Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council

Transcription

Kitsap Regional
Coordinating Council
Chair
Mayor Patty Lent
City of Bremerton
Vice-Chair
Commissioner Josh Brown
Kitsap County
Commissioner Steve Bauer
Commissioner Charlotte Garrido
Kitsap County
Council Member Will Maupin
Council Member Dianne Robinson
Council Member Greg Wheeler *
City of Bremerton
Council Member Kim Brackett
Council Member Hilary Franz
Council Member Kirsten Hytopoulos*
City of Bainbridge Island
Mayor Lary Coppola
Council Member Carolyn Powers
Council Member Jim Colebank *
City of Port Orchard
Mayor Becky Erickson
Council Member Linda Berry~Maraist *
City of Poulsbo
Council Chair Leonard Forsman
Rob Purser*
Suquamish Tribe***
Council Chair Jeromy Sullivan
Council Member Kelly Baze
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe***
Commissioner Bill Mahan
Commissioner Roger Zabinski *
Port of Bremerton
Captain Mark Olson
Tom Danaher, PAO *
Naval Base Kitsap **
Mary McClure
Executive Management
McClure Consulting LLC
* Alternate
* * Ex Officio Member
*** Associate Member
P.O. Box 1934
Kingston, WA 98346
360-377-4900 (voice)
360-297-7762 (fax)
www.KitsapRegionalCouncil.org
KRCC Public Hearing Re: Proposed Revisions to the
Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies
Draft Transcript of Comments
January 27, 2011
Public Hearing Started: 5:16 p.m.
Public Hearing Ended: 7:10 p.m.
Attendance noted at end
1. William Matchitt: President Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC)
Read the HCEC comment letter ~ included in the public comment packet.
2. Eric Baker: Kitsap County Commissioners Office
I am here to testify in support of the language in Element B-1, as well as the areas
associated with Fully Contained Communities (FCC’s), to provide and option ~ and
an option only ~ for the continued discussions of FCC’s and National Historic
Towns (NHT’s) in our discussions of the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership.
I want to present to you today a draft map (see Appendix), which illustrates the
impacts of residential housing, particularly in North Kitsap. You can tell from the
map [of North Kitsap] the large quantity development (areas noted in small dots).
Much of the development is in the form of small sized lots ~ rural PUD’s, 1, 1.5, 2
and 5 acre lots. As you can tell from this pattern in the north-end, there is a very
limited amount of area that is not encumbered by some kind of residential use ~ not
necessarily a home, but the impacts of a home ~ the roads associated with it, etc.
What you are looking at here is a number of limited opportunities for large-scale
contiguous open space acquisition ~ potentially into a public entity: Port Gamble,
Hansville, the portion by the Heritage Park and the divide property. All of these
properties are currently owned by the Olympic Property Group (OPG).
Kitsap County has been discussing potential land acquisition of these acres with
OPG, as well as the Port Gamble S’Klallam and Suquamish tribes, over the course
of the last year. Through these discussions we have looked at a number of
opportunities to acquire this land, ranging from the use of straight cash or grant
funds, Transfer of Development Rights, infrastructure provision, and also potential
opportunities for additional density somewhere within the OPG ownership. Through
these discussions we have talked about a lot of land use mechanisms ~ ranging from
Rural Clustering, Transfer of Development Rights, National Historic Towns
(NHT’s) and Fully Contained Communities (FCC’s). These are intending as
opportunities in our toolbox as discussions among the private property owner, the
two tribes, and the county move forward over the next couple of years.
The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies (CPP’s) are not intended to be opened
again until 2016. For discussions of FCC’s and ~ to a degree ~ discussions of
NHT’s, to move forward over the next couple of years, it is important that they are
located within the CPP’s.
I would also like to dismiss a few misunderstandings about the FCC language. FCC’s & NHT’s are
authorized under the Growth Management Act (GMA). FCC’s are not necessarily prohibited by the current
CPP’s. It is indicated that they should be utilized in only very rare circumstances where the regional impacts
have been fully analyzed and properly addressed. The CPP’s have included FCC language since 2001. That
language included a limited number of sidebars and safeguards associated with FCC’s. The proposed
language increases the safeguards and sidebars significantly. They establish what needs to be included in an
FCC proposal ~ including a Phasing Plan. You’ll hear testimony today about the poor success rate of FCC’s
across the water. A lot of that has to do with their size, rate, and composition, and that they did not contain a
Phasing Strategy of how to balance residential and commercial uses. In the proposed language you see that a
Phasing Plan has to be included in any future FCC. This language does not designate an FCC anywhere in
Kitsap County, or a requirement to do so. Nor does it re-direct growth away from any of the existing Urban
Growth Areas (UGA’s). The population is coming form the rural area, not any of the existing population
centers ~ thus no impact to the existing cities’ growth strategies.
