Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101104 District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Tltterness District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Hunttngford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of October 11, 2004 Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the minutes of September 27,2004 as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: County Administrator John Fischbach discussed the following items: . The Bogachiel River has washed out a portion of Highway 101 at milepost 185 in the West End of Jefferson County near the Clallam County line. Traffic will be rerouted over a DNR road with a pilot car and will be limited with delays expected of more than an hour. The State DOT, Emergency Managers from Clallam and Jefferson Counties, and representatives from the Public Works Department are meeting to work out a plan. · This week, there is a groundbreaking ceremony for the East Jefferson Rotary Picnic Pavilion at HJ Carroll Park and The Leader will be taking photos on the Larry Scott Memorial Trail ofproject volunteers. · He and Commissioner Rodgers attended the Port Ludlow Village Council Meeting. Several meetings with the State Department of Ecology about the development at Port Ludlow were discussed. The DOE has indicated that they will send a letter to all the participants within a few weeks that clarifies their position on the proposed development. · Environmental Health Director Dan Bruce updated the Board on the Chimacum Creamery project. A pre-application meeting was held, but there aren't any permit applications on file for the project. A building permit and a permit for an onsite sewer system are required by the County. The County Administrator had asked him to assist the proponent in navigating through some of the other regulatory agencies involved. Dan Bruce researched the proposal and sent a letter to Roger Short outlining the State agencies' regulations that needed to be addressed and he included a contact person at each agency. To the best of his knowledge, no agency or individual has told Roger Short that he can't move forward with his building process. However, a product can't be produced for sale until all the permit requirements are met. A Class B well is an issue with the State DOE because the public will be using the system; and the State Department of Agriculture deals with dairy Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 2004 ".~"""C,~ ., ~ "'.rltIN"~CI management concerns. Dan Bruce stated that he supports this project, but the regulations need to be followed. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: Approximately 35 people were present to show their support for Roger Short and the Chimacum Creamery project. Most of them feel that it is important for this project to be successful in order to encourage future "value added" agricultural businesses in the County. Local food production is essential, especially ifthere is a disaster, because the Olympic Peninsula is so isolated. It is important to maintain farms and farmland in the valleys, because the land provides habitat for animals, birds and fish. The regulations for organic farming are very strict. There are dairy farms in other counties in the State that have converted over to organic cheese businesses recently and they didn't have to deal with all these regulations. The PUD supports the project. The Food Co-op supports the project. Roger Short read a letter listing several actions for the County to take to get the project through the "bureaucratic red tape." The average person can't afford the permits and regulatory work that need to be done in order to start up a business on their property. The community needs a facilitator to help entrepreneurs deal with the permitting process. The Board was asked to use their influence to get the Chimacum Creamery project through the system as soon as possible. The Commissioners recently passed an ordinance that encourages more agricultural businesses. Concerns that the new "agricultural" designation means that a farm would need to be brought up to commercial standards for any kind of "value added" business proposal. Comments on other issues included: a letter was received from Representative Kessler recommending that the County fund the parking at Fort Worden for the remainder 2004 and that funding be set aside for the parking subsidy in 2005; other jurisdictions are talking to Centrum about relocating where they would have more advantages and not have the parking hassle; concerns about the amount of money that the retired County Administrator received from sick leave and vacation accrual; why can public records requests be put off for 30 days or more?; employment contracts shouldn't be on the Consent Agenda; agenda bills need to be kept as part of the public record; why are several members of the management of the Tri Area Community Center being replaced?; the numbers in the formula for the Commissioners' vehicle allowance are high to give them a higher allowance; is the retired County Administrator still using a County computer?; and the Board can "expedite" items that are to their benefit, so why can't they help Roger Short? HEARING and Possible Adoption re: Chimacum/Irondale Beach Park Master Plan: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing. Rick Sepler, Consultant, updated the Board on the process and the recommendation before the Board today. This is a community-based plan for an historic waterfront site at the mouth of Chimacum Creek in Irondale. The County acquired the old mill site several years ago for a park. Four community meetings were held to receive input for the plan, comment was taken, and mailings were sent. Two alternatives were presented to the Parks Advisory Board. Alternative A is a non-formal, natural park with interpretive signage, information regarding the historical use of the property, and informal use of the shoreline. It includes an action plan that includes a process for naming the park to increase public involvement, a master plan budget, and a capital facility budget. Alternative B was developed because a number of residents expressed an interest in evaluating the site for a boat launch Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11,2004 !i:.'0'.~ ~ ~ ~ ifJ'ItI"P (>'-' facility. The Parks Advisory Board considered both alternatives and recommended that Alternative A be forwarded to the County Commissioners. However, they included a policy that potential use of the site for a boat launch be re-evaluated when the restoration by the State Department ofFish and Wildlife is completed on the adjacent property. The Port of Port Townsend originally supported a boat launch at the park and has since focused their efforts on restoring and enhancing the existing boat launch at Lower Hadlock. The Port recently applied for a grant for this project and asked for a letter of support from the County. The Department ofFish and Wildlife also supports the Lower Hadlock location for the boat launch. The County Commissioners discussed the Parks Advisory Board's recommendation at a workshop. They asked that a few revisions be made to Alternative A which will ensure that the goals for the park allow for future consideration of other uses as well as acknowledging that Alternative B could be an add-on. This public hearing is to take comments in order to amend the Parks Master Plan to include the ChimacumlIrondale Beach Park Master Plan. Rick Sepler added that the participants throughout the process received notification of this hearing. The Chair opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing. Dana Roberts, stated that he feels that the potential name for the park should be Rudolph Park in honor of Guy Rudolph who was an active resident in the Irondale community and passed away a few years ago. Hearing no further comments for or against the Chimacum/Irondale Beach Park Master Plan, Chairman Huntingford closed the public hearing. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the ChimacumlIrondale Beach Park Master Plan. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Warren Steurer, Parks & Recreation Manager, re: Update on Rotary Pavilion Project at H.J. Carroll Park: Milt Morris, Volunteer Coordinator for the East Jefferson Rotary Pavilion proj ect, explained that the picnic pavilion is located at the end of the cul-de-s~c. Security fencing has been placed around the site and the official groundbreaking is October 12 at noon. The contractor will begin moving dirt this week and the East Jefferson Rotary plans to see the project through to completion. There will be a permanent plaque at the site, thanking everyone who contributed to the project. The structure is approximately 22' x 62'. There will be barbeques at each end, picnic tables inside, and a pergola. Parks and Recreation Manager Warren Steurer added that he is looking forward to working with East Jefferson Rotary on this project. The picnic pavilion is part of the Parks Master Plan. The Board thanked East Jefferson Rotary for their commitment to this project. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 2004 .0'. "ft.. . ~ ~ ',~ '""~ 4:J,"'I1 ~c.'f,ø~ HEARING re: Sale of Surplus County Property: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing. Sabrina Hathaway, Treasurer's Office, explained that there are 5 parcels (PN 001-03-012 [Tax 11]; PN 945-300-102; PN 974-402-101; 985-204-701; PN931-402-701) that are being proposed for surplus and sale. A few years ago, Commissioner Titterness asked about four parcels of County property located in the City of Port Townsend and whether they could be sold to go back on the tax rolls. They are parcels that were not intended to be utilized. Appraisals were done and the minimum bids are set at the appraisal price. There is also a tax title property that did not sell, and a person has shown an interest in purchasing it. The minimum bid on this parcel includes back taxes owed and the County's costs for foreclosure. Chairman Huntingford stated that he had a phone call from a representative of a non-profit agency asking if they could work out something with the County on one of the parcels. He asked if the Board can pull one of the parcels to be used for a community project? Sabrina Hathaway stated that she would have to do some research, but she thinks the Board could pull them at any time up to the point of sale. However, there are strict guidelines about the sale ofthe property if it is not sold at auction. The City of Port Townsend is not interested in purchasing these parcels. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the sale of surplus property, Chairman Huntingford closed the public hearing. Commissioner Titterness moved to direct the Treasurer to proceed with the sale of surplus property with the minimum bids as noted. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete Item #1 and approve the balance of the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETED RESOLUTION NO. 53-04 re: Imposing Timber Excise Tax to Include Timber Harvested from Public Lands Phased-in Over Ten Years, and Credited against the State Tax (Approved Later in Minutes) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 51-04 re: Adopting the Cost Allocation Plan for Fiscal Year 2004 3. RESOLUTION NO. 52-04 re: Designating Persons with Authority to Sign Documents for Conservation Futures Fund Projects; and AGREEMENT, Amendment No.1 re: Acquisition of Property for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Using Conservation Futures Tax Funds; Amending Purchase Closing Date; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Gordon Papritz 4. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) re: 2004-2005 Parent to Parent Statement of Work; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; The Arc of Washington State, Parent to Parent Support Programs 5. AGREEMENT, Amendment No.1 re: Educational and Therapeutic Services for Children Birth to 3 Years of Age; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Holly Ridge Center 6. AGREEMENT re: Funding for a Family Resource Specialist To Implement the Take Time Program for a Drug Free Community as Part ofthe Raising a Healthy Community Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Olympic Educational Service District #114 7. AGREEMENT, Amendment No.1 re: Professional Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities and their Families, Parent to Parent Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Kitsap/J efferson County Parent Coalition for Developmental Disabilities Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 2004 .'''0< ~ <:;. ~ ~ <1$ ...." 11'oI{' 8. Revised Public Works Organization Chart 9. Advisory Board Resignation; Jefferson County Substance Abuse Advisory Board; Jerry Schnell, Ph.D Imposing Timber Excise Tax to Include Timber Harvested from Public Lands Phased-in Over Ten Years, and Credited against the State Tax: (Item #1 on the Consent Agenda) Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 53-04, imposing a timber excise tax to include timber harvested from public lands with an amendment to Section 2 to read: Determination of Tax. For timber harvested from privately owned land with the County, the tax shall be equal to the stumpage value of the timber as defined in RCW 84.33. 035 multiplied by a rate of 4%; for timber harvested from publicly-owned land within the County, the tax shall be equal to the stumpage value of the timber, as defined in RCW 84.33.035, multiplied by the following rates...... Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in a workshop with the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. 2005 Budget Discussion re: Animal Services Department: (See also minutes of October 18, 2004) Sheriff Mike Brasfield and Director of Public Health Jean Baldwin were present during a discussion about the Animal Services operations and the funding level for 2005. Commissioner Titterness moved to have the administration of the Animal Services Department moved from the Health Department to the Sheriff s Office beginning in January, 2005. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIO GÆgford, Ch . " . . " .. " .) :) 'I t') . ~, ..~..~~~.,. ATTEST: {}¡~fl\odfk/~ ~ Alilie Matthes, CMC I !,~ (/Deputy Clerk of the Board ßdkb J)an Titterness,11ernber ~ Patrick M. Rodgers, Member Page 5 Please publish: September 22, 2004 Bill: Jefferson County Public Works Parks & Recreation Department P.O. Box 2070 Port Townsend, W A 98368 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is scheduled by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for Mondav. October 11.2004 at 10:30 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers, County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368. This public hearing has been scheduled to receive comments on the Master Plan of the Chimacum ( Irondale) Beach Park. Comments may also be submitted in writing to the Jefferson County Commissioners until the date of the hearing. Copies of the Plan are available at the Commissioners' Office in the Jefferson county courthouse. The Commissioners' Chambers is handicap accessible. Arrangements to reasonably accommodate the needs of special classes of citizens, including handicap accessibility or interpreter will be made upon receiving twenty-four (24) hour advance notice. Contact the Commissioners' Office at (360) 385-9100. HEARING NOTICE SIGNED THIS ~AY oFS.¥f~ ,2004. COMMISIONERS · t _ß >.. \, ChimacumlIrondale Beach Park Draft Master Plan September 14, 2004 Prepared for: Jefferson County Department of Public Works 1322 Washington Street Port Townsend. Washington 98368 Prepared by: Madrona Planning Port Townsend. Washington " Acknowledgements Jefferson County Commi~oners . Dan Tittemess. District 1 Glenn Huntingford. District 2 Pat Rodgers. District 3 Jefferson County Parks Advisory Board H. Eileen Rodgers. District 1 Randy Kline, District 1 Joan Linderoth, District 1 Rick Tollefson. District 2 Brian Miller. District 2 Mike Ryan. District 2 Robert Henderson. District 3 Judi Mackey. District 3 Vacant, District 3 Jefferson County Department of PubHc Works Frank Gifford. Director Warren Steurer. Parks and Recreation Manager For further information on the Draft Master Plan ·please. C()ntact Warren Steurer at: Jefferson County Department of Public Works Post Office Bòx 2070 Port Townsend. Washington 98368 Telephone: 360.385.9129 e-mail: wsteurer@co.jefferson.wa.us J Table of Contents 1.0 ~1UœlDœ~.............................~....................................1 1.1 Introduction 1.2 The Opportunity 1.3 The Site 2.0 The Master Plan.. ......~.............. ............. ......................2 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Existing Conditions 2.3 History of the Park Site 2.4 Park Vision Statement 2.5 Park Goals 2.6 Recommended Site Master Plan 3.0 Master Plan Process.. ..........~.... .... ......................~...... ....8 3.1 Process 3.2 Park Programming and Community Involvement 3.3 Alternatives 4.0 Implementation......... ..................... .................. ......... ...16. 4.1 Recommended Park Naming Process 4.2 Projects 4.3 Capital Cost Estimates Appendix A - Regulatory Context Appendix B - Results of Workshops Appendix C - Boat Ramp Feasib.ility Letter Report '- Acknowledgements .Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Tittemess. District 1 Glenn Huntingford. District 2 Pat Rodgers. District 3 .Jefferson County Parks Advisory Board H. Eileen Rodgers. District 1 Randy Kline. District 1 Joan Linderoth. District 1 Rick Tollefson. District 2 Brian Miller. Distri~t 2 Mike Ryan. District 2 Robert Henderson. District 3 Judi Mackey. District 3 Vacant, District 3 .Jefferson County Department of Public Works Frank Gifford. Director Warcen Steurer. Parks and Recreation Manager For further infonnation on the Draft Master Plan ·pl~. contact Warren Steurer at: Jefferson County Department of Public Works Post Office Box 2070 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Telephone: 360.385.9129 e-mail: wsteurer@cO.jefferson.wa.us Table of Contents 1.0 ~IIIDID~.............................~....................................1 1.1 Introduction 1.2 The Opportunity 1.3 The Site 2.0 The Master Plan.. ... ...~........ ........ ....... ...... ....................2 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Existing Conditions 2.3 History of the Park Site 2.4 Park Vision Statement 2.5 Park Goals 2.6 Recommended Site Master Plan 3.0 M~rPlan~oc~...........................................~..........8 3.1 Process 3.2 Park Programming and Community Involvement 3.3 Alternatives ~.O IIt1»leIDell~tioll............................................................1~. 4.1 Recommended Park Naming Process 4.2 Projects 4.3 Capital Cost Estimates Appendix A - Regulatory Context Appendix B - Results of Workshops Appendix C - Boat Ramp Feasibility Letter Report .' , , 1.0 Summary 1.1 Introduction The acquisition by Jefferson County of waterfront property located on Port Townsend Bay in the historic Ironda]e community has provided County residents with a significant amenity and recreational resource. Together with Washington State Department ofFish and WiJdlife's proposed restoration and rehabilitation of the adjacent property, a continuous stretch of shoreline from the mouth of Chimacum Creek extending approximately 3,000 feet southerly wiJI aI]ow virtually unlimited public access and be preserved as open space into the future. The property was historicaJly the site of the Irondale Foundry and its' associated works and more recently was used as a Jog dump. The park site is located at the end of Moore Street in the Port Had]ock Ilrondale neighborhood. The Department of Fish and WiJdlife owns the northerly portion of the fonner Jog dump property. The County completed purchase of the southern portion (which is the subject of this Master Plan) on December 30, 2002. The Master Plan Report is a blueprint for the future development and use by the community of the site. It was developed with the extensive involvement of community members, organizations and agencies. As proposed, it provides guidance on the development and use of the Park for both the short and long tenn. 1.2 The Opportunity The newly-acquired park land offers an unusual Opportunity to realize an outdoor community space for Irondale and the Tri-Area. Community use is already established and accepted by the neighborhood; the land is readily accessible but off weJl-traveled routes. It is not likely to be an active use park such as HJ. CarroJl, but still can accomodate community events such as outdoor classroom activities, group picnics and clambakes and block parties. There is also a tremendous opportunity for education about the estuarine and marine environments and about the history of the community. In addition to space for community activity, the site offers a valuable amenity as open space - a punctuation mark in the fabric of a residential community, with bigger vi~ws, more sunshine, more solitude and more just plain running space than most places in the community. You can walk your dog, fly a kite, throw a Frisbee, lie on the beach, swim. read a book and/or talk to your neighbors and to Draft Master Plan - Page 1 · , l strangers without having to be doing anything. This may be the greatest value for the most people that such a space offers, but it may also be the most easily overlooked. 