ATTEST: Margaret Rosenkranz,

Auditor & Ex-Officio

Clerk of the Board

November 3, 1997, at 9:45 a.m., a proposal to increase the Coroner’s salary effective January 1, 1998.

Before the Board was a proposal to amend Island County Code, Chapter 2.20A.020.A, qualifications of Fair Board Appointees of Board of County Commissioners and 2.20A.020G, location of Island County Fair Association, Inc., meetings, proposed to be amended as follows:

2.20A.020.A

The Fair Association Board of Directors shall consist of eleven (11) positions/

members, three (3) of which shall be appointed directly by the Board of

Commissioners from residents of the three respective Whidbey Island School

Districts. Appointed directors need not be members of the Fair Association.

meetings in the last Fair Association year. Initially the South Whidbey appointee

shall be appointed for one (1) year, the Central Whidbey appointee for two (2)

years and the North Whidbey appointee for three (3) years. Subsequently said

terms shall be for three (3) years each.

2.20A.0-20.G

All rRegular membership meetings of the Island County Fair Association, Inc.

location as necessity dictates will be held May through September at the Island

at the Fairgrounds. Public notice (with available agenda) of all regular meetings

of the Fair Association shall be provided during the week preceding the date

of said meetings.

Commissioners McDowell and Shaughnessy did not support the proposed change to ICC Section 2.20A.020.A, but agreed they would be willing to consider at public hearing proposed changes to ICC Section 2.20A.020.G.

By unanimous motion, the Board scheduled a Public Hearing on November 10, 1997, at 11:30 a.m., to consider Ordinance #C-58-97, Amendment to ICC 2.20A.020.G, location of Island County Fair Association, Inc., meetings.

Larry Kwarsick, Public Works Director, requested the Board accept on behalf of Island County the Performance Bond, and execute the Contract, with Lakeside Industries, under CRP #97-09, North Camano Drive Guardrail and Overlay Project, per bid awarded last Monday, once both original signed documents are in hand. According to Dick Snyder, Construction Engineer, the contractor will not be given letter to start project until said contract is received and signed.

By unanimous motion, the Board authorized approval of and signature on the Performance Bond and Contract with Lakeside Industries, once both original signed documents are received from the Contractor.

Mr. Kwarsick recommended termination of Agreement for Professional Services with HLB Property Services, per Contractor’s written request. The services provided under the agreement are associated with right-of-way and real property acquisition. The Contractor is now employed with Puget Sound Energy. Mr. Snyder advised that the Department had almost completed review and evaluation of new submittals by interested consultants and probably would conduct interviews next week, anticipating to have one or two contracts to provide these services.

By unanimous motion, the Board terminated Professional Services Contract with HLB Property Services.

Mr. Kwarsick requested that the Board approve Resolution #C-59-97 in the matter of adopting a citizen participation strategy for CDBG funding. This strategy is a prerequisite for submittal of block grants for eligible projects, and contains 7 components:

1) Public Hearing to discuss the range of activities that receive CDBG funding, respond to proposals and questions about community development and housing needs and to inform citizens of Island County about any proposed uses of block grant funds.

2) Announcement of the availability of funds, requiring in addition to public notice, preparation of fact sheet.

3) Responding to requests for assistance within the limitations and resources for Island County, provide some information, assistance and guidance to individuals who may be seeking community block grant funding.

4) Review of community development and housing plan which entails, in part, activity that

is currently under way under the Growth Management Act.

5) Provide opportunities to comment on proposals once a proposal has been selected and

developed to provide citizens with an opportunity to review and comment on a proposal.

6) Provide an ongoing participation process in the event that a submittal is funded and a project under way to provide citizens with an opportunity to comment on the project before completion of the project.

7) Grievance procedure consistent with requirements of the block grant program.

Commissioner McDowell asked that as relates to Item #2 above, a fact sheet be mailed to Partnership with Youth and the Oak Harbor Senior Center.

By unanimous motion, the Board adopted Resolution #C-59-97, Citizen Participation Strategy for Community Block Grant funding in Island County.

WHEREAS, Island County has previously sought and may continue to seek Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the State of Washington’s Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development; and

WHEREAS, Island County will involve citizens in a process leading to the determination by the Board of County Commissioners that a request for CDBG funds is appropriate and represents the County’s highest priority CDBG eligible project; and

WHEREAS, the County will follow a Citizen Participation Strategy each year before the County considers a possible CDBG application and after receiving any CDBG funding; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the attached Island County Citizen Participation Strategy for Community Development Block Grant Funding (Attachment A) is hereby ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1997.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Mike Shelton, Chairman

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

Tom Shaughnessy, Member

Attest: Margaret Rosenkranz, County Auditor &

Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board

Funding, Grievance Procedure

A Public Hearing was held on Island County’s proposed submission of a Community Development Block grant to the State of Washington, Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, as scheduled and advertised for this date and time. The purpose of the hearing was to take input from the community relative to community needs relating to eligible block grant program activities.

Mr. Kwarsick explained this is a competitive federal funding program for a broad range of projects, with general purpose grants available in five categories: 1. Housing; 2. Economic Development; 3. Community Facilities; 4. Public Facilities; and 5. Comprehensive [includes at least two of the first 4]. All projects funded by the CDBG must meet one of three national objectives: (1) principally benefit persons of low income; (2) prevent or eliminate slums or blight; (3) meet urgent community development needs which pose a serious and immediate threat to public health or safety.