In closing, the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership is looking to hold a whole host of discussions over the next
couple of years. It will be important as we wrestle with this complicated issue, to have as many tools
available to us in the toolbox that the GMA and the Multi-County Planning Policies allow, while including
necessary safeguards, and ensuring that there is no impact to the existing jurisdictions of Kitsap County, as
well as the regional entities in Thurston and Mason counties, and on the east side of the water.
3. James Weaver: Development Director, City of Port Orchard
Thank you for this opportunity to address you this evening and for the KRCC staff’s hard work on this year
long process. I think it is a great product we have before us, and that tonight’s testimony is the next step
towards a product that I think will be beneficial for not just the cities and the county for many years into the
future. I am here tonight representing the City of Port Orchard and their comments. There are two
documents I would like to submit for the public hearing. One is a January 19 letter from the Mayor of Port
Orchard (included as part of public comment packet), addressing two items. The City was integral in the
development of a solution which was generally accepted by the City Council and the Mayor, specifically
two amendments to B3: Urban Growth Areas and Appendix C: UGAMA Agreements. These two items
were specifically addressed in the January 19 letter, and were a significant part of the discussion among the
KRCC Board at their meeting on January 25, 2011. Much of the discussion was recorded on BKAT. The
City Council met on the evening of January 25, 2011 and passed a resolution, which I will read and would
like entered into the record. The resolution is 00511, from the City of Port Orchard City Council,
recommending revisions to the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies submitted to the Board of
the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council in December, 2010. The resolution was passed unanimously on
January 25, and signed by the Mayor. See public comment packet for the resolution.
4. Molly Lee: Resident, City of Poulsbo
For exhibits relating to this comment see Appendix
What I see occurring at this time is; citizens concerns with unmanaged growth. Unmanaged growth is
happening under the umbrella of the Growth Management Act (GMA) – on the ground level (Exhibit #1).
I see a perception of growth from government officials; not necessarily in tune with citizen concerns. At this
point we have the ethical/legal lapse at an authoritative level (Exhibit #2). I see the dominant ability of
persuasive power when certain individuals (a minority of the general public) are allotted special
opportunities, outside of the Growth Management Act (Exhibit #3). I see the law of GMA “squeezed” out of
proportion, beyond the legal limitations (Exhibit #4). I see a minority of individuals’ intent on passionate
personal gain, infiltrating the GMA system in authority positions (Exhibit #5). I see the same minority using
their “authority” to quell the concerns and legal rights of citizens to provide input into all land use issues
(Exhibit #6). I see authorities using the law to gain (Exhibit #7).
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Public Hearing
January 27, 2011: Proposed Revisions to Countywide Planning Policies
Page 2
Urban Growth Areas in Kitsap County are too large. Existing Urban Growth Areas, including Poulsbo’s
Urban Growth Area, have the ability to serve population beyond their requirement by the Growth
Management Act. They are disproportionate beyond their means economically, and do this at the expense of
private property owners’ wishes and pocketbooks. They remove remaining environment and natural
resources that are necessary for life; and to top it off, these Urban Growth Areas continue to unplug the
economic resources that this country needs so desperately to reserve and use for the suffering. Urban sprawl,
which is what is gained from excessive urban growth areas, epitomizes the arrogant disdain of our economic
reality. Houses continue to be built for people who are broke, hungry and cannot afford to buy them. It is
integral to retain the mandatory element for lands to be considered as urban separators; this is our
opportunity to “bridle” growth. Law provides direction, the human conscience, as we can see, does not.
5. Tom Nevins: West Sound Conservation Council
The West Sound Conservation Council (WSCC) is a coalition of conservation groups in the West Puget
Sound, dedicated to bringing the voice of environmental responsibility to the public debate. The WSCC has
submitted a one page comment letter, which is a very interesting read, I’m sure you will all get to read it. I
won’t read it to you now. In general, we are calling for the language which related to Fully Contained
Communities to be removed from this current document. Mr. Baker mentioned it is a tool in a toolbox. He
also made an allusion to how long that tool would remain there, and it is an awfully long time. Presently we
enjoy a very high quality leadership at the County ~ that could change in an election, and I am a little bit
concerned about this tool in the toolbox in the hands of other people. It is presently directed to development
at the Port Gamble region, but it could be used elsewhere. The WSCC is in favor of many of the aspects that
have been mentioned in connection with the Port Gamble project. The restoration and protection of Port
Gamble Bay, habitat preservation and protection, limited public access consistent with that, and resource
management consistent with that. All that we are opposing is the tool in the tool box which could lead to
diminishing capability of the cities to do what is their primary job, which is to attract growth and
development into their cities. It is in your plan and our hope is that you will maintain and fulfill that goal,
rather than create opportunities for developing outside of the current Urban Growth Areas. Thank you. Full
WSCC comments included as part of public comment packet.