1.3 The Site The Park includes the historic mill site as well as all tidelands out to Mean Low Lower Waterline (MLL W). The area a¢quired comprises 12.58 acres of uplands and 4.84 acres of tideland. There are over 3,000 lineal feet of shoreline (including the adjacent Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife property). 2.0 The Master Plan 2.1 Introduction Visitors to the park site will find a divel'$e and historic landscape offering the potential for a range of recreational and educational opportunities in an array of different settings: from a restored beach environment (on the adjacent WSDFW parcel) to more formalized play, interpretive and leisure facilities. The park will serve a variety of users, from local neighborhood recreation and informal gatherings to visitors from beyond the region who are interested in the parks unique environment and history. The Master Plan was developed after a detailed site analysis of the existing environmental and historic context. The plan establishes an overall vision for the park and goals that identify appropriate future activities and uses. A synthesis of the environmental and historic analysis and the vision and goals resulted in the preparation of a recommended site plan for the park. 2.2 Existing Conditions The park is comprised of two distinct environments - the wooded upland portion of the site and the waterfront area fronting Port Townsend Bay. Upland Portion of Site The upland portion of the site was completely cleared in 1885 and was occupied by the lrondale iron foundry from 1885 until at least 1919. The site is now heavily overgrown with mature timber as well as brush. Only the foundations of Draft Master Plan - Page 2 . ' .. the original mill and later steel rolling mill, as well as many outlying machine bases and foundations of smaller buildings, remain and are accessible by trails. The site is well-drained with substantial slopes and a steep, but not particularly high, bank on the eastward edge. It is accessible from Hadlock A venue along the east edge, and from the end of Market Street at the southwest comer. The northern portion of platted Hadlock A venue has not been opened. Along the northern edge of the property and on adjacent private property to the north there is a smaU stream that originates in a spring. The property faUs off into a small ravine along this edge, and otherwise generalJy slopes east and northeast. The southern edge ofthe property is the highest and has a steep bank (about 25') above the beach. There is water seepage from the face of this bank that collects at the base behind an old road that prevents flow directly to the beach. Waterfront Portion of Site The waterfront portion of the site is a nearly-flat "bench" about 5 feet above Mean High Water (MHW). The southern portion of this bench is apparently natural, though disturbed, and the northern portion of it was created by spoils from dredging operations about 1912 that deepened the sJipsalongside the mill's dock to accommodate ore ships from China. The bench continued in use for a sawmiJJ, log chipping and other industrial uses untiJ 1999, and hence all but the most southerly portion of the waterfront.is cleared and flat. An old cabin site and a solitary willow tree just above high-tide line mark the southern boundary of the site, beyond which access on foot is impossible except on the beach. The bulk of the 1912 dredge-spoiJ filJ was placed on the portion of the industrial site north of the end of Moore Street. This portion of the site is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife,' and is destined for substantial modification for the purpose of expanding the shaJJow-water tidelands and restoring sediment transport near the Chimacum Creek estuary. It is expected that the cessation of industrial use and the reconfiguration of the beach will result in expansion of the existing eelgrass meadows in the intertidal zone and a general . increase in plankton and forage fIsh habitat, resulting in more favorable conditions for Chimacum Creek salmon fIngerlings. A section of beach spanning the two properties is an identified sand-lance spawning site which contributes to the forage fish stock in the estuary. There is also an identified surf-smelt spawning site on the north property. Draft Master Plan . Page 3 The existing beach profile on the acquired site is shallow, fine-grained sand and cobble at the top, and very flat mud at a mid-tide level and below. Remnants of piJing, brick and concrete foundations and slag dumping are obvious at several points, but the beach remains an excellent recreational resource with good shellfISh, good swimming and good sunshine (when there is any). It is a good location for small boats, protected from all but the most severe winter winds. Access to water deep enough to float your boat is best at the south end, where the beach is steeper and the water deeper within a few yards of shore. 2.3 History of the Park Site Prior to the arrival of European settlers and explorers, the general area that includes the park site was frequented and/or inhabited by several Native American groups, including the Klallam and Chimakum tribes. These groups were hunters and gatherers, using canoes to fish, hunt whales and seals, and collect shellfish. They also hunted land mammals and birds, collected food and medicinal plants, and extensively used forest resources, creating most of their material culture from wood, other botaniCal material, and bone. The history of the Chimakum tribe is unclear.1 The tribe has been identified as a remnant of a coastal Quileute band that resettled in the Port Townsend Bay area. The Chimakum were apparently attacked by neighboring tribes as early as 1790. Records exist of a subsequent massacre between 1815 and 1850. Census records show a decline in the tribal population of 400 in 1870 to 3 in 1910.2 Use of the park site by the Chimakum was likely due to the relative ease of access to the shoreline. The relationship between alleged massacres and vast quantities of human remains found in approximately 1869 north of the site near Kuhn Spit (located near present day Kala Point) is less certain. A story attributed to Joe . Kuhn suggests that Chief Chetzemoka of the Klallam and Skagit tribal members attacked the CI:1Îmakum while they were encamped near the spit. The park site was the loCation of an iron and subsequent steel plant from1878 until at least 1919. In the 1870's the plant processed bog iron. By the 1880's there were new owners to revive the then-failÎll1g plant by processing pig iron, but it I City of Dreams. (Bay Press Port Townsend. W A; 1986) pp. 49 -SO Z Ibid pp. 49 Draft Master Plan· __ .. ..--- Page 4 , . . , '- closed by 1890.3 An Oct. 2,1889, Leader article explained where pig iron got its name: ''Every eight hours the metal is run off from the blast /umac~ by means of. a tap-hole at the bottom of the hearth,. into rows of parallel mounds called "pigsl n which are formed in the sant:t hence the name "pig-iron. " ; After 10 years of inactivity at the site. the Pacific Steel Company renewed. operation of the old smelter. Equipment and processes were replaced and updated. These improvements brought new energy to the surrounding community of lrondale, but it lasted only a few years. When the principal of Pacific Steel drowned in 1904, business activities begin to taper to a stop. The smelter was acquired in 1909 by the Western Steel Company. The Seattle Post-InteJligencer editorialized On April 7, 1909: "The making of steel on Puget Sound will bring about an indUstrial . development of undreamed proportions. " Much of the current topography of the waterfront portion of the site was created during this period as dredging operations were conducted to permit deeper draft . ships to tie to the works ~k to offload ore. The beach area was simply the cheapest place to deposit the dredged materials. :- .:--;:---7'--:--'.~:. :." -... ...~' :,;;:,,;,~,~:. M.:"':.. '~':. .: ". .;.: :: ~: .; .."'\'.: . ." A'. . '. :: ",'. '. ":"':~:~~ .'. .~);,~:.> .:. . .:. '.~'.{~(/:~:";'~.\' )"::':. . ~ ..-. ." · · · . '. Rlustration 1 - Photocopy of photograph. Close-up Yjew of East Side of Pltlr¢ 191~ (from the University of Washington Collectio~ Seattl~ WA) 3 Growing up wiIh lrondale iron. steel mills. Port Townsend Leader. January 7.2004. Draft Master Plan - Page 5 , , ) However, the steel mill proved to be a 'losing proposition. ChimactuD ore was of relatively poor quality and soon ran out. The mill closed in 1911, although it reopened for 18 months during World rw ar 1.4 Tennination of the foundry activities caused the slow erosion of the Irondale community. Although the site was subsequently used for fish processing, over time, fire and neglect took their toll on,the industrial buildings. At present, only the remains of building foundations exist on the upland portion of the site. The site is listed on both the National. Register of Historic Places, and the National Parks Service Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). 14 sheets of drawings of the site. and the original industrial buildings are available 1Ì'om HAER together with several dozen photographs of the mills in operation. The site was subsequently used as a log dump. Quary spalls were brought in to stabilize the machine paths. Purchase of the southerly portion of the fonner log dump property by the County was completed in December 2002. The County was obligated to do a small cleanup contract at the site of the fonner fuel tank for the iron foundry. The total purchase price was $582,000. Acquisition of this site was funded by a combination of grants trom the Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation (IAC), the Department ofNatura1 Resources Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA), and the federally-funded non-profit National Fish & Wildlife Foundation. 