Eligible applications can be funded up to $750,000. Past applications for Island County community clinics were funded up to 1/2 million dollars. Cities and towns with a population of less than 50,000 or counties with a population of 200,000 or less, are eligible to submit applications. The next due date for applications is November 14, 1997. In terms of Island County the low-to-moderate income means [related to a family of 4]:

low income = 27,550/year; moderate = $43,500/year.

Marla Ries, Executive Director, Camano Senior Services Association, Camano Island, requested Island County recommend its support for a CDBG for partial funding of a community senior center on Camano Island. The request was based on need for a community center established by a pilot mobilization project which the Island County Health Department is in the process of developing, and based on the limited space that exists at the Camano Center at this time. The Center can no longer accommodate the needs of the senior population nor the community on Camano Island. Because of that many of the needs of seniors are not being met because the services cannot be provided. To be added to the proposed facility, would be an adult day care 5-day a week facility which is not now available on Camano Island. The need is such that many older people with spouses in some sort of stage of dementia end up leaving Camano Island because there is no facility to help the family. CSSA raised over $220,000 to date to help fund this project.

Suzana Dentel, Island Opportunity Council, attended the hearing to listen and see if the program fit in with what they are doing as far as future proposals related to some of the strategies created in the Island County Continuum Care Project . Several strategies have been created and in terms of a block grant proposal, she thought probably the most relative component of the Continuum Care process would be the housing component. In the 5 year strategies the three housing components are:

At this point, Ms. Dentel did not believe the Council would submit a grant for this funding cycle because of the very tight timeframe, but for the future, suggested these other issues be considered.

Mr. Kwarsick confirmed that future public hearings would be scheduled so that people such as the Opportunity Council, and others, could provide input to the Board that matches the grant submittal cycles. The County is only able to submit one grant in this cycle, and in view of the fact that it is unlikely the housing component of the Continuum Care grant would l develop to the point of being able to submit a grant, the priority would appear to be the proposal that has matching funds available and will have a grant prepared in time to meet the submittal date.

There being no others indicating a desire to provide input, the hearing portion was closed.

By unanimous motion, the Board adopted the Camano Senior Services Association

proposal as the priority for Island County for this year’s CDBG grant funding.

Mr. Kwarsick advised that the application would be in draft by November 4, and will be available to the community on Camano Island for review. If the project is submitted and funded, during the course of the project itself there will be a public hearing on Camano Island to take input relative to implement of the project itself.

A proposed resolution was presented for Board approval to authorize call for bids for 2 articulated front end bucket loaders and setting November 6, 1997, at 1:00 p.m. as the time to receive bids. This issue was discussed last week with the Board during Staff Session. The proposal is to replace two existing loaders, one in Coupeville and Camano Road Shops.

Commissioner McDowell recalled the Board had not been completely convinced this was the best thing to do, but agreed to see what prices could be obtained for said equipment but that prior to making any decision, the Board wanted to compare the price of a new machine versus repairing existing machines.

Chairman Shelton was aware of the condition of the front loader at the Coupeville Shop and definitely believed it needed to be replaced, whether new or used, his opinion was it needed to be near new.

Jack Taylor, Maintenance Superintendent, reported the current equipment status to be as follows:

Even to repair the old worn out equipment, there is no guarantee that the engine or another part would not fail in the future. Specifications for new machines includes the stipulation that used units need to be under 1500 hours and no more than 3 years old.

The Board, by unanimous motion, adopted Resolution #R-59-97 authorizing call for bids for 2 articulated front end bucket loaders, bids to be received November 6, 1997, at 1:00 p.m.

TWO (2) NEW OR USED ARTICULATED FRONT END BUCKET LOADERS.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Specifi-cations and bid documents, are approved as written, and the County Engineer is authorized and directed to call for bids for furnish-ing Island County with said equipment; BID OPENING to be the 6th day of November, 1997 at 1:00 p.m., in Public Hearing Room #3, Courthouse Annex, Coupeville, Washington.

ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1997.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Mike Shelton, Chairman

Tom Shaughnessy, Member

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

Island County Auditor &

Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board

Roy Allen, County Engineer, stated that the original CRP was $79,000, and included $25,000 for geotechnical and engineering plans, specs and investigation, $50,000 for construction, $4,000 contingencies. During excavation work it was necessary, in order to keep traffic flowing, to add crushed material, an additional change from standard ballast and crushed of 1’ depth to a material 5/8" for binding purposes. Additionally a change order is being presented today in the amount of $15,603.00 to excavate and haul off site material from slope and construct a rock retaining wall. The construction is to be accomplished by contract and the project is made a part of the officially adopted annual road program a Item #24, emergency repair.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Resolution #R-55A-97 initiating CRP 97-05 (A), W.O. 237, Humphrey Road.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Change Order #6, Humphrey Road Reconstruction project under work order #237, increasing Contract by $15,603.00, to add the following work to the contract: excavate & haul off-site material from slope that encroaches upon proposed area of storm drain line and construct a rock retaining wall.

By unanimous motion the Board approved Growth Management Act grant, with the funds to be applied toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, UGA and Joint Planning Agreements and Sub-Area Plans. Grant includes an in-kind match of $185,750 in salaries, benefits and administration, for a total grant of $41,047.