6. Micheal Gustavson: Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners
There are a number of issues with this document. Firstly the GMA requires in 36.70A.0206 “ensure
property rights of land owners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.” We don’t find
any sentence in this document that speaks to property rights, even though it is mandated by State Law. We
also don’t see any reference to the goals of GMA, which are also required. We are disturbed that the
decision making is passed forward to a non-elected body; the Puget Sound Regional Council. Basically,
what is manifest in these policies is an abdication of local control and accountability to the citizens of Kitsap
County for the sake of a few dollars of grant money ~ often which is more expensive than the grant dollars
that are received. A number of you that have been part of the grant process in the past will recognize that
right away.
The document doesn’t seem to address a problem to be solved. Is this a policy document or a mandate?
There is over 118 “shalls” in this document. “Shall” does not imply policy at all. It is a directive. So, we do
not have a policy document. There are many examples in here. I am submitted about 100 ~ we commented
on your document all the way through. We do find some things that are odd though. It addresses cities as
“Cities, UGA’s, LAMIRDS, and Southworth.” I live in Southworth, and there is really not a whole lot there
~ we’d love to see that. It really doesn’t make sense. The existing CPP does not seem to be reflected in the
County Comprehensive Plan. That’s bothersome. Do we need a CPP, yet it is not in the Comp Plan. In here
is a requirement for Low Impact Development. It requires removing the street covers in Bremerton and
replacing those with pervious streets. The question comes “where are you going to get the money for that?”
Page 3
It’s darned expensive. In North Dakota we have torn up 100 miles of black top roads ~ because they’re too
expensive ~ and replaced them with gravel roads. Government at all levels is broke. When the State was
getting money from the Feds it was a good idea, but that option is no longer available this year ~ the Feds
are broke as well. These kinds of regulations further reduce the amount of revenue the County receives
because it restricts the ability for people to build homes. Who pays for the parks and open spaces that come
off the tax roles? Who pays to maintain them? The County has far more park-land today than it can possibly
maintain. [With regard to] farming, we have heard from the public ~ through a strong request at the County
Planning Commission ~ to de-regulate farming practices so that a single farmer could do butchering
services for many farmers. That is not available to them today.
By merely laying in farmland preservation over the county we further restrict the property. Every time there
is an overlay, that is another $15,000 from the price of a house. [With regard to] the price of homes: In order
for the bank lending practice to be in place, if the median price of home is no more than three times the
median income, the banks will loan money on it. Currently, the median price of homes in this county is
$240,000. Median income is $60,000. You do the math. Quality of life is important, but if people are broke
they have no quality. The market has to be the driver, particularly in housing.
When we draft documents in the engineering community ~ and often here too ~ a junior person does the
drafting. The manager has an opportunity to review it. You are the managers, you need to read this. I am not
convinced, by reading this myself, that management has read this document. There are lots of contradictions
in here, and things that really don’t make and sense. They are not affordable. Please look at paragraph 3B-3
when you read this document. FullKAPO comments included as part of public comment packet. Marked up
CPP document submitted by KAPO is part of the Appendix.
7. Judith Krigsman: Resident, Illahee
I did try to address a couple of points the other day at your meeting. I would like to speak [tonight] as a
citizen of my community. The KRCC Planning Proposal does not clearly reflect the current growth rate in
Kitsap County and these inflated figures have dramatically changed the amount of land available for
development. This is evident in the amount of sprawl seen everywhere in our county. As you are well
aware, the most important decisions you will be asked to make are to support these large UGA’s.
Illahee is 60% critical areas ~ beautiful in its potential to remain a place of rest, as the name implies. With
important aquifers, steep canyons, wetlands, stream, and sense of community. However, in the 20 years that
I have lived on my 15 acres of forest, steam and old homestead, I have watched the land around me change.
As the fish stream runs brown and pollutes the bay, as the floodplain rises to be disconnected from a fish
stream, as a new culvert on my property on Illahee Road fails, as the flood waters fill the cellar in my 112
year old house, as four story houses are being allowed to be build on Illahee’s floodplains, I look in
amazement at it all. I ask you folks if you truly understand what your signatures on building permits really
mean to others and the way we treat our land. As I see it, these proposed annexations are nothing more than
a tax hike with a funny name being sold as a GMA requirement. Will 1,500 cedar trees being planted next
month along Illahee Creek be enough to help stop the upsteam pollution rolling downstream and into the
bay? I don’t think so.