2.4 Park Vision Statement A vision statement helps to organize and summarize the key qualities and desirable characteristics that are unique to an identified place. As applied to the Park, the vision statement represents a concise summary of the community's direction for the on-going use and character of the facility. Taken together with the Park Goals (below), the vision statement ftames a "snapshot" of how the community uses (and will use) the Park.. Irondale Beach Park is a unique, community-oriented facility located on a historically significant site in an area ofigreat natural beauty and environmental 4 City of Dreams. pp 131-132. Page 6 richness. The Park serves the needs of the local community by providing access to the shoreline for a variety of residents and opportunities for water-related and water dependent recreational uses. In addition, the Park preserves and protects the natural environment and celebrates the rich heritage of the site. 2.5 Park Goals Goals have been established for the Park to provide long term guidance to assist with the evaluation of on-going and futur~ park activities. As the Park evolves, it is likely that facilities and/or activities that were not identified or evaluated in the master planning process will be proposed for consideration. All future Park facilities and activities shall be evaluated for consistency with the Park Goals. Only those facilities and/or uses that are found to be consistent with all of the goals should be permitted. Goal1.0 The Park should incorporate facilities and encourage activities that serve the recreational needs of the immediate neighborhood and local community. Goal2.0 The Park should accommodate recreational opportunitieS that have limited or no impact on the environmental qualities of the site and surrounding area. Goal3.0 A primary intent of the Park should be to inform and educate County residents of both the rich natural environment and the historic use of the site and surrounding area. Goal 4.0 Facilities in the Park should enhance both fonnal and infonnal opportunities for community residents to interact. Goal 5.0 Facilities established in the Park should be "informal" in nature nd designed to integrate as much as possible into the natural environment. Where possible, natural materials (wood as opposed to metal; gravel trails as opposed to paved sidewalks; etc.) and colors (natural earth tones) should be used. Goal6.0 Activities and uses should be designed and established in a manner that prevents crime, vandalism and other inappropriate activities. Page 7 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles should be employed in the design of all park facilities. Goal 7.0 Facilities and activities in the Park should be designed and established in a manner that minimizes maintenance and operational costs. 2.6 Recommended Site Master Plan The Jefferson County Parks Board reviewed the Draft Master Plan at a special meeting held on February Sib. 2004. The Parks Board heard presentations from County Staff and the Parle Consuitant, considered public comment 8J1!:I discussed the proposed recommendations and strategies contained in the Draft Master Plan. The Parks Board. by a vote of S in favor and 2 opposed selected Alternative A as the Recoinmended Site Master Plan.5 In pr:eparing their recommendation. the Board noted that the configuration of Alternative A did not preclude the future location of a boat ramp facility in the PårIc. The Board majority recommended that the potential for incorporating a boat ramp should be reevaluated in approximately three years after the effect on the shoreline environment of the adjacent Fish and Wildlife beach restoration project can be fuJly determined. 3.0 Master Plan Process 3.1 Process After the acquisition of the park by the County a pI aiming process was initiated to develop the most appropriate future public use of the site. The process focused on . facilitating a community-based .discussion of key issues and opportunities associated with the site. In addition. current and future recreational needs for the community were examined. The results of these early meetings served as the basis for this Master Plan (Please see Appendix B). Specific issues associated' with the site were identified. These include: · Stormwater I Drainage. Moore Street lies in a natural depression and consequently channels most of the surface water from the nearby neighborhoods down to the bay by means of a small and deteriorated culvert 5Boanf M~ Rict ToJJefson moved 10 accept Altemative A with the option for the Parks Board to revisit Chis issue in 2-3 years when the iq>acts of the F"JSb and Wildlife restoration 1V'orIc is done in order to update the plan. Draft Master PJan·· Page 8 under the road and the easement to County Property. Natural drainage includes flow from perennial springs. Since some of the nearby adjacent residential properties are thoroughly saturated, there are likely to be septic overflow issues as well. There is also significant seepage from the shoreline banks that accumulates at the base of the bank and creates a permanent soggy area that floods in winter. · Reconstruction of Beach. The Department of Fish and Wildlife's planned restoration of the beach on their parCel north of the County site will likely have a significant effect on the park. It will be necessary to modify the shoreline on the County parcel to ensure a successful transition area between the restored beach environment on the Fish and Wildlife property and the filled areas remaining on the County site. · Inappropriate Uses. Community use of the site and the beach is long- standing and mostly benevolent. However, since the site is not maintained or policed, it is open to abuse and receives its share, including: Garbage Dumping Squatting High Speed I Destructive Motor Vehicles and other Illegal Activities · Operations Costs. Development of the park is limited not only by the cost of initial construction, but by ongoing maintenance costs. This issue is complicated by the possible transition of Parks and Recreation from a County Department to an Independent Taxing District and by the possible incorporation of the Tri-Area. For the present, development is constrained to improvements that reduce maintenance costs, are legally mandated, or solve important safety issues. In order to develop a recommended site plan and capitaJ budget for the park, more specific information was needed. Using the information identified in previous discussions as a starting point, a focused process to more clearly determine the programming and design of the park was initiated in November 2003. This process sought to involve both those who had previously participated in the planning discussions regarding the site as well as neighborhood and ~ommunity members who were new to the process. In addition, all prior participants agreed that the continued participation of Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives in the planning process was critical as their restoration project would be environmentally and functionally linked to what occurs on the park site. Draft Master Plan . Page 9 himacum Beach Park Master Planning Process Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Informational Interviews . Parks Board · FISh and Wildlife · Key Commll1ity Members · County Staff , Community Open House 1 · Review process to date · Identify opportunites and constraints · Prioritize key approaches November 6, 2003 ~ Community Open House 2 · Review Alternative Site Plans . Prioritize Key Elements · Craft Prefered Alternative November 20, 2003 ~ Presentation to Parks Board and County Commissioners · Present results of process to date Prepare Site Analysis · Regulatory Context · Environmental Info Develop Planning Process and Schedule · Present to County Commissioners October 13, 2003 Prepare Conceptual Park Designs . Based on convnunity input (Open House 1) prepare Alternative Park Site Plans Prepare Prefered Alternative Site Plan and Draft Park Master Plan · Based on community input (Open House 2) prepare Pref8red Alternative Park Site Plan & Draft Park Master Plan r-------------------ï I Revisions (If required) I . I I 4 ..--------------------------t . Revise plan as directed I . I I I I I I L--_________________J Adoption Process ·SEPAreview · Public Hearings (as required) · Possible Interlocal Agreement Prepared: 9129103 Revised: 1115103 3.2 Park Programming and Community Involvement One of the initial tasks tl)at community members addressed in the planning process was the identification and prioritization of the key opportunities associated with the site (Appendix B). The purpose of this exercise was to help the process participants to identify opportunities as seen from a variety of different perspectives in the community. Several central themes were apparent after review of the results of this exercise. These themes acted as an overarching thread throughout the subsequent programming process: · Enhancement, Restoration and Protection of the Natural Environment. The protection, enhancement and restoration of the natural environment were identified as a key theme to be integrated into any proposed action or activity occurring on the site. · Interpretation of Historical I Natural Environment. The park should strive to educate and inform users of the unique historic and environmental context of the site. · Establishment of a Boat Launch. During the workshop sessions, the shortfalls and deficiencies of existing trailer boat ramps and launches in the surrounding area were identified. The benefits and drawbacks of establishing a trailer boat ramp in the park should be evaluated. However, participants in the process were uniformly supportive of the inclusion of a hand-launch area for small in any future park design. · Establishment of Passive Recreational Activities. The desire for an informal park that focused on passive recreational activities was clearly articulated by the participating community members. Improvements were to be modest and "low-key". The park design should not duplicate the facilities found at HJ. Carroll Park, but should integrate improvements that allow access and interpretation. These themes served as the basis for the preparation of the park vision statement and goals (see Sections 2.5 and 2.4). Draft Master Plan - ; Page 11 3.3 Alternatives Although consensus was achieved by the community members regarding the draft Park Vision Statement and Goals, agreement on a specific site plan was more difficult to achieve. Members of the community held forth strong opinions regarding the best alternatives to be considered. Specific focus was placed on the suitability of the site for a boat launch. Several participants felt strongly that a number of issues associated with the establishment of a boat launch on the site required greater discussion and research before it could be considered. These issues were evaluated in a separate letter report (Please see Exhibit C). In response to community input, two alternative site plans were developed. The significant difference between them is tþe inclusion of a trailer boat launch and associated parking in Alternative B. BØth alternatives were evaluated using I Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Proposed crime-prevention strategies that resulted from the evaluation are described in Section 4.2 (Project 1). Alternative A This alternative proposes the following: · Wetland Restoration. The existing drainage that separates the Fish and Wildlife parcel from the park is proposed to be enhanced through the creation of a fresh I salt-water marsh area. Removal of the decaying pipe or culvert and natw:al (soft) armoring of the banks would assist in both filtration and the reduction -of scouring from peak storinwater loads. This would not only enhance environmental and habitat values but would also serve t'O provide a strong transition between the m'Ore ptogrammed areas 'Of the park and the restored beach area leading to Chimacum Creek. · Trail Network. An extensive trail netw'Ork is proposed. The trails will provide access to both the historic mill sites as well as al'Ong the waters edge. · Interpretive Signage. Both the environmental and historic c'Ontextw'Ould be described in a series 'Of inf'Ormati'OnaI kiosk and interpretive displays. · Active lDformal Use Area. A small (approximately .9 acre) porti'On 'Of the park area will be impr'Oved to all'Ow f'Or inf'Ormal recreati'Onal activities such as kite flying, frisbee and community events. This area will be planted with durable "playgr'Ound" grass that requires limited irrigati'On and m'Owing. · Restoration of Filled Areas. P'Orti'Ons 'Of the l'Ower porti'On 'Of the park will be improved/amended t'O accommodate native sh'Ore grasses. Draft Master Plan - Parks Board Recommendation February 29. 2004 Page 12 · Limitations on Inappropriate Vehicular Access. A "turnstile" gate will be instalJed at the Hadlock A venue entrance to discourage inappropriate access. (Strategies for reducing other inappropriate activities are described in more detail in Section 4.2, below). · Hand Boat Launch. Access from the parking area to a designated small boat launch area will be established. · Expanded and Relocated Parking Area. The current parking area will be revised to shorten on-site access roads thereby maximizing open space. This revision will also eliminate the "hidden" nature of the current access road configuration that does not allow visual connection with Moore Street. · Restroom and Picnic Shelter. A restroom facility and picnic shelter are proposed for the site. Alternative B Alternative B incorporates the improvements contained in Alternative A plus the following: · Trailer Boat Launch and Associated Parking Areas. The proposed boat launch is located as far southerly on the site as practicable due to topography. The reason for this southerly location is to provide access to the deepest water. Parking consists of a paved area for general use and an unpaved area for overflow or peak use. Parking capacity is approximately 1/2 of that found at the regions largest ramp located at the Port of Port Townsend's Boat Haven. . Higher parking capacity is required on-site as Moore Street would be unable to accommodate overflow parking due to its lack of shoulders. A washdown facility is also proposed in this alternative. Paving of internal access ways will be required to accommodate anticipated vehicular traffic volumes. Draft Master Plan . Page 13 ~ ........... RIIIIId SpecIes DunIIIIe GnIaa ," ao.ar... Preliminary SIte Plan . Alternative A CoItaur....... ·1'0" 1. ........ ....../-=--e....... 2. ......... a. .... . ... .......a·_ So ...~.... KIo*os-. oIBoIIr HouR) .. ..... ao.t...--.. 7. R..IIII....BoIInIa/Glle L 0IIMt &Iry (no....... .... .. ............ DIIpIIIJ F=I::=J o 60 100 Jo(f) FONItAIM \ .............~ .......~ . . .... ø...... . . .Prellmlnary Site Plan Alternative B eo.-..... -.1'V 1. ...... ........,EIIhMee Dr8InIoe . I. ~ a. IÌIeIIIr . 4. .' ......0..- Ie .............1CIcMt ,......, '.. Bolt....... 7~ . 1NIIer....... . .. 0MIaw............... (No,...... E.1Ioore......, .. Bolt.... . 11. ·R_o.........'<W. 11.. Ofr..t ERIrJ (no ÏIoIcNtøcI 11M) F=l:::::I o " to 100 ~ (f) 4.0 Implementation 4.1 Recommended Park Naming Process The Park has not yet been fonnally named due to the relatively recent acquisition of the land and the lack of a specific formal or informal name associated with the property. The opportunity to name the park represents an excellent opportunity to increase community awareness, interest and potentially on-going involvement with the facility. In addition, the general excitement associated with a successful naming process for the Park can help instill an on-going sense of community stewardship. The following process is recommended as a means of developing a name for the Park. A. Working cooperatively with the Port Townsend Leader I Peninsula Daily News the County will publicize both the history of the site and well as the park master plan. The County will solicit nominations for the name of the park concurrent with a Idck-off meeting of the "Friends of the Park", a proposed stewardship group (Please see Section 4.2, below). In addition, the County will actively seek to involve Chimacum School District students in the naming process. Proposed names . will be submitted via the County's website or through the mail. A specific cut-off date will be pre-detennined. Innovation. and relevance to the site will be encouraged, however the following limitations will apply: · The proposed park name should reflect the rich history of the site and/or celebrate features of the natural shoreline environment · The proposed name shouJd not be that of a person or group excepting an individual or! group that has had a direct, historic connection with the site or surrounding community. B. The Parks Board will consider the submitted park names and will select the three best proposals. The Board will rank the proposals and forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissiòners. Draft Mastel' Plan - J ."1 Page 16 C. The Board of County Commissioners will consider the recommendation of the Parks Board and will select the name for the park. 4.2 Projects and Phasing The following projects are proposed to fully implement the master plan. Project 1 - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Inappropriate activities have and may continue to occur in the park. A coordinated approach is needed to lessen the chance for crime. This can be accomplished through the application of CPTED principles during site design and development to identify and incorporate desi~ features which reduce opportunities for criminal activity to occur. Specific CPTED principles have been considered in the development of the proposed Site Master Plan. The effectiveness of CPTED is based on the fact that criminals make rational choices about their targets. In general: A. The greater the risk of being seen, challenged or caught, the less likely they are to commit a crime, B. The greater the effort required, the less likely they are to commit a crime, C, The lesser the actual or perceived rewards, the less likely they are to commit a crime. Through use of CPTED principles, the park can be designed and managed to . ensure: A. There is more chance of being seen, challenged or caught, B. Greater effort is required, C. The actual or perceived rewards are less, and D. Opportunities for criminal activity are minimized. CEPTED design principles are functionally grouped into three categories: · Natural Surveillance. This category focuses on strategies to design the built environment in a manner which promotes visiþility of public spaces and areas. · Access Control. This category focuses on the techniques which prevent and/or deter unauthorized and/or inappropriate access. Draft Master Plan . Page 17 · Ownership. This category focuses on strategies to redµce the perception of areas as "ownerless" and therefore available for undesirable uses. CEPI'ED principles were considered in the design process for the Alternatives. The following table summarizes the results of the analysis: :"::--',.~'. - ~':. ':-"';", "<';':'.,-.-.=> ,.,'-'..'~'';''; ",".' :ò:",;"';;,' ", ;', ".'~ . , - , ~, ~ ~ .. ¡ I ~ ~;" : ~! ,,¡ ''>.. :':'.,. . ~ " . " ~ _ ; ...':.. ~ _ .__ £.. , '" ~'; :- Natural Surveillance. Good visibility of proposed parking area from Moore Street and surrounding homes. Trail visibility is fair on waterfront, poor on uplands. Pedestrian I vehicular access is uncontrolled. Area located near Moore street is less susceptible to crime as it is "owned" by surrounding residences. Park users and communiþt groups can demonstrate ownership through use patterns and .the provision of facilities. . Access Control. Ownership. Poor visibility of parking area and boat launch. Trail visibility is fair on waterfront, poor on uplands. Pedestrian I vehicular access is uncontrolled. Area located near Moore street is less susceptible to crime as it is "owned" by surrounding residences. Park users and community groups can demonstrate ownership through use patterns and the provision of facilities. The results of the CPTED analysis have resulted in the development of the following strategies: A. Natural Surveillance. To reduce the lack of visibility due to the necessary southerly location of the proposed boat launch, Alternative B will require the provision of an on-site caretaker's residence. To maximize it's effectiveness, the caretaker's residence would need to be located in the southerly portion of the park. Domestic water is available to serve the residence. A sanitary Draft Master Plan - Page 18 drainfield will need to be established. The drainfield may be co-located with that required for the proposed restroom facilities. B. Access Control. Evening hours typically have a greater exposure for crime as natura] surveillance is reduced. Limiting access to the park during evening hours will significantly reduce opportunities for crime to occur. However, such limitations could curtail many appropriate evening activities such as shorewalks in summer, fireworks parties, nighttime crabbing and early morning ÎJShing. It is possible that restricting vehicular access to the park during nighttimè hours may by itself successfully discourage inappropriate activities. Lighting of key park facilities (notably parking areas) can also contribute to a reduction in the likelihood of criminal activity. However, to avoid "light- pollution" which could adversely effect both park users and nearby residents, it is recommended that downward facing, shielded light fixtures should be used. The following interventions are recommended and are shown in rank order of suggested implementation: Alternative A: Signage (park closed at dusk) Turnstile gate at Hadlock Avenue pedestrian entrance Lighting of parking areas, restI:ooms Gate closure at dusk' opening at dawn Alternative B: Sign age (park closed at dusk) Turnstile gate at Hadlock Avenue pedestrian entrance Caretakers's residence Lighting of. parking areas, restrooms, boat launch Gate closure at dusk ',opening at dawn C. Ownership. Increased use by community members and groups will enhance the perception of ownership of the park. Please see Proiect 3 - Stewardship below. Draft Master Plan - Page 19 Proiect 2 - Coordination with Fish and Wildlife. At one time, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was to be closely connected with the County acquisition of the park site. However, financial arrangements were never resolved successfully, so there was no crossover in ownership between the County and the state. However, WDFW has been an active participant in the Master Planning Process. WDFW proposes to restore their property to a pre-development state. Shallow water habitat in Port Townsend Bay is crucial for migrating salmon to avoid predators. The WDFW property was historically a flat, sandy beach with a spit at the mouth of Chimacum Creek. Shallow water habitat existed even during high tide. Decades ago industrial development on the beach covered about 13 acres of intertidal sand flats destroying this important habitat. WDFW has received a grant to restore the intertidal habitat by removing bulkheads and fill as recommended in the summer chum recovery plan. The removal of these materials will have a direct effect on the park. It has been speculated that an embayance may be created by tidal action and drift patterns rather than a gently sloped beach. Further, additional erosion may occur on the park site due to the proposed removal of materials. The County shall coordinate with WDFW to ensure that the final restoration design is integrated with the proposed park and that risks to the shoreline are minimized. Prcüect 3 -Stewardship A key component for the continued succeSs of the park will be the id~ntification and recruitment of an active community group who supports and nurtures the facility. The nucleus of this group appears to already been formed as evidenced by ongoing workshop participation and attendance. This "Friends of the Park" group should advocate for the implementation of the master plan. A key component of the support group may be the preparation of grant applications, monthly work parties on site, dedicated fund raising and other similar activities. The County shall support the initial establishment of this support group. Draft Master Plan - _ __. Page 20 Project 4 - Cooperative Process to Address Boat Ramp Shortfall Public comment taken during the Park planning process has indicated that the Port Hadlock I IrondaJe area is currently under served in terms of effective boat launch facilities. Although ramps currently exist in relatively close proximity to the park site, these facilities have been identified as being deficient due to a variety· of reasons. Tbe Port of Port Townsend has proposed to partner with the County to establish a boat ramp in the Park as a means of addressing the pre-existing shortfall. The Port has acknowledged that environmental constraints may preclude the location of a ramp in this location, but has suggested that new technology may overcome potential limitations. It is generally agreed that the forthcoming restoration of the Fish and Wildlife beach are will have a significant effect on the immediate nearshore environment. The magnitude of this effect will not be apparent for approximately 2 -3 years post-construction. This period would allow for an adequate assessment of ramp opportunities in the area. Upon adoption of this Plan, the County shall work cooperatively with both the Port of Port Townsend and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to assess opportunities for improved boat access in the South Port Townsend Bay area. The completed assessment shall be made available to appropriate decision-makers. "" . The assessment shall evaluate the following: 1. Potential improvements to the Port of Port Townsend's existing Lower Hadlock Ramp; 2. The establishment of a.ramp at the Park (as described conceptually in Alternative B); and 3. The establishment of a ramp at an alternative site to serve the area. In evaluating the above-referenced sites, the following shall be considered: 1. The environmental effect of the proposed ramp or (in the case of a pre- existing facility) the effect of the proposed enhancement. 2. The estimated cost of construction and operation for the new boat ramp facility or proposed enhancement. Draft Master Plan - Page 21 4.3 Capitol Cost Estimates DESCRIPTION quANTITY UNUS UNIT COST 'lUI'AL SUBTOTAL TOTAL' Road Access and Parking ACP Road, 2" 14" 1.333 sq)Id 12.9 17.199 39,055 ACP Parking. 2"/4" 1.331 sqyd 12.9 17.196 Wheelstops 60 ea. 55 3,300 Striping 60 ea 6 360 Lights 2 ea 500 1.000 Strudures 29,000 Picnic Shelter 150 sf 60 9,000 Restroom, Vault ToiJets 1 ea 20,000 20,000 Benches 10 ea 500 5,000 Picnic Tables on Pad 4 ea 1,000 4,000 Grass Open Area 40.000 sf .35 14,000 Soft Trail. " 9.600 sqycl 9 86,400 Trail Bridge 1 ea 5.000 5,000 Interpretive & Edueational 11,000 Signage 10 ea 500 5.000 Trailhead / Info Kiosk 1 ea 3,500 3.500 Ironworks Info Kiosk 1 . ea 2.500 2.500 Turnstile Gate 1 ea 700 700 Park Signage 2,000 Primary entry signs 1 ea 1.000 Secondary entry signs 2 ea 500 1.000 Marsh Transition Area 15,000 Shore Grasses' 50.000 sf· 2.5 125,000 Site Prep / Remediation 20,000 Power / Water to Site 10,000 Subtotal (rounded) 366,155 Contingency, Taxes (20%) 73.231 Subtotal 439,386 A&E (Design) (15%) 65;908 TOTAL 505.294 , These preliminary cost estün8tes have been prepared based on expenses incurred for recent projects in the area. These estimates are for general informational purposes only: detailed construction plans and site- specific investigation will be required to assess actual costs. Draft Master Plan . Page 22 Appendix A - Regulatory Context :J ~ ~ J, ~ , . , .~ - - .. . -. . . - - . . Zoning RURAL Parks and Playfields and Recreational RESIDENTIAL 1:5 Facilities are allowed iri RR1:5 Zoning Districts. Caretakers Residences (public parks) are not allowed. Comprehensive Plan RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1:5 Shoreline Master Plan URBAN Day-use recreational facilities and boat launches are primary uses in a Urban Shoreline Districl A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be required for most construction activities occurring on the site. A substantial development is defined as any development of which total cost for market value exceeds $5,000 or any development which material interferes with any normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. Chimacum Creek I IrondaJe Beach Park Master Plan Jefferson County Parks and Recreation November 6, 2003 Agenda 7:00 p.m. Welcome, Introduction and Overview Warren Steurer, Jefferson County Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning 7:10 p.m. Exercise I Rick Sepler, Facilitator WarreD Steurer, Recorder 7:30 p.m. Fish and Wildlife Status Update Doris Small, Fish and Wildlife 8:00 p.m. Exercise II Rick Sepler, Facilitator Warren Steurer, Recorder 8:25 p.m. Exercise ill Rick Sepler, Facilitator 8:35 p.m. Next Steps Rick Sepler 8:40 p.m. Closing Rick Sepler For additional information on the park planning process, please contact: Warren Steurer Parks and Recreation Manager Jefferson County Departmen~ of Public Works Phone: 385.9129 e-mail: wsteurer@co.iefferson.wa.us Chimacum Creek / Irondale Beach Park Master Plan Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Workshop Results: November 6, 2003 Exercise I: Issue Identification (Issues identified at workshop in bold) .. Stormwater Drainage I Drainage on County Property .. Reconstruction of Beach .. Inappropriate Uses - Garbage Dumping - Drug Dealing - Squatting - High Speed I Destructive Motor Vehicles .. Safety Issues - Well - Ruins - Feeder Banks .. Operational Costs I Maintenance Budget .. Access to Creek .. Coordination with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) .. Habitat I Recreation Issues . .. SheUfish I Fishing Aeeess .. Beach Aeeess (Getting to Beach) .. Parking Quantity and Location .. Other Aeeess Points to Park (Trails - Existing I Proposed) · Effect of Potential Park Uses on Neighborhood (Now I Future) .. Hours of Operation .. Park Name .. Neighbors Views Exercise II and III: Use I Action Identification and Prioritization (Uses I Actions identified at workshop in bold) Rank Use Number of Votes 1 Natural Environment (Enhancement I Recreation) 20 Evaluate Drainage Patterns (Restoration Opportunities I Restore Salt Marsh) 2 Interpretive Devices (Historical and Natural) Context 13 3. Boat Launch and Parkim~ (Trailers) - Pier I Fishin2 Opportunities 8 4 Hand-launched Boats 6 Passive Uses (Plan I Enhance - ()pen Space) 6 6 Re1U3de I Replant (Banks and Transition) 4 Trails . (How Formal?) 4 8 Restrooms 2 Shelters ·(Both (or Weatber and Viewinsð 2 9 Outdoor Community Space (Lawn. "Sta2e"?) 1 Fishin2 1 Off-leash D02 Area 1 Educational OPPOrtunities (Schools) 1 13 Drinkin~ Water 0 ADA Compliance 0 Bike Racks 0 BBQ and Picnic Fixtures " 0 CalDDin2 0 Public Art 0 For additional information on the park planning process. please contact: Warren Steurer Parks and Recreation Manager Jefferson County Department of Public Works Phone: 385.9129 e-mail: wsteurer@co.iefferson.wa.us Chimacum Creek I IrondaJel Beach Park Master Plan Jefferson County Parks and Recreation November 20, 2003 Agenda 7:00 p.m. Welcome, Introduction and Overview Warren Steurer, Jefferson County Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning 7:05 p.m. Exercise I Rick Sepler, Facilitator 7:15 p.m. Review Draft Vision Statement Rick Sepler, Facilitator 7:30 p.m. Review Draft Park Goals Rick Sepler, Facilitator 8:00 p.m. Discuss Draft Park Alternatives Rick Sepler, Facilitator 8:30 p.m. Exercise II Rick Sepler, Facilitator 8:50 p.m. Exercise ill Rick Sepler, F~cilitator 9:00 p.m. Closing and Next Steps Warren Steurer For additional information o~ the park planning process, please contact: Warren Steurer Parks and Recreation Manager Jefferson County Department of Public Works Phone: 385.9129 e-mail: wsteurer@co.ieffeœon.wa.us '. .. . . 'Z"". . ". : .r .~ ,~,~..~."'" · I . " ';"-:';¡lIt.Ó -.:;,... . ..~'..', . ·-··.·L· .' '. .' '..: " { . . . ...... .-.-..... '.' .~.. -"Oht . ~.'. ., . . ,. . '. . '. . ". '" f' .... ; .' . ": ,. :~:·t .' . '.\\ "\~\'._I ·.1..·. .. /~ :.- .. .. . o.~ .... . ... . , .... .. .:..... . . . .... .. ,,' . . . -o. , .,. .. "". .. ... .' . . ;: ..,. ........ '. .:'.j~~. ':,'-. .... ... .,o.;..... I : ....~/ TO~ .... .';.. ..... ..' .../.:.:.::.. '. ... .. . ...:.-./. ;.: ". '. ". . · .:,./. ··¢)(t.~11N:(:¡·-c9NPíno · . . ,;~ . .- ....: ~~. ^n~~ are.exIstIn& unmodified ; . /,J::!' '.' except as noted. ...,- . '..¡ .j~~;': '~'." .rr+~;';Wi.otf~:~lsflnø~~år!Y . .: . '" , . portion of. the $ite. . . ' 'ii· '~_"'" ::.., '. i'" . ::'. ··..0.·..,.50 100· -150.' .- '250' .::' 3~ ...! ~. . .'. . ::. ". :.. ' .., . . '. :H/!; ..... .... . .; ....:.,.J.. ~o.o.~. . .. - . . ....>':i:·'.iJrtJ~ifafe~·13tj¡e6·åf'é4imåc~rn._ CrIJef· '. . .:- -:"-:' ..- .'. .. ....~.-:. '.::"':: . ." :.. '..'. .' ..... .':'.. :;: ..... :.' . '. .: :. '. .' ':.' .... . .:. 0:, '. " - o.' ....~y. .' ":-"x' .' . . .'.' .. . . .... , ,,: -.;o.., .' . ~ . ..o.. . - . . .::,. '. . . .J . .' . '.1. . :...._.. . .... ..' .. .' '.. '~:~:.. ':;':.',:.;':. ·:·SITÈ· PLAN .. . . . . .,' . ...... .~.:... 1 : '. . .. .....- ... .. ....... .... '. . ".~ -. . :.: '... . .' . . . . . .... . , . .,' .' . . .' . ".;~,;"'. ~ " ..: : . --- -.:.::.:., " . '.:., --.: ~.'!!......!...." . . ,. -' . .' ..' . " ....": r.. . . . . ,'. " '. . " . . . . .... ~. '. .. . . :": ~ . . . '. . . ~. . . ;. ," , . , . . " .0' >0.0.." I . ' ".' >, .' . ....~.. .... " .~:9rðnirøk~/ßr;aci;/¡f:.C6¡~~¿&~:··ere,e/{. . ," t '. '. J . .... . ;';,;.' '. : ...'..... .;~.: ..:: '. . . ". il";:~Â-~~l1Vef' ..'. -9 ", .: .... .' '. :)/_. .... ~ eoniöu;'~·r-oe·· " ..... '.'/:' . .......: "0 ,,: "'so.' 100 150' ,- :2SÒ . '351 .: "'l':':':::"':~" ··:':.·:,~e·~· . ,>:.~.;':, : <~~"" . -- ¥. :S:· IT:', E~· '. :p" LA· ..' ·N' 0:" .... ."... .' . . . -, . . , . " . . . :. "::. . . I .' .' 0" . .. . . . ... '. . ~ . .,'. - .. . . ! :. ;. . . , , I ...: '. '.' '. '. . . " .' , . . , . , . .!!.!f!,.~.. . . --.!.~.,~..... . . , " . " ': .,'../ '. . .' rJ'·:...·' ...;/.,. :' . 'A' . · 1--~;;'N i..n\~" ~ . .' .<: /l':; \01": ; ~Ih~ C- .. . ".:¡ . . , , : .' .' ..... "'llo~-:~:' 250. 3~ ......p.... ....... ··í:'·~~~ .... . '::,"., ..- '.. .' SITE PLAN '.. '.' '. . '. t J. . :. . . ".<:'5'.. '8NÞYeM~-o? ..... . ··.·Öroncfafe/ßeach at.c67m;c&rnCreek . ". '. . . .. , . IMI", .. . '. . ~ . ~'.,.~.'., . C....., . .' ----. . . - , . " . .' ,. . . . . .. .., '. :'), < ':.':' . :>, :'::.'~<">._', '. ..'. :'.',.', ...:' ': :'. . ~ ..:'. " ":.' '.. :', ':. ....:.:.. '~~.'_:" ~~, ~~~'~'n" ',~ .;Q .' ·Z . .... , . . '. . //., "..... ~'V'\ yr;. ~ .. '.' . . .' .: ". :) J' .' .........Inh.v.J..o-. .... ';: .' . '. .' . f ~ , . Oso 100 ISO. . 2SO' . 350 .':. '. . . .' '/: ',*IN~tenV!S're: . '.,....,. .... ':. .... SITE PLAN ....., ~'" .... " '.:. . . . "'" . . '. ". ..,. . jð_~. ". .:.-. ~ '._ ..... . .~- ·····9r;nifaie··:;~¿a(J/ìaf;Ch;~~(;~m.·êreek· Chimacum Creek I Irondale Beach Park Master Plan Jefferson County Parks and Recreation December 9, .2003 Agenda 7:00 p.m. Open House Informal Review of Alternative Site Plans (County staff available to answer questions) 7:30 p.m. Introduction and Overview Warren Steurer, Jefferson County Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning 7:35 p.m. Presentation of Site Plans and Facilitated Evaluation Rick Sepler, Facilitator 8:30 p.m. Closing and Next Steps Warren Steurer For additional information on the park planning process, please contact: Warren Steurer Parks and Recreation Manager Jefferson County Department of Public Works Phone: 385.9129 e-maiJ: wsteurer@co.jefferson.wa.us 5604 20th Ave NW Seattle, Washington 98107 Phone 206.2972106 . Fax 206.297.2301 E-mail: mpds@nw lnk.com 1256lawrence Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Phone 360.379.8151 Fax 360.379.0131 E-maß: madrona@olympus.net 20 January 2004 Warren Steurer Parks and Recreation Director Jefferson County P.O. Box 2070 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: Preliminary Analysis of proposed boat ramp at lrondale Park Dear Warren, We appreciate the opportunity to assist the County in developing a Master Plan for the park property located at lrondale Beach. As you are aware, a key outcome associated with the on-going public planning process for the facility has been the request from community members for additional.information regarding the feasibility and potential benefits and/or impacts 3$sociated with the establishment of a boat ramp on the site. Although a thorough, in-depth technical analysis of the issues associated with the construction of a boat rampin the park would be required as precursor to any permitting process, a brief, initial appraisal may serve to indicate whether it is feasible to consider further exploration of the proposal. In this case, feasibility would be defined as the ability to construct a facility that: . Mee~ Identified Needs -The new ramp should allow great~r and more efficient usage than found at other ramps in the area (Lower Hadlock, Oak Bay). Is Environmentally Compatible - Any proposed ramp must provide thoroughly documented research and evidence on the environmental impacts of the proposal, including impacts to fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality. The analysis must also identify recommended mitigation's which will ensure that the ramp would be constructed ~d configured in such a manner as to be compatible with natural characteristics of the shoreline. Is Affordable in both the Short and Long Term - The proposed ramp must be cost effective. Mitigation's, construction and costs associated with ongoing operation. . . Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 2 and maintenance of the facility must be directly proportionate to the likely benefit derived. Should initial analysis indicate a high probability that the proposed facility would not be able to successfully meet any of the above-referenced criterions, it would be our recommendation to refrain from further explon¡tiòn of the topic. Howevet, should the initial review appear promising, further detailed research would be warranted. It is important to note that successful completion of the preliminary analysis summarized in this letter would not be a guarantee that subsequent analysis would similarly find the proposal to be feasible. Analysis of Preliminal}' Feasibility The following analysis is based on research and the assessment of existing infonnation found in adopted plans and regulations, studies 'and the environmental record. No new materials were prepared for this letter report. Specific source references have been noted. 1. The proposed ramp must meet identified needs. Public comment has indicated that the Port Hadlock I Irondale area is currently under served in terms of effective boat launch facilities. Althoug~ ramps currently exist in relatively close proximity to the park site, these facilitieS have been identified as deficient due to a variety or reasons (please see AttachmeQt 1 for a summary of area facilities). In order to meet identified needs and represent a net improvement in access to the water, the proposed ramp should Dot be subject to similar constraints. These constraints are summarized in Table 1 below: UnusabledurinJ Low Tides. Several of the existing ramps are located on shorelines that are characterized by gentile slopes that limit use during low tide periods. he proposed site has been identified to f$ve similar gentle slope characteristics. ) Use limitation similar to those found at other area sites are likely. I Phone conversation with Amy Leitman, Marine Surveys abd Assessments, December 17,2003. .> Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 3 .. .......- ..'~ .'.. J~~~~I;¡¡f~,J;:;u' Silt and Sand Deposits Limit Use. Lack of Parkin¡. Several of the area ramps have significant parking constraints or offer no parking at all. Susceptible to Stoim Damaee. Several of the surrounding ramps are not well sheltered from stonn events resulting in dama e to the facili . Lack of Maintenance. Existing ramps are not well maintained. Migration of sand across the intertidal area and erosion of the existing banks are likely.2 Silt and sand will limit use of the proposed ramp and will require maintenance for on- oin 0 rations. Adequate parking for off-peak use can be located with the park. Peak use will require additional area that can similarly be rovided on-site. . The proposed launch will not be sheltered from stonn events and may suffer damage similar to that found at existing ramps. The proposed ramps would require a commitment from the County for on-going maintenance. Analysis: Preliminary review indkates that the singular advantage of establishing a ramp at the IrondaJe park site (as compared to other existiDg ·facilities) is the ability to accommodate on-site parking. 2. Environmentally Compatible. The best potential location on the subject site for a boat ramp is located on the southerly portion of the property. This portion of the site offers the best access to the water as the beach is steeper and water deeper a few yards from shore. Although deeper than other portion of the site, the slope remains relatively flat The construction of a boat ramp in the southerly portion of the site would have the following likely environmental impacts: · Potential adverse effect to existing habitat values. A portion of the site has been identified as a sand-lance spawning site. There is also an identified surf- smelt spawning site on the WDFW property. The establishment of a ramp 2 Conversation with Hugh Shipman. Shorelines Specialist. DOE on-site, December lIlia, 2003. .~ Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 4 may impede sediment and nutrient transport along the beach to and from the spawning sites. · Potential adverse effect on existing eelgrass meadows. It is anticipated that the reconfiguration of the adjacent WDFW property beach will result in the expansion of the pre-existing eel grass meadows in the intertidal zone and a general increase in plankton and forage fish habitat The impact of ramp construction and on-going maintenamce (sand and silt removal) may have an adverse effect on the health of the eelgrass meadows. Ana1y!d~: It is likely that the construction of a boat ramp on the park property will have an adverse eß'ect OD the shoreline environment. However, the severity of these eß'~ cannot be determined at this time from avaßable information. Additional study is warranted to assess the relative magnitude of environmental impacts associated With a potential boat ramp facility. However, it is untikely that these studies can be initiated (or wonld be meaniugfol) until after completion of the proposed WDFW beach restoration due to that projects significant, albeit positive, alteration to the immediate shoreline environment. 3. Short and Lone Tenn Affordability. A key consideration in evaluating the potential establishment of a boat ramp in the Park is the cost to construct and operate such a facility. Several variables need to be confirmed to allow for the preparation ofa detailed estimate for construction cost. These variables include a detailed analysis of the seabed to determine slope, sand migration patterns and existing habitat values. At present, based on available informatioD, a preliminary estimate can be prepared for planning purposes using costs associated with other recent project:g3. It should be cautioned however that these estimates are very preliminary _ additional research will be required to obtain more accurate cost projections. Grant funding is available to establish boat ramps in Washington. Potentially, a portion of construction expense could be defrayed through a successful lAC grant .3 Phone conversation with Reid-Middleton Shoreline Group Staff. December 22. 2003 Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 5 proposal. However, ramp construction will require approval from a number of agencies including Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WFW). As you are aware WFW is embarking on a significant restoration effort on the adjoining parcel. \VFW has expressed concern regarding the potential adverse effects on their efforts that may occur asa result of the establishment of a ramp on the park: site. Ramp - Grading, concrete ramp, 1 $ 50,000 retainin structures, etc. &m-6ft wide x 70ft 1 sq .ft. $70 $ 29,400 Piles 4 ea $ 3,000 $ 12,000 Pavement - 1/2 parking and sq.ft $ 27,000 approach Stonnwater Management - for $ 15,000 im rvious surfaces, wash down Water Service -for wash down (use $ 7,000 pre-existing connection in Moore Street RO . A & E Design costs, project $ 15,000 mana ement Entitlements - Environmental $ 25,000 studies, rmittin Estimated Project Total $ 180,400 The post-construction operation of the boat ramp will present on-going operation and maintenance costs to the County. These costs are summarized below: Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 6 · Ramp Maintenance: The i'amp will require periodic removal of sand and silt deposits. The frequency and estimated cost of this removal is not known at present. Additional stUdy will be required to determine drift patterns when the WFW restoration is completed on the adjoining parcel. · Float Maintenance: F10ats established in a marine environment have a limited life span. Exposure to the elements, wind and wave acûon can rapidly wear materials necessitating replacement. In addition, winter stonns can severely damaged floats and ramp facilities. The proposed site is exposed to storms from the southeast The areas most significant stonn events occur with predictable frequency from this direction. An alternative that could prolong the life of the float system would be to remove it during the winter. This would entail additional removal I reinstallation expense but would significantly increase the life of the floats. · Security: The need to locate the ramp on the southerly portion of the park site (to provide access to the deepest water) presents a significant security problem. The proposed ramp will not be visually accessible from surrounding homes. The lack of visual connectivity is an invitation for vandalism and unlawful activities. Potential solutions include the location of a care-taker facility on site, an increase in Sheriff patrols of the area, the establishment of area lighting and/or the construction of a lockable, security fence surrounding the boat ramp facility. · Fee Collection / Monitoring: It is likely that a portion of the costs associated with the operation of the ramp can be recovered through the establishment of a launch fee (simiJar to the $5 fee currently charged at Port of Port Townsend ramps). Although the collection of the fee is typically accomplished through an "iron ranger" or drop box, these facilities must be checked (and fUnds removed) at least once per day and more frequently during periods of intensive use. Failure to remove funds in a timely manner is an invitation to crime. This is especially applicable to the proposed ramp due to it's visually isolated location. Employee costs associated with fee collection are exacerbated by the anticipated ~ Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 7 ! peak times for ramp use, with likely highest use of the facility occurring during weekend and holiday periods. Analvstc¡: The proposed ramp wiD require a significant capital expenditure to construct. It is possible that expense to the County can be reduced through successful grant applications. Post-construction operation and maintenance wiD required regular expenditures for the County. As typical for facilities of this type, the service life of the ramp wiD be limited and will require reinvestment over time to ensure continued efficient operation. Conclusion Based on the preliminary analysis prepared to date, it does not appear that the subject property is well suited to the establishment of a boat ramp facility. Further investigation does not appear cost-effective or warranted. An alternative strategy to address identified boating access deficiencies may be to investigate other locations which are better-able to accommodate a new boat ramp while concurrently working with existing ramp operators to review opportunities to upgrade existing facilities. Please feel free to contact me directly should you wish to discuss the analysis and/or the conclusions raised herein. Sincerely, f!J1.4r -- Ric d M. Septer, AICP Principal '0 5 2 ~ o f-4 1:: æ ~ 1:: æ 4) oS £ '0 ~ 4) 8- '0 ã '0 4) = ~ o (IJ ~ '0 '0 I) .gã~..c:- ... (IJ (.) f-4 Ë .8£~tigJ S'OQ.œ... '.c I) - ~ c2 "O'tûõ- ã-g~~~~ a::JœbO='~ >. = - = .... œ .- - 4) 00 it >.';; :g -g - äã:a.g(IJg bO ~ ~ t:: .~ ~ "O=o__O...cl= =0"0 -.;Iœ œ(.)"ObO-...cI t .~ ã .5 ~ ~ 's.. Q. Q. -g _ 4) ...1)~S.g=~ ..o"'e~œ- .~-Š.8~~~ ~ ~f-4 4)~..o Q.t ~_. ~~~~g.~ B 0 ..c: .Þ r;; ~ ~::z::(.)-~=. (.) œ I) .... ~. = =.8:õ ='0 00.... FP...œ (.) '.c - 0- -- - - >,.....0 '0 :.0 I) > ¡,.,- ã=g~l)= -¡o 8 =& (IJ > .~ ..£ ... œ .- ø:s .... bO'- 4) 'tû (IJ ::J =cf!...cI...cI~..o 'r;.¡ = .. .. I) .- e 4) S fl ..c: ~ 0 >0 f-4œct:(.);,g I 00 B :; 'r;.¡ 0 1)..0 oS ~ =c2 =ã e .- 0 ~ 0 ~ ;;; 4) .- ...... e N 'g I) ~ ... oS ~ o ~ (IJ ~ 4) 4) ~'i~ o a 0 ~~4) œ = '0 f 0 'r;.¡ œ ';) ..c: ~ ~ g :g (IJ 4) ... 4) = a. oS ~ 0== = 0 0 >. ..£ 'i =ä ~ = '5 ~ ~ (IJ ø:s 8 ~ .~ ... 4) .~ ~ =ä ~ .- b 4)~-- - - .... E=: à: ~ o - ... o (IJ bO .¡:: = ..0 :.a I) ... (.) o 0 = o ::J . Q. ~ ~ = I) ~ .- ~ ø:s .~ œ "0 Q. e B e "0 ~ e '3 ~ t+-o 0 rJ) 0 ~ ø:s = rJ) ..c: 0 «> .... "0 Q. .... '.c S g ~ e :: 0 c..., «> - I') o~'tûõ = °oS:õ ~ ....J :l 'r;.¡ e ô (IJ (IJ U(IJ4)~ ::J bO - bOs .d bO ::J ._ (.) = (IJ ... § '.c Q. 0 ~ 5 S ~ ~ > e 5 o~t+-oe ..o"O~:a oS~Þo(IJ .;: ø:s = 1i ;>-4QO ~ ::Je .....¡ ..0 ø:s t+-o Q.5=0 o à g '.c ~ = I) :a .- ::J > = "0 o ø:s 0 ø:s U..c:(.).g N N , > - C) tIO 8- ....... § N ... C) .0 S ! II) CI) '-' "C s:: II) <i) s:: ~ o f-< - ... ~ 'a - ... ~ tI.! ..£ 13 ~ ~ C) tf u ~ ä ... t:Q =a ~. ~ l! ... 0 .0 . ·ÞC ~ ... 0 I) ... -ö u ~ Co Co :s < .3 < - - - ... ... " . , .. ^ õ > f! tIA) '--' ~ o =ã ... - V) N ... c2 tIA) s:: 32 ... tf .d (,,) s:: ::s .!! - (If o ..0 -5 .~ ~ ... (If Q" 2 S V,) {I) ..2 'ë \0 s:: o > (If. :I: ~ o t:Q "'0 = o {I) s:: ~ o F-o 1:: & i- .- - '(3 ~ "'0 = o {I) = ~ o E-< 1:: & <a 1::: & I "'0 "ë o -5 .5 "'0 ..2 '3 U) .5 e o ~ ~ o ~ tIA) s:: :.a (,,) ¿ s:: 0 ;1 'l: ......;0 "'0 = s:: 0 (If (,,) ..c:"'O (,,) 0 s:: 0 ::s .!! _ .5 ~ e ..0 (If .~ "'0 _ s:: ..0 (If ::s U) Q"ft ~~ E-<..... U) ..2 'ë \0 ~ tIA) ï:: .5 ..... ai"Ö~.s ~ e g ~ = t) a:s ..c: "'0 .- >..~ Q" ~ = tIA) -;:: _ 8 ~ cd .~ Õ ..0 F ... ~,.¥; !!" ;; õ .= ... ~ ~ -5 ~ -fi tf .8 .~ -::S§õ8:õ ~~.!!g.~6. o -.;¡ o..c: ., - ..~U)..o- .!! Q" (If "Ö ::s -5 ::Sª800g §"'~~=5 ~.s Ë-t''§ g- o s:: 0 > a:s > 0 Q,,'l: Cf.) -g ~-g~~g(lf "Ö .t:: 0 ... "'0 8 ã ~ ~ .5 § cl:: U) Q" 0 .~ .- U) "g -8 0 Q" ë 'þ a:s e -d ~ 8.:.:= õ a:s p U) '(3 > "Ö - .- a:s f! ã 'g. u3 ~ '; tIA) tn e -8 (If -5 <a"go'l: Q,,8 U)(If..o~80 ~õ~~f!cl:: (,,»~-OtlA) .5 f!. ¡:; (If ..... s:: .... U) ..... (If .= - .....o-;a- f!=13~og'<t j~~~.~35 U) ..2 'ë t-- ..0 ::s o = o 8 ~ V,) "'0 = o {I) = ~ o E-< 1::: & i- .- - .- (,,) ~ "Ö = o {I) s:: ~ o E-< 1::: & <a 1::: & {I) d) - 'ë t-- = o {I) "'0 ::s :I: ..... s:: Æ ¿ o 'l: ;a = o (,,) ... ;ß = .- Q" 8 a:s tx: U) ... ..2 'g o o ..... .... c2 tIA) = :g tf as i Q" d) 2 U) ~ ~ o "Ö o :E ~ tIA) ã .S õ.~ 2 [ e ..... (,,)~ =..c: o Q" (,,) U) (If (If {I) "'0 o = "Ö (If ::sõ. 13 ::s .5 "Ö þã .- ..... == ~ (,,) 0 ~~ ..c: tIA) (,,) .5 S::"Ö ::s (If j~ tû 0 o ~ ~ t:Q I ..2 -g~g o {I) s:: s:: 0 ~ > o d) E-< ~ ~ 1::: s:: Ê 0 (If c£ ~ ~ .5 0 (,,) I 1::: ~ & ci: f! ~ 8 E-< f! ~ ¡ 8 'x e Q" Q" (If s:: (If ..... ..c: tIA) 'õ ... c2 U) o ] 00 >.. (If t:Q ~ :E {I) ..... (If :E N - I 2: i û 8 u ..c:: (,) (I) c:i. 8 8 ~ Q "CI I:: U (I) I:: ~ {!. -8 ';;'¡ 1:: þ&' ~'a () 1:: ~æ . ." · _t' ãi- E g ~ ~ 02':; sv) CIS- ::s ~ 0" - o S "0 as CIS S u.t ._ .- ~ ~ e '5 Q., .......e- ~ ã ã'5 '5 .~ u.t ~ .~ .! CtJ 4) as Q.,O 0.0 'ii ... oc2 ';::2 0 g ~ tie· ::s ~g" 4) "0 > as CIS Õ u.t C ~ .~ Q.,- E.ð f! Þ o:l . .c as ~ f-o..8c! ^ ~ > g, "0 ã 1 '-" 5 ~ ~ ... c2 bO = :52 æ -5 = ~ ~ o .0 '5 .¡ ~ ~ Q., i tI.) u.t 4) - 'ë co c o "E ~. t: ~ , ,-... "0 «> > as Q., t' "0 ã - 4) > ~ a ~ 4) ~ N ~ ... c2 tie c :s2 æ ..c: (.) = ~ ~ o .0 '5 .¡ ~ .... as Q., ~ s fJ') u.t ..2 'ë V) cO ~ 'i a: t: ~