As presented by Lee McFarland, Assistant Director, General Services Administration, Property Management Division, the Board by unanimous motion accepted and signed final closing papers for acquisition of Morris Property knows as "English Boom", including Estimated Closing Statement, statutory warranty Deed, Excise Tax Affidavit and Supplement to the closing Agreement and Escrow Instructions, for the actual amount of $80,226.80.

Maxine Sauter, Island County Treasurer, provided a brief summary from her written report provided under cover Memo dated October 14, 1997, for the period ending September 30, 1997, Cash Receipts/Budget-Current Expense Year to Date, Statement of Cash Operations and footnotes to Treasurer’s financial report. The status at this time is fairly close to target (75%). Those few revenues appearing to be under target included, Weed Control, Coroner, Maintenance, Jail. Property tax will adjust after the 10/31/97 tax collection period, and liquor excise tax will be received towards the end of the year. As far as Treasurer’s investments, some $61,700,000 is invested all with banks and government pool.

Margaret Rosenkranz, Auditor, had no "alarms" to alert the Board to based on this report.

For the most part, expenditures showing over target will be taken care of by adjustments

later in the year to show transfers that were approved from Commissioners’ Contingency.

Joan Drinkwin and Kevin Anderson, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT) appeared before the Board to discuss the current work plan for Puget Sound Water Quality and the next plan, as well as review the Commissioners’ perspective in terms of local priorities for protection of Puget Sound.

County Staff Attending: Larry Kwarsick, Public Works Director; Tim McDonald, Health Services Director; Joye Emmens, Environmental Health Director; Dave Bonvouloir, Solid Waste Manager; Julie Buktenica, Surface Water Manager; Janet Kearsley, Watershed Project Assistant.

Handouts Provided: Today’s Agenda; Fact Sheet on Puget Sound Water Quality Work Plan; Identified Island County Water Quality Issues for the 1997-99 Plan; Actions in Island County; and Public Process for Next Work Plan.

Ms. Drinkwin commented that the Action Team was directed by the Legislature to develop a work plan every two years to direct state agencies and document what local governments, conservation districts and tribes are doing to protect Puget Sound. The Plan was designed to implement the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.

Island County Water Quality Issues identified in the development of the 1997-99 Plan were:

(shellfish, wetlands, streams)

• funding for local programs
• increased communication among and within state agencies

After looking at those issues, the Action Team selected a number of priorities to guide development of work plan. Some of the basic priorities were included in the work plan:

Under those issues, after determining priorities for the work plan, actions were put into the work plan to cover what state agencies would do with the money provided to protect Puget Sound, i.e. the Department of Fish & Wildlife recently hired more people to do technical assistance for fish habitat issues, and the Department of Health is providing technical assistance for on-site sewage systems to local governments. Actions occurring in Island County include state actions as well as actions Island County committed to do last year.

Island County committed to the following actions in the current plan:

Ms. Drinkwin brought forward for discussion the current work plan and how the Commissioners believe it has progressed, and their thoughts as far as what the State could do to assist in implementation of that work plan.

Chairman Shelton recalled that as a result of last winter’s storm, the County suffered from multiple problems from stormwater runoff. One of the frustrating things after such a catas-trophic event is in relationship to restoration programs implemented in Island County that had been altered by state agencies, particularly, Fish & Wildlife, such that where pre-storm the County had a stormwater system, Fisheries is now requiring restoration to a salmon stream [Glendale on Whidbey Island, and a project on Camano Island]. While the County is willing to accept the responsibility for restoration of the systems as they existed, when the salmon stream proposal came from Fish & Wildlife the County needs financial help to cover the added cost to make that stream a salmon stream. Also germane is the issue of a timely permitting process as related to Glendale where he felt in this case had placed some citizens in danger with winter coming on because the County has not been able to do what needs to be done. The County hired an engineering firm to put together a plan and design the stream to restore the steam to a salmon stream, but he understood Fish & Wildlife had not approved that plan.

Mr. Kwarsick reported that on the Glendale project, there had been some verbal comments, but a permit had not yet been received from State Fish & Wildlife, but Julie Buktenica apparently received a letter with respect to the project on Camano Island. Ms. Buktenica recalled quite a bit of input from Fish & Wildlife, who sent an engineer here for half a day and spent time in the field with her regarding Glendale, and time with the engineers. She thought Fisheries had been fairly clear about what would be approved and was just a question of getting it on paper and submitting it to the Department.

Janet Kearsley remembered that the County applied for grants but did not receive any, other than a loan. What Department of Fisheries is requiring and the funds from the federal government do not match. The cost of the project will be more than what funds the County has , and it is a matter of having to adjust the project to make it cost affordable and still meet Fisheries requirements.

Commissioner McDowell pointed out the fact that Fisheries required the project go beyond what was there prior to the storm, yet the County has limited funds and expanding the project

without financial help could make the project not possible. Another example is the storm outfall on Camano Island, where Fisheries wanted the County to replace the whole system with a stream capable of supporting salmon, taking the project from what should be $2,000-$5,000 up to $230,000. At the point in time the system needs to be replaced would be the time to deal with what Fisheries is asking for, rather than replacing a short outfall now with a 1/4 million dollar project without providing the necessary funding.