As you move forward toward annexations, I have five questions which come to mind and I would appreciate
some response on them.
1. What do citizens gain by being annexed?
2. Why are sub-are plans missing from this KRCC document?
3. Will the KRCC document revision proposal indicate to all residents in full disclosure the cost benefit of
annexation?
4. Will the right of citizen vote be paramount?
Page 4
5. Why have the Urban Growth Areas been allowed to be so vast when the population growth figures do not
support growth boundaries?
I do not support the concept of FCC’s. Thank you.
8. Jan Wold, resident, Poulsbo
Re: Urban Growth Areas.
A proposed KRCC population growth distribution for 2030 serves two functions: It determines the amount
of UGA acreage made available to developers and it shows where that growth will occur within the county.
This decision will probably have more impact on the citizens you represent than any other decision you
make regarding what happens in the future. The County is not going to be representing the best interests of
the citizens if we go forward with this approach. The GMA works very well in numerous venues across the
United States. It could be working well for the citizens of Kitsap County, but it has no been allowed to.
More than a decade ago, Kitsap County and City politicians selected the Office of Financial Management’s
(OFM) intermediate estimate level of population growth for establishing and sizing the UGA’s, represented
by the pink solid line on the graph (See Appendix for graph) and the black triangle in the middle of the
graph. They could have selected OFM’s low level, depicted by the blue boxes, which is in-line with actual
Kitsap County growth. Apparently, they wanted overly large UGA’s to be made available to developers
countywide. These UGA’s are about three times larger than needed for the actual population growth out to
2030. Each year the KRCC receives the updated OFM population estimates, showing growth occurring
more slowly ~ at about half the county’s projected rate…including through the real estate boom.
The County has made no effort, year after year, to reduce these huge, obviously erroneous growth
projections and their over-sized UGA’s. In 2007 the Buildable Lands report showed that actual growth from
2000 to 2005 was occurring at only half the projected population growth rate. County politicians, again, did
not adjust the size of the UGA’s. Later Kitsap County was directed by the courts to correct some of its
procedural errors responding to over-sizing the UGA’s. Instead, the County again elected to retain the oversized UGA’s ~ depicted in the area between the top dashed line and the green line [on the graph].
This again enabled the County to avoid allowing the GMA to work as designed. That decision was also
struck down by the court in as much as the UGA’s were still too large. Our current Commissioners recently
elected to avoid right-sizing the UGA’s again, in appeal to the Washington Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court agreed with the Washington Court of Appeals and said they do need to be reduced in size. Again, the
over-sizing is from the blue line at the bottom to dashed line at the top. There is only one real problem with
the GMA in Kitsap County: super-sized UGA’s, open to developers that have created expensive urban
sprawl. Here we are, 10 years later, and this latest KRCC proposed process is still attempting to maintain
over-sized UGA’s. We the citizens have suffered 10 years of disastrous results financially and
environmentally due to this large gift to development.
The time to begin correcting this problem has been every year in the past decade. Please do not consider
ignoring the problem and delaying its solution. The citizens can no longer accept the consequences of inaction. A few days ago the Kitsap County Commissioners announced they could no longer afford to provide
services in un-incorporated urban areas. Yet, year after year, doing nothing has created the sprawl that
actually is creating part of the problem. The GMA will work for us if we let it.
Although the actual population growth in Kitsap County will be determined by the market place over the
next decades, this decision determines again the size of the Urban Growth Areas, leading again to higher
public expenses due to that associated sprawl, infrastructure and traffic costs. It is the most important
determinant whether our largest City, Bremerton, with the greatest amount of infrastructure in place is either
allowed to continue to decline, loosing 1,069 people of its population over the last decade, or is allowed to
Page 5
again become the vibrant city that it could be.
In closing, I would like to say that you really do need to take a look at this. Any time you delay this any
longer makes the problem worse. It is a cost to the citizens and there is no way to get around it ~ it really
does have to be addressed. Thank you.
9. Micheal Maddox: Citizen
I am primarily talking about the FCC proposed for the Port Gamble area, and the North Kitsap Legacy area.
First, there are a lot of people interested in preserving the forest and also trying to maintain the bay and also
maintain the Port Gamble town as not a large urban area. Instead, Port Gamble should be made truly a
historical town ~ one that celebrates the S’Klallam Tribe ~ celebrates Native Americans, our loggers, our
fishermen. It could be a place with education centers, it could celebrