The Board of Island County Commissioners met in Special Session on April 28, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. at Terry’s Corner Fire Station, 525 E. North Camano Drive, Camano Island WA. Chairman Wm. L. McDowell, and Commissioners Tom Shaughnessy and Mike Shelton were present. Also present were: Joe Araucto, Traffic Engineer; Dick Snyder, Construction Engineer, Rich Murphy, I-COM Address Data Coordinator; and Joyce Kasperson, Adm. Assistant – Camano Annex. Approximately 31 citizens were present.

Chairman McDowell opened the Public Hearing, continued from March 26, 1998, on Ordinance #C-11-98 (R-5-98), Amending Island County Code Title X, Chapter 10.01, Regulating Speed Limits on miscellaneous County Roads on Camano Island.

Dick Snyder, Island County Construction Engineer, explained the proposed speed limit reductions on the six segments of roads were recommendations based on long standing traffic and engineering principals followed by government entities throughout the United States. He stated one major principal was the "85^th percentile speed", which is the speed that 85% of the people drive. He stated "pace speed" was also considered. Pace speed is the 10-mile ban in a range of speeds that a majority of people drive. He noted that it was their goal to establish speeds that were practical, safe, easy to follow and observe, and were enforceable.

Joe Araucto, Island County Traffic Engineer explained speed limits should fall within the pace speed.

There were no comments from the public.

Commissioner Shaughnessy submitted a letter into the record from Bill Vincent, 1103 N. Arrowhead Road, who was not in favor of the proposed speed limit change, but suggested that 35 mph caution signs be used instead.

Patrick Carlisle, 1677 S. East Camano Drive, felt caution signs would not slow traffic down and was in favor of 35 mph speed limits. He felt lower speeds with enforcement would slow traffic down.

Albert Howell, 470 W. North Camano Drive, stated he lived along that section of the road and he was in favor of the speed limit reduction because of limited sight visibility when pulling out from his driveway. He said he had several near misses, and that people drive too fast. He was especially concerned with additional traffic from the new Brentwood Development.

Richard Wagner 751 W. Brown Road, was not in favor of reducing the speed limit, because it was a major arterial, was the widest road proposed for speed reduction, and the accident rate was low. He noted the accident with the two young boys had nothing to do with the speed limit. He thought 45 mph would be appropriate with enforcement. He felt road rage could be a problem because many people drive faster than 35 mph.

Joe Araucto clarified he did not have time to do an "85 percentile speed" on the additional section proposed for reduction.

Robert Both 508 W. Maple Grove Road, noted the accident rate of 1.24 did not include the two young boys that were killed in 1997. He stated the kids lost control because of the soft shoulder. He stated he lived at the access of North Camano Drive and Maple Grove Road and noted it was difficult to access North Camano Drive with the sight distance problem and was in favor of the speed limit reduction.

Barbara Mattson, 930 N. West Camano Drive, stated she lived at Sunset Drive and West Camano Drive and was in favor of 35 mph speed limit and felt it should go even further south on West Camano Drive.

Jack Dorsey, 2772 S. East Camano Drive, stated the sight distance problem should be resolved by reducing the speed limits only along the specific areas rather than on long sections of road. He was concerned about road impatience and enforcement at 35 mph.

Debra Hadley, Camano Island, thought it was already 35 mph and was in favor of 35 mph because of all of the new development.

Nicole Weinberger, 3194 S. Glacier Lane, supported the proposed 35 mph because the road was too narrow, in poor condition and needed sidewalks for pedestrians. She felt the speed limit needed enforcement also.

Walter Smith, 4064 S. West Camano Drive, stated he fully supported the speed limit reduction because there was no shoulder, it was narrow, no place to walk, and a bank on one side. He spoke with people from 15 homes along Pebble Beach and they were also in favor of the reduction.

Jan Magelssen, 2054 E. West Camano Drive stated she lived down the street from Mr. Smith and that she did not drive on the right side of the street because of the steep drop off. She rides her bike with her two small children and would like the speed limit lowered to 35 mph.

Ms. Hadley was in favor of 35 mph because she thought it was a very dangerous road and she was almost in a serious accident at 50 mph with a tree across the road.

Gerald Albers, 1837 East Camano Drive, agreed with Chairman McDowell’s statement from the last Public Hearing that the speed limit should remain at 50 mph because the 85^th percentile on this road was above 50 mph. He noted on all the other roads proposed for the 35 mph speed limit reduction, the speed limit was between the measured pace mile of 30-40, whereas the measured pace mile on this section of road was 45-55 mph. He noted the measured speed for the 85^th percentile was 54-57 mph. He thought dropping the speed limit to 35 would be very difficult and contrary to the Speed Zoning booklet handed out to them from the County. In the Speed Zoning booklet he explained it stated the Engineers did surveys establishing the 85^th percentile and that was the speed people would drive. He supported leaving the speed limit at 50 mph.