Ms. Drinkwin will meet tomorrow with the individual hired to help provide more technical assistance to Fisheries for Island, San Juan, Skagit and Whatcom counties, and agreed to broach the issue with him.

Chairman Shelton recalled having heard at the summer WSAC conference in Spokane a testimonial to what Oregon had done avoiding listings under the Endangered Species Act. This is another example: if counties are to avoid listings under the Endangered Species Act, it will not work if the State mandates that without providing the necessary funding. He hoped that the Puget Sound Action Team would provide some leadership in terms of getting that message to the Governor, i.e. Island County is willing to do what it takes as long as the State provides the dollars to help. He cited Glendale Creek as a classic example; the Board has no problem with designating Glendale Creek as a salmon creek but needs funding to help with that and that funding has to come from the State.

Commissioner McDowell referred to the handout [green sheet ] the Island County water quality issues 1997-99 plan, education and support for local stewardship programs, and noted that one of the major stewardship programs in Island County is Beach Watchers, had over 100 people complete the program and certified, The support received from the State is small, in the area of $28,000, and he understands will not be available a year from now. He encouraged Ms. Drinkwin put "Support for Local Stewardship Programs" on the "Action Sheet".

Ms. Drinkwin stated that she met with citizens a few nights ago to try to be more inclusive in the process and talked with Susan Berta from the Beach Watchers program and a number of volunteers, and was impressed by the number of volunteers and how cost effective the program is. She encouraged the Beach Watchers apply again for PIE funding - applications being accepted for that in the future.

Janet Kearsley stated that with respect to the Beach Watchers program, the Department of Ecology seemed to be geared more for the urban area and provides seed moneys to start programs, expecting local jurisdictions to continue the program with local funds after that. Her thought was that a shift needs to be made at the State level that while urban areas have the base funding to do that, rural areas do not. Rural jurisdictions need to be treated differently than the urban areas.

Ms. Drinkwin referred to the last page of today’s handout, a diagram of the public process for developing the work plan for 1999-2001. Information from today’s meeting, along with information from other meetings held around the Sound, will be summarized in a report that will be provided in January or February of 1998. All issues identified will be forwarded to the Action Team and Puget Sound Council. The idea is to use those issues when setting priorities for the next work plan and budget.

She suggested the Commissioners review what was identified last round and see if there would be anything they wanted to carry over, or something that should be deleted, as well s anything new.

Commissioner Shaughnessy believed that habitat issues would be addressed throughout the State, but Island County and San Juan County are minor players, and thus questioned how much would be accomplished with what he sees as a new priority the Governor identified. On the other hand, Island County has known stormwater problem and needs to stay with the basics of that.

Chairman Shelton thought there were identified issues that could be taken care of in terms of endangered species that are not monumental. A new phrase coined has been: "pick the low hanging fruit" i.e. do the things that are apparent and affordable that have an immediate effect upon fish populations and get on with that. In many areas of Island County projects are at implementation stage and the only thing between the County and implementation are dollars. One example would be establishing a comprehensive septic program in Clinton on

Whidbey Island, and Juniper Beach on Camano Island. Some grants were received for studies on installing sewage treatment plants. Clinton went through l the process and came up with a plan. The situation now is that it costs about $15,000 for individual homeowners to hook into the proposed sewage treatment plant. This Plan is on a shelf somewhere and failing septics continue to exist. He therefore questioned: "is there some way to get over this hurdle and implement the Plan and solve the issue.?"

Commissioner Shaughnessy characterized the Juniper Beach area to be in the same situation.

Also, Chairman Shelton pointed out that the County continues to do watershed planning and there are a number of stormwater issues that remain unresolved and the County continues to struggle with funding issues to implement a good stormwater program.

One thing Commissioner McDowell suggested was the need for a good understanding on the part of state agencies of county finances.

On another issue, the Chairman believed most people in Island County wanted to see forestry and agriculture continue, yet in Island County’s particular situation, forest or agricultural practices are likely to have a greater impact upon surrounding neighborhoods than many other counties. Forestry practices and agricultural activities have immediate impacts on people in the area where the practices are taking place. State agencies need to be aware that Island County is different than other counties.

The top three issues for Island County were identified as follows by the Board:

1. Funding issue - to implement existing plans and programs

2. Drainage and stormwater

3. Ag and Forest Practice problems that occur in the County

Joye Emmens expressed some concern that failing drainfields seemed to be an issue always high on the PSWQA list, but particularly in Island County much has been done to develop a comprehensive program, and even with some of the more sophisticated systems the owner is required to obtain an annual operating permit to maintain the treatment, in turn protecting the environment. On the other hand, Island County has little control over some of the agricultural practices, and no funding to assist the farmers or help implement [even for technical assistance] any major activities. Some of the loading on drainfields from agricultural properties is a far greater load than from a single family residence. Farmers need another set of funding to implement best management practices.

In talking about the water quality of Puget Sound, Chairman Shelton pointed out that the requirements placed on an individual home owner are far more strict than requirements on a treatment plant that handles towns and cities.

Janet Kearsley advised that Island County had been placed on the 303(d) list of threatened or impaired water bodies, two listings: Penn Cove for fecal coliform and Penn Cove for Saratoga Passage because of high levels of PCB’s [Polychlorinated Biphenyls]. Apparently this list is now in initial stages, with final list to be out by the end of the year. The listing will result in placement of a total daily minimum loading where it would require monitoring in Island County’s case to trace back any sources found in the waterways and try to deal with the situation. Island County will need State assistance to help trace that back.

Tim McDonald agreed, observing this sounded like something that would be very expensive on the part of the County .

Ms. Drinkwin suggested that the 303(d) list and creation of a total daily maximum load was a big issue, too big an issue to handle today. She offered to come back at another time to brief the County exactly what that means and bring someone from DOE to help explain that.

CLOSED RECORD APPEAL - APP #418/97 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER’S

APPROVAL OF BSP #021/96, CAMANO COMMONS, BY C.A.R.E.

A public Hearing was held at 1:30 p.m., as scheduled and advertised, to hear Appeal #418/97 by Phil Lewis, President, Camano Action for Rural Environment, Inc., (C.A.R.E.) an appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision dated September 15, 1997, regarding approval of

Binding Site Plan #021/96, a 20-lot commercial development, Camano Commons (David Platter), on parcels R33220-050-1350 / 080-1300 / 085-1790 & 093-2240, located west of intersection of N. Camano Drive and SR 532 on Camano Island, Wa. Application SPR 021/96 by ACCRUE was approved by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing held on Camano Island.

Approximately 20 people were in the audience at the time of hearing. Island County Planning Department was represented by Debra Little, Development Services Manager, and Erika K. W. Jensen, Associate Planner. Appellant, Phil Lewis, was present, along with a number of members of C.A.R.E. Applicants, David Platter and Robert Lambertson, were present.

Chairman Shelton outlined the procedure for today’s Closed Record Appeal:

Staff will present a concise statement describing the nature of the appeal, hearing history, relevant facts and statutory constraints.

Appellant, or designated representative, will be provided an opportunity to state the basis of the appeal.

The appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s decision must be conducted based solely on the record before the Hearing Examiner, and testimony, if any, will be limited to evidence and facts already in the record and only appeal argument permitted.

Unless otherwise indicated during the hearing, a decision will be announced at public meeting within 14 days based on testimony during the hearing, transcripts of previous hearings and applicable laws. The Board’s decision will include the vote of individual Commissioners, and a brief statement as to the basis for the decision.

After the Board’s decision, the Planning Director will prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for signature by the Board of County Commissioners. A copy of this decision will be provided to the appellant by the Planning Department.

Debra Little described this as an appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s decision rendered on September 15, 1997, to approve with conditions a binding site plan for 20 commercial lots, submitted to Island County February 12, 1996 and accepted as completed on February 18, 1996, and went through a number of revisions. The first public hearing was held on April 17, 1997, and continued into August, with some other site plan revisions made. The appeal was received within the time required by law, published in a newspaper of local circulation for the closed record hearing. Applicable County ordinances that apply to site plan review are: the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.02; Land Use Review Process, Chapter 16.19; Site Plan Review Ordinance, Chapter 16.15; Environmental Review Ordinance, Chapter 16.04C; and Island County Comprehensive Plan, Phase II, Policy Document adopted in 1977. Other County Departments reviewed the application, including Public Works and Health.

Phil Lewis III, 979 S. Cavelaro Road, Camano Island, President, C.A.R.E. opened by pointing out that as a business consultant, he worked 32 years to help businesses thrive. He served 6 years on the Island County Economic Development Council board of directors, and 6 subsequent years as an Island County representative to the Private Industry Council. C.A.R.E. believes the application by ACCRUE for the development of Camano Commons at Terry’s Corner 11 acres should not have been conditionally approved by the Hearing Examiner because it does not fit regulatory requirements.

Joan McConnell, 166 N. Sunset Drive, Camano Island, who has been coming to the Island all her life, stated that her father grew up there, her grandparents spent their last days there and she was very rooted and cared deeply about what happens. She believes this development is a mistake. The Island County Planning Department determined that the application for development at Terry’s Corner was complete on April 11, 1996. Since the County missed the State-mandated deadlines for producing and adopting a comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, the County failed to take interim steps to prevent urban growth outside IUGA’s prior to adoption of a new comprehensive plan and implementing regulations. As a result the 1984 Island County Comprehensive Plan has been and continues to be the defacto interim control for development. Engrossed Senate Bill 6094, the provisions of which were approved by Governor Locke, new section 15.5 states: "a development permit application may vest under an interim control or measure upon determination by the Board that the interim controls and other measures do not substantially interfere with the fulfillment

of the goals of this chapter". In its order for compliance, Consolidated Case No. 95-3-0068C dated October 1, 1997, the Central Puget Sound GMA Hearings Board stated: "the Board notes that any actions taken by a local government after July 7th, 1997, including actions taken to comply with a Board remand order, will be subject to the provisions of ESB 6094". The Hearing Examiner’s ruling concerning Terry’s Corner is dated September 15, 1997, and any such ruling made after July 27, 1997, should have been made in compliance with the GMA. In this case, the findings should have taken into account that the proposed development is: (1) urban in nature in a rural setting; (2) violates goals 1 and 2 of the GMA, and (3) would not have been permitted under the provisions of the November 1996 draft pages 293-94 and 311 of the Island County Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Lewis highlighted from some of the statements contained in Appellant’s letter of appeal dated September 26, 1997, and asked that the Board consider all points raised in the written appeal and attachments. He listed four reasons that the Board should overrule the Hearing Examiner and commented on each.

Attached to the appeal were several petitions consisting of some 178 signatures opposing the project, with 56 additional signatures today. The overwhelming public opinion at the hearings was against the project. It is urban development in a rural area, an abrupt transition disruptive to the surrounding area, and in order show that, a 1992 aerial photograph was displayed to show how the application does not fit in with the surrounding area, and to show some illegal businesses.

Debra Little believed this was a new exhibit not shown to the Hearing Examiner. She did agree that objections had been voiced about the traffic in the hearing before the Hearing Examiner.

Mr. Lewis explained that this was an illustration of an already made point and part of their appeal. Appellant was allowed to continue, with the Board to get a ruling on whether or not this can be entered as part of today’s record.

Mr. Lewis continued by noting that the GMA says this type of development is not permitted outside of a municipality or designated UGA. Because neither exists on Camano Island, the project should have been rejected by the Hearing Examiner. Interim UGA’s would have had to have been designated some time ago. The developer does not own the land yet and only 1/3 of the sites are purchased, therefore, no one knows what kind of businesses would come in; it is not known what traffic, water use, or environmental threats would be added by the businesses occupying the parcels in the future. Projects have been proposed at this location in the past and failed. If this project is approved and the infrastructure built, it will fail economically and those on Camano Island will have to live with the eyesore.

Traffic is already dangerous. Over the past several years the number of cars on this through road has more than doubled. Traffic volume is as bad or worse than Deception Pass on Whidbey Island, just one LOS lower. Allowing interruptions to this worsening traffic is foolhardy and permitting any entry onto North Camano Drive is asking for fatalities. Less than a month ago there was a traffic fatality within 1/2 mile Terry’s Corner. A group of citizens, CRASH, recently said in a letter to Stanwood Camano News "the dangerous intersection just east of Whidbey Bank and Terry’s Corner Fire Station has drastically limited sight" and two members of the Island County Planning Commission signed the letter. This is the wrong place for a shopping center that requires 264 parking spots. Notes from the file this morning show there would be 391 day trips interrupting traffic significantly. However, he found there were no comments received yet on the traffic flow from the State Department of Transportation (WDOT).

The information received from the State of Washington indicates the water system is approved for only 25 gallons per minutes. The fire station and bank are on the system now as well as 4 residences. When the system was tested at 40 gallons per minute it drew down 10’ in 4 hours. The capacity is inadequate; 25 gallons per minute has to serve, in addition to the 6 listed above the water system also has to serve a gas station, motel, fast food restaurant, post office, child care facility and a dozen or more other stores. The water system has gone through four owners and the State has had a difficult time obtaining data.

The draw down will reduce the low output of nearby wells and may cause salt water intrusion. Four cases of salt water intrusion have been documented nearby in the past.

Mr. Lewis stated that Karl Neue-Lawson, North Camano Road, is concerned since the off site drainfield is on three sides of his property, and believes effluent from these commercial businesses will contaminate his water. In that case he wonders what recourse he would have since the developer would have sold the lots. If this development is approved it could place the County in the position of being the only deep pockets, i.e. taxpayers. Because he could not be here in person, Mr. Neue-Lawson provided a letter which Mr. Lewis read in part as follows [dated October 16, 1997]:

Mr. Lewis, on behalf of C.A.R.E., shared Mr. Neue-Lawson’s concerns.

Debra Little interjected that the letter had been written October 16, 1997 and therefore not in the Hearing Examiner’s record. She agreed that Mr. Neue-Lawson testified at the hearing, but not in this detail. She went on to explain that the site plan review for the off-site drainfield, SPR #360/96 received preliminary approval May, 1997 from the Board and was not appealed.

Mr. Lewis stated that the project was set up to fail, is poorly designed, incompletely disclosed development in which the developer will not have the necessary control after individual pieces of property are sold. Island County will be left to solve the problems of the various phases of this project. He pointed out that C.A.R.E. would continue to pursue this issue beyond today’s proceeding if necessary.

Answering questions from Commissioner Shaughnessy with regard to the issue of owning the land, Ms. Little stated that the County does not make a distinction but the applicant must have permission of the landowner to apply. Economics of a project is not a review criteria.

The comment that WDOT had not provided comments on the traffic study, Mr. Lewis explained that on the left hand side of the paper in the file was a comment that the person reviewing was still waiting for comments from WDOT.

Ms. Little further explained that the application was routed to Public Works; that department routes it on to WDOT for comments, and then looks at the traffic analysis themselves and provides the Planning staff and Hearing Examiner with comments on the traffic.

Don Robinett, Public Works Department, Development Coordinator, reported comments from WDOT on the latest revised traffic analysis, prior to the preliminary hearing, had not been received. As a matter of practice however, any conditions WDOT comes up with are adopted as conditions of final approval for the project. As yet, comments have not been received from WDOT on the latest revision for the traffic analysis. WSDOT did comment on the first two, this is the third revision and WDOT may feel no need to comment on the third one. The previous traffic analysis was approved without objection, and it is fairly similar to the others with no big distinction in number of parking spaces. The main reason the revised traffic analysis was required was because of the change in use of the proposed structures between preliminary application and revisions. It is not uncommon to adopt conditions from WDOT even though not yet received.

Keith Higman, Island County Health Department, Environmental Health Specialist, addressed a question from Commissioner McDowell concerning water. A condition for preliminary approval of the project was a commitment from the purveyor to provide water service for the project. Following preliminary approval, the water system works with the State Department of Health to develop a system with adequate quality and quantity to meet the needs of the project including issues such as fire flow, salt water intrusion if that is a concern, storage, distribution, any number of things which can limit the ultimate development of the project.

In response to a question from the Chair regarding the drainfields, Siri Klovstad, Island County Health Department, Environmental Health Specialist, indicated there are two drainfields, one a State approved system and the other that would serve the hotel. There is an off-site drainfield up the road to serve the other uses; it is not state approved system and it will come to the Island County Health Department for approval. She confirmed in terms of the off-site and on-site systems, soil analysis has been done that would indicate those soils would support those systems. As far as the allegation that the on-site system might be in fill, she stated that she had asked Mel Thom, Environmental Health Specialist [who worked for Island County at the Camano Annex], about that and was advised the soil the drainfield is going into is not fill at all.

In response to Chairman Shelton’s question about the size of the motel, an audience member [believed to be David Platter] stated that the motel is small, 12-15 units. Debra Little stated what was approved was a motel 5500 sq. ft. Maximum; 16 parking spaces required maximum. She clarified that Mr. Neue-Lawson was concerned about the off-site drainfield. Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Neue-Lawson mentioned both, that his property adjoins the off-site drainfield.

Responding to another question from Commissioner Shaughnessy, Mr. Higman stated that as a condition of review of the project the Applicant was asked to provide a hydrogeologic assessment. One of the interests in doing so was to determine if there was a potential for impacting drinking water supplies in existing wells, future wells, future potential wells in the surrounding area. That information was submitted to the Department and reviewed by the Hydrogeologist and determined that the proposed systems both on site and off site would not detrimentally impact existing points of withdrawal. As far as how many gallons of flow per day that was based on Mr. Higman did not review the project and could not comment on that. He did say that the drainfield designs are rated according to anticipated flows. The systems as well as the area of soil necessary to install the systems is related to flows and there are limitations as to the ability of those soils to accept flow; therefore looked at gallons of loading per day.

Ms. Little clarified that there is a system for supply of water but it requires going through system design, and the system today is not ready. She commented with respect to the drainfields, the off site drainfield received preliminary approval of a site plan, i.e. the use of an off site drainfield can go at this location, but that has nothing to do with the actual engineered design. One of the conditions with the off-site drainfield states that specifications for an off-site commercial drainfield must be designed and submitted to the Island County Health Department for review and approval and that the following criteria must be included in the design: pre-treatment of all high strength waste; coordination of drainfield design with drainage plan if applicable; a Washington State professional engineer must design the transport lines; easements for off-site drainfields and transport lines must be approved, marked with permanent monuments; a sewage disposal system permit for the proposed off-site commercial system must be issued. The Hearing Examiner’s decision included some 20 conditions of approval and one was conformance with Island County Public Works - Engineering Division memos which included the point of waiting for conditions from WDOT and that those must be implemented.

With regard to the issue that people do not want this project, Commissioner McDowell was aware that Oak Harbor just went through a situation with Walmart and the very first argument was that people did not want it. His understanding is that Walmart went through the whole thing and ended up in court, and found that what counts is what the zoning is and

factual issues.

Ms. Little advised that [land] uses in Island County are reviewed based on site plan approval and criteria for review contained in Chapter 16.15 of the ICC; conformance with that criteria and zoning criteria is required. Island County has been accepting up through 4/10/96 site plan review for commercial uses in existing non residential zones and processing them according to the site plan review criteria.

Inasmuch as the Appellant gave as one of the reasons of appeal that people do not want the project, Commissioner McDowell asked in terms of the Code what the Appellant would suggest in trying to balance that request against the applicant’s zoning. Mr. Lewis replied that the reason people did not want the project was that it did not meet requirements of GMA.

For the record, Ms. Little stated that the Application was accepted as complete for review on February 12, 1996, prior to the GMA Hearings Board invalidation order of April 10, 1996.

With regard to Appellant issues about inadequate fire flow, Don Robinett explained that the Public Works Department made a statement that fire flow is required pursuant to 13.03A, and depending on each use on site those requirements will be applied. With respect to a statement about no off-site contamination being required, this issue came up in public hearing and what Public Works was specifically addressing was off site contamination from gas spills. There is no requirement in Land Development Standards for planning for catastrophic spills; in the event of a catastrophic spill it is a multi-departmental response but there is no planning requirement for a catastrophic spill.

Robert Lambertson stated that he was there when perc holes were dug and attested there was no trash in the soil. Water supply and drainfields are sufficient. He believes there has been a great deal of misinformation about the project, but that the Hearing Examiner heard all of the facts and made the proper decision.

Mr. Lewis, along with Roger Nelson , 606 N. Sunrise Blvd., Camano Island, member of C.A.R.E., displayed the aerial to show at Terry’s Corner what they believe would occur in the event of a catastrophic spill - that any fluid whatsoever, oil, gas, effluent, would go down to Sunrise and in the area which is a sanctuary, sensitive wetland.

Mr. Nelson, speaking on behalf of himself as a taxpayer, property owner, concerned citizen and broker with local real estate company, pointed out that whatever is spilled would end up in Port Susan Bay. To not provide any water quality standards he sees as a total disservice to him as a property owner in that area. He suggested the need to focus on what is being appealed and what Mr. Robinett’s response was for the catastrophic spill. The DNS that was issued in subparagraph C, paragraph 3 of section 3, recognizes and states the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. He did not see where these impacts are addressed, however.

With regard to zoning, specifically Mr. McDowell’s comments that the bottom line is zoning, he reminded that the current Comp Plan states that in no case may a site plan be granted approval if it disrupts the character of surrounding permitted uses. According to the aerial, the surrounding permitted uses are rural and agricultural, not cookie-cutter commercial use.

Replying to Commissioner Shaughnessy, Ms. Little confirmed that a representative from Drainage District #5 attended the Hearing Examiner’s hearing and provided a letter which is part of the record. [Don Robinett supplied additional copy of that letter for the Commissioners today - letter dated August 21, 1997 from Jay Leque, Drainage District #5 to David Platter and Robert Lambetson]

Robert Lambertson, 1434 S. Crestview Drive, Camano Island, stated that when he offered a purchase and sale agreement on the properties, one of the conditions of buying it in the preliminary title search was a mitigation contract with Drainage District #5. That has never been contested and in fact they agreed with Drainage District #5 to meet the conditions of the mitigation contract.

Ms. Little and Ms. Jensen displayed the approved plan to the Board and audience to show the projects that are a part of the preliminary site plan and explain what needs to be done. Proposed are 20 lots, most open-ended as to whether they are office or retail, but several lots actually locate a particular use there. About halfway through the application review, the U. S. Postal Service requested a post office in the project at that location; also proposed is a motel, restaurant, and a gas station [ specific location of each was pointed out on the Plan]. Applicant is now bound to those sites. Preliminary site plan approval locates the uses in certain locations and provides a list of uses that will be allowed and an upper limit on the

building size; further, preliminary provided a list of conditions the development has to meet. Ms. Little termed this plan as the "preliminary to-be-built Plan" with the developer obligated to provide a loop road, design and install a water system, septic system, drainage, access points and improvements, perimeter landscaping and greenbelts and all common parking area, then survey every lot with monuments put in the ground, and then bring it in for final approval before anything is allowed to be built on the site.

Answering a question from Commissioner McDowell about how staff deals with the issue of in-compatibility when reviewing a proposal for compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, Ms. Jensen commented that the Site Plan Review deals with that issue, and the requirement is to provide a harmonious transition to adjacent properties and land use. Staff also looks at the zoning to see if it fits in with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and also look at the zoning. She did not know that any non-residential use would be similar to RR zoning.

Ms. Little pointed out this is a pre-1984 grandfathered Non Residential zoned parcel. In the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1977 Phase II Planning Policies, the optimal land use map designates this as a Business Center. Staff took the Comp Plan and applied it to the proposal and came up with conditions that would hopefully make it harmonious. The County has not developed any specific standards for "harmonious transition".

Ms. Jensen commented to note there are certain design aspects for conditions of approval that will make something fit in with the surrounding area, i.e. buildings with similar appearance, size and shape as buildings found in the surrounding areas. In the case at hand this is why buildings are to have peaked roofs and limited color schemes. Landscaping is also used to soften the impact of a more intensive use or more buildings that would not be found in the surrounding area. By the virtue of the area being zoned NR, one would have to expect the area to have some more intensive use.

Further, Ms. Little pointed out that in this case Applicant used a group of 20 lots with smaller buildings rather than a large commercial center. The NR zone already exists and was a previous commercial zone before 1984. In contrast, very specific uses were established in NR Floating Zones with a site plan review. Those properties that have been previously designated for more commercial or industrial use in 1984 were identified and given the NR category zoning. This property is shown on the old maps, so this piece of property was zoned commercial prior to 1984 if not earlier than 1977. This site was not a contract rezone.

Mr. Lewis made the following final statement of appeal. At Terry’s Corner the Camano Island Community Council suggested there would be something developed there in their transmission to the Board of County Commissioners. The argument is not that commercial development should be prohibited at Terry’s Corner, but this development is too intensive. Mr. Lewis raised the question: is this project frozen under the new Western Washington GMA ruling?

Hearing Concluded 2:40 p.m. As earlier indicated, the Chairman noted that the Board’s decision would be announced at public meeting 14 days, in this case, November 3, 1997, and that after the Board’s decision, the Planning Director will prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for signature by the Board of County Commissioners, with a copy provided to the appellant by the Planning Department.

With regard to Claim for Damages #97-046, which earlier this morning was denied by unanimous motion of the Board, Commissioner moved to retract denial of Claim #97-046, Traci D. Pederson, and continue consideration of that claim to Monday, October 27. Motion, seconded by Commissioner McDowell, carried unanimously.

There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m., to meet next In Regular Session next on October 27, 1997, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

______________________________

Mike Shelton, Chairman

_______________________________

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

_____________________________

Tom Shaughnessy, Member

Attest:

__________________________

Margaret Rosenkranz, County Auditor

& Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board