroad right-of-way being the trail?
She st ted that the community needs trails and they can be anywhere. We don't have to
have a trail from Port Townsend to Port Angeles.
Glen untin ford Peninsula Trails Coalition and Member of the 01 m ic Discove Trail
Adviso Committee: Glen Huntingford stated that 80 to 85% of the people on the Advisory
Comm' ee work for Clallam or Jefferson County. There should be more property owners on
the mmittee. The last Advisory Committee meeting started with Charlie Sundberg
sugges ing that all the options within a mile of the railroad corridor be looked at, but as soon
as that discussion was finished the focus changed to the railroad corridor. Maybe this thing
needs 0 start over with a broad look at the project.
A lady tated that there is no longer any railroad right-of-way. It is now private property and
should e referred to as the railroad corridor. She added that she does not understand why
anyone who wants to preserve a greenbelt would want to put a, strip of asphalt to make a
bicycle path when there are already County road right-of-way that would serve that purpose.
VûL
1 7 r~J,~ 00
3:12
{
Comm ssioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15,1991
Page: 10
The St te plan is to acquire the railroad right-of-way, another man reported. He advised that
he ha a letter from the Governor dated April 4, 1991 that says that.
Tom adsen stated that he has seen national magazines that show maps with the Olympic
Discov ry Trail shown on the railroad right~of-way.
Chai an Dennison asked what it would take for people to believe that the trail will not be
routed on anyone's property that doesn't want it? Mr. Madsen stated that all the people that
say th t they would be willing to have a trail through their property should be the ones that
work 0 the project.
Mium ubin-Crum responded to Glen Huntingford by noting that the last Advisory Committee
meetin was to discuss goals and issues of a trail. The focus of the meeting became issues
with th major issues having to do with the railroad corridor. She further reported that she
has b en trying to put together a group of landowners to work directly in the planning
proces. Chairman Dennison urged those property owners who are willing to work on a
Commi ee to contact Mium.
Q. Would it be an advantage and make the community feel more comfortable to ask
the NPS to step down as facilitator and have the County Chair the Advisory
Committee?
Many eople in the room indicated that this would be a good idea. Chairman Dennison
stated hat this suggestion should be given consideration.
A lady stated that she hikes trails and would like to know what property is private and what
isn't. he asked for a map that would indicate the private property. A man suggested that
private property should be posted until this is settled, because people are using the railroad
corrido as a trail right now. He suggested that a notice be put in newspaper that the
railroa right-of-way is privately owned and people should get' permission before they go on
it. Ch irman Dennison agreed that this is a good suggestion.
A man who indicated he was a founding member of the Peninsula Trails Coalition Board
offered to step down if it would help the process. The PTC is a volunteer group that feels
this id a has merit. The County should be addressing this issue.
Gene eton: Gene Seton stated that some of the property for the Trail will have to be
purcha ed. Who will own the land? Chairman Dennison stated that the County would own
the pr perty.
Q. A man asked what merits this type of corridor would offer the community beside
its use as a trail?
A. Chairman Dennison stated that there are a number of potential uses. Open
space, drainage, wildlife habitat, wetland, or other sensitive area uses.
Chairm n Dennison stated that the Board is hearing that the planning process has some
flaws. He added that he personally feels that the problems can be addressed and solved
if peo Ie are willing to see solutions. If people are using the issues as a front for
opposit on, then the planning process probably won't work.
unstone stated that he has had people ask him if this corridor would be the route for
ipeline. That is one of the issues that has been discussed.
Geor Brown: George Brown asked what people think the width of a trail would be? He
noted at Charlie Sundberg was asked this and he said it could be anywhere from 30 feet
to 200 feet in width.
Anothe man stated that it appears that proposals are being made to spend State taxpayers
money ithout a real need being identified or a priority established. He asked that someone
look at how many miles of trails there are in this County and in Clallam County in relation
to the est of the State to determine a need.
Q. A lady asked who beside the County has the authority to condemn property?
VOL
1 7 i'ÞC,E on
31-3
·
.' þ
Commi ioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 15, 1991
Page: 11
A. Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't know in this instance who has the
authority to condemn property. If the question is who beside the County has
the authority to condemn property, the State and the Federal government do.
Q. How can this be clarified?
A. Through the planning process.
Q. Does there have to be a plan before applications are made for grant funding?
A. There was not, a plan for the trail when the grant funding was applied for.
It was hoped that Proposition 1 would pass to provide the matching funds,
but that was not the case. There is not currently any money to provide the
grant matching funds.
Gary Rowe reported that the County has a Comprehensive Parks Plan that
covers a whole range of park and recreation opportunities for the County.
Q. Could a levy for funding of the project be put before the voters?
A. Chairman Dennison explained that Proposition 1 was on the November
election ballot in 1990 which would have provided money for this type of
project. It did not pass. Another levy proposition can not be put before the
voters by June.
Q. What would you have to do to get the National Park Service and Charlie Sundberg
to step back from the project?
A. Commissioner Brown advised that he spoke with Charlie Sundberg, who
indicated that he is not interested in being a part of a project that is as
controversial as this one has become. He was to be a neutral facilitator/mod-
erator and that is not working.
A man suggested that if the idea for a trail has merit there should be a planning process and
who e er runs the process must be given the public confidence. It should not be perceived
that th y are conspiring to do something that people don't want done.
Rick T IIefson Chairman of the Jefferson Parks Adviso Board and Member of the Peninsula
Trails oalition: Rick Tollefson stated that he got involved with this when the railroad owned
all of t Ie corridor because he felt the project was a good idea. He added that it has been
difficult to garner the kind of excitement that is present at this meeting to bring the issues on
the table. A leadership role needs to be taken by County government because that's the
only w y anything will happen. There needs to be local control and local accountability.
Anothe man stated that the Gardiner Community Plan suggests that a trail be planned along
the 01 Gardiner Highway. He added that he is concerned about who will police a trail if it
is built back in the brush. Who will protect the people that own the property and the people
that ru on the trail? Who will take care of a fire hazard and trash collectiory?
The di cuss ion then turned to priorities for funding.
Q. Where do Jefferson and Clallam County stand within the State on the number of
miles of trails? How many miles of trails are there in Jefferson County?
A. A man has walked all of the trails in the County in one summer. Chairman
Dennison noted that the proposed trail being discussed is a lowland trail and
many of the trails that exist currently are up in the mountains or in the hills
and probably not accessible to all the people that like to hike.
Q. What is the next step in the process?
A. Chairman Dennison stated that he has heard through this meeting that the
process is not working very well. Since the planning process is just being
started, there is time to make adjustments. The County will look into the
alternatives for facilitation of' the planning process. This will be a long term
, I'"
"!.op.
17 hç,~ or
M4
ioners1MeetingMinllte$:yveek.OfApriL15. 19~1
process and Chairman Deonisonasked everyone to be ' pàtient,notonlywith
the process, but with <me another. If everyone will Vlorktogetheron areas
where t~te,is 'ágreeí:nent,the processcanbe~arted, and. soQ)edaythe
County may, have something everyooe can ~"proudof~ " .,'
Win théCountybe the.L.eadAgeoçy on the project?
. >,. ,:-