Marion Stephens, 903 E. Sandell Road, agreed the 50 mph speed limit should be maintained because there are too many people commuting that need to meet a time schedule who will not slow down.

Mr. Carlisle stated he lived on that section of the road, just south of the transition from the 35 to 50 mph zone. He waits for the school bus with his son every morning and noted the traffic heads north at well above 50 mph, as a general rule. He stated the 85^th percentile basis to retain that speed limit was not applicable to this situation. He felt the road was dangerous at Mt. View Road with traffic moving at 50 mph, and without guardrails along a steep embankment on the right hand side. He stated it was difficult to turn out of his driveway onto East Camano requiring him to go from zero to 50 mph in less than 100 feet to keep people off his tail. He stated going northbound, it was difficult for people to slow down when they reached the 35 mph zone and he had seen people passing cars at 50 mph in the 35 mph zone. He stated this was a rural community and he strongly supported reducing the speed limit to 35 mph to train people to go slower before development increased.

Mr. Dorsey was not in favor of reducing the speed limit. He stated there were 130 to 140 petitioners that disagreed with reducing the speed limit. He commented he was a law abiding citizen and drove between 45 and 50 mph there and said he had never had any problems in that stretch. Most people are good drivers and that is why the 85^th percentile indicated people drive between 54-57 on that section of road.

Ann Dorsey, 2772 S. East Camano Drive, stated she wrote a letter at the last meeting and spoke also. She was not in favor of reducing the speed limit in such a rural area. She stated East Camano Drive was one of the main roads used for ingress and egress to the south end of the Island. She noted that most of the accidents that happened on East Camano Drive were because the drivers were under the influence. She stated that various speeds were more dangerous. She read from the Speed zoning booklet "What’s actually more dangerous is when motorists are traveling at varying speed. With speed limits set at the 85^th percentile speed, the speed differential – or range of travel speeds – is reduced so that more vehicles are traveling at near the same speed, with fewer vehicles traveling at extremely high or low speeds. Statistics show that roadways with speed limits set at the 85^th percentile speed have fewer accidents than roads where the posted speed limit is above or below what the majority naturally travels." She said if you are thinking about safety, then you should not lower the speed limit.

Beverly Micallef, 2891 S. Viewmont Place stated she lived at the south end of the Island and both she and husband commute daily and were not in favor of reducing the speed limit. She noted that people should not have bought their homes on East Camano Drive if the 50 mph speed limit was an issue. She was concerned that the 35 mph speed limit would be expanded further and further.

Ms. Albers agreed with all the speed limit reductions except for the one on East Camano Drive. She felt the percentages supported the fact that the speed limit should stay at 50 mph. She stated they drive when the buses are out at least three times a week and they have never encountered any careless driving while the children were standing there.

Mike Kermbach, 631 N. Sunrise Blvd., requested that the speed limit be reviewed on Sunrise Blvd. south of Whidbey Island Bank. It has limited sight vision and some S curves. He said there have been numerous accidents there also. He suggested that a radar unit be placed there that shows motorists their speed to help people become aware of the speed they were driving.

Mr. Carlisle mentioned the proposed speed limit reduction on East Camano Drive was less than a mile long and he didn’t understand the opposition for a one-mile stretch.

Ms. Dorsey stated if the proposed reduction were approved, the speed limit of 35 mph would go for about 2 ½ miles. She stated it was a wide highway with wonderful visibility and she wasn’t aware of any hill.

Ms. Weinberger was in favor of reducing the speed limit because her father lived there and it was difficult to go in or out of the driveway on East Camano Drive because of the fast traffic. She confirmed there was a hill where the speed reduced to 35 mph.

Chairman McDowell stated a petition was submitted that afternoon and he read the following into the record containing approximately 130 signatures:

Commissioner Shaughnessy explained after the last Public Hearing, he drove the portion of the proposed speed limit reduction on East Camano Drive several times. He saw some new construction from Mt. View north with the back of the homes fronting on East Camano Drive, so the driveways were not accessing East Camano. After hearing the public comments, after receiving the petition, and after driving the road, he recommended to the Board that the speed limit stay at 50 mph. Mr. Araucto felt a caution sign might be warranted and would ask staff to review it. He was in favor of the proposed speed limit reduction on North Camano Drive and on all the other recommendations from 50 mph to 35 mph except East Camano Drive.

Commissioner Shelton commented the petition indicated how a number of people felt about the proposed speed limit on East Camano Drive. He was in favor of keeping it 50 mph. He was unsure about the North Camano Drive proposal because no verifying speed limit data was available.

Chairman McDowell commented he was in agreement with keeping 50 mph on East Camano Drive since it was in the 85^th percentile. He noted on North Camano Drive the speed limit was 35 mph on either side of the 50 mph, but would be more comfortable if there was speed limit data available.

Mr. Araucto commented the proposed additional reduction on North Camano Drive was only .9 mile. He stated his original proposal was just to reduce the curve at Huntington’s Grocery. Public comments at the last meeting requested extending the lower speed limit to Utsalady point. There were advisory signs along the curve already.

Mrs. Both, 508 W. Maple Grove Road, stated she talked to all her neighbors along Maple Grove Road who were in favor of reducing the speed limit on North Camano Drive due to the large volume of traffic that uses Maple Grove Road to go to the County boat ramp. Maple Grove Road accesses off North Camano Drive just west of Utsalady point.

Commissioner Shelton moved to approve the recommendations of the Public Works Department on all the roads listed with the exception of East Camano Drive, which will remain at 50 mph. Motion, as made and seconded, carried unanimously.

A Public Hearing was held on Ordinances #C-32-98 (R-14-98) and #C-37-98 (R-16-98) renaming miscellaneous County roads on Camano Island, as scheduled and advertised. Ordinance #C-32-98 was originally set for hearing April 13, 1998, but meeting canceled and rescheduled for this date and time.

Mr. Araucto explained the proposed name changes were based on public input and availability of names in order to eliminate duplicate names and mapping confusion.

Public Comment: there was no public comment on the proposed road names except for the following:

Rich Murphy, I-COM Address Data Coordinator, explained the proposal was to change a portion of West Camano Drive south of Mountain View Road to East Camano Drive to be renamed South Camano Drive. The second proposal was to change all of Elger Bay Road from Monticello Drive to Mountain View Road to be renamed South Camano Drive. He explained it was to differentiate from West Camano Drive. West Camano goes across a base line with many addressing issues such as West, West Camano Drive, East, West Camano Drive and South, West Camano Drive. He explained having separate names for the roads would allow sequencing of addressing. A separate proposal that is a part of the package is changing West Camano Drive from Lowell Point Road to Mountain View Road to be renamed Mountain View Road. Then Mountain View Road would go from Lowell Point Road to East Camano Drive. These changes would help eliminate confusion for address and clarity of location.

Earl Steiner, 2804 S. West Camano Drive, was 100% in favor of the change to South Camano Drive.

Walter Smith, 4064 S. West Camano Drive, was concerned about a proposal off West Camano to change his road to a walk. He wanted to know if it would be changed to South Camano Drive and changed again to another address.

Mr. Murphy clarified it was a private road using the address of West Camano Drive. He stated there was a road that goes down to the shoreline off West Camano Drive. Those addresses off that beach access road would not be reassigned to South Camano Drive, but would be addressed with the new proposed private road name. He confirmed they would not get two address changes.

Dorothy Bowler 3269 S. West Camano Drive, felt the proposed changes corrected most of the problems with the road names.

Marvin Flickner, Elger Bay Grocery, 1992 S. Elger Bay Road, was in favor of the change to South Camano Drive south of them, but was not in favor of changing Elger Bay north of them. He stated Elger Bay Grocery had been there for 40 years and the name was a trademark. They would also incur tremendous costs for changing the address for advertising, telephone books, and business cards. He felt it would be a hardship for Windermere Real Estate and the Fire Department also. He thought it would be less confusing to start at Mountain View Road rather than at Monticello Drive where East Camano turns.

Mr. Murphy stated ICOM recommended the change only for the portion of Elger Bay Road south of Mountain View Road, but at an ICOM public hearing it was suggested to continue the name change north to Monticello Drive. He explained the extended proposal was based on the public input, not clarification for 911 response. The public thought it would be one less change, rather than going from East Camano Drive to Elger Bay Road to South Camano Drive.

Lauire Flickner, Elger Bay Grocery, 1992 S. Elger Bay Road commented she was in total agreement with changing Mountain View Road because they get many people at the store every day confused about the roads and addresses. She felt Elger Bay Road stood on its own as a point of reference for a lot of people. As the bookkeeper, she stated there would be a lot of changes and since the new phone books would be coming out in July, it would be a year before they could be changed.

Mrs. Bowler was in favor of changing Elger Bay Road at Monticello Drive to South Camano Drive because it was easier to give directions for deliveries. She commented that she had spoken to her neighbors and they were in favor of it also.

Mr. Steiner agreed with South Camano Drive starting at Monticello Drive because it would be easier to direct people going south on the Island. He said Elger Bay was actually a long way south. He asked when the changes would start.

Mr. Murphy clarified the ordinance stated the signs would be installed within 45 days after approval.

Mr. Araucto suggested the Road Department could place additional signs to help clarify the road names.

Kate Wigner, Camano Veterinary Clinic, 15 N. East Camano Drive, stated in order to stop the confusion, they needed to eliminate all the roads that have the directional name in it. She explained she received mail for the Utsalady Store because their address is E. North Camano Drive. She stated when calling in orders it was difficult to explain the address and also hard for delivery trucks to find them.

Mr. Murphy stated ICOM was concerned about 911response time, but they were not able to change all the "Camano Drives" because it would change too many addresses.

Mr. Murphy explained the citizens from Gary Lane sent a petition wanting to stay as Gary Lane, but would be willing to accept a house number change instead. He stated ICOM would change the address range in order to eliminate the confusion.

Mr. Murphy explained Seashore Lane was on Whidbey Island and was already changed several years ago.

Seacrest Lane, East-West portion, RL #39140 (Plat of Seacrest #1, NW 30-31-2E) proposed name Jamaica Road.

Mr. Murphy explained Seacrest Lane was a Whidbey Road and should be considered on Whidbey Island.

Mr. Murphy stated he received a message on the ICOM recorder that a citizen had no problem with Beachwood but would rather have Beachwood Avenue because the cross street was First Street. It was fine with Mr. Murphy to name it Beachwood Avenue.

Chairman McDowell commented an address change for a business would have a major impact. He appreciated people saying it would be nice to have a road name straight though, but they wouldn’t necessarily feel the change that would affect businesses. He understood that Elger Bay was a landmark name. He stated since it wasn’t an ICOM issue or safety issue, he preferred to leave the northern portion of Elger Bay Road from Monticello Drive to Mountain View Road as Elger Bay Road.

Commissioner Shaughnessy commented there were two major businesses there.

Commissioner Shelton moved to approve Ordinance #C-32-98 (R-14--98) Attachment A with the following corrections: to delete the change of Elger Bay Road to South Camano Drive, thereby

leaving it as Elger Bay Road. Delete Seashore Lane since it was already changed to Hidden Beach Drive and Seacrest Lane since it was located on Whidbey Island. Delete the proposed name of Gary Lane to Orion Lane. Change the Unnamed Road (aka 960 W.) to Beachwood Avenue rather than Beachwood Street. Motion, as made was seconded, carried unanimously.

IN THE MATTER OF RENAMING ) ORDINANCE NO

MISC. COUNTY ROADS ON CAMANO ) C-32-98

ISLAND ) R-14-98

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. C-32-96

(Interim 9-1-1 Addressing Policy) which allows the County to address the renaming of roads to avoid confusion; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Island County Commissioners has been requested by I-COM to rename the roads listed on Attachment "A";

WHEREAS, the renaming of said roads as shown would not be duplicating existing road names in Island County; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Island County, Washington:

REVIEWED this 23^rd day of March, 1998, and set for public hearing on the 13^th day of April, 1998 at 3:00 p.m. at the following location on Camano Island at a location to be named later. 4/6/98 rescheduled to April 28, 1998 @ 2:00 p.m. at Terry’s Corner Fire Station, 525 E. North Camano Drive, Camano Island.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

Mike Shelton, Member

Attest: Margaret Rosenkranz Tom Shaughnessy, Member

Clerk of the Board

ADOPTED this 28^th day of April, 1998, after public hearing.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

Mike Shelton, Member

Tom Shaughnessy, Member

Attest: Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board

There was no public comment on the proposed road names as advertised:

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Ordinance #C-37-98 (R-16-98) as submitted.

IN THE MATTER OF RENAMING )

MISC. COUNTY ROADS ON CAMANO ) ORDINANCE NO.

ISLAND ) C-37-98

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. C-32-96 (Interim 9-1-1 Addressing Policy) which allows the County to address the renaming of roads to avoid confusion; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Island County Commissioners has been requested by I-COM to rename the roads listed on Attachment "A";

WHEREAS, the renaming of said roads as shown would not be duplicating existing road names in Island County; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Island County, Washington:

REVIEWED this 6^th day of April, 1998, and set for public hearing on the 28^th day of April, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. at Terry’s Corner Fire Station.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

Mike Shelton, Member

Tom Shaughnessy, Member

Attest: Margaret Rosenkranz

Clerk of the Board

ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 1998, after public hearing.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

Mike Shelton, Member

Tom Shaughnessy, Member

Attest: Margaret Rosenkranz,

Clerk of the Board

____________________________________

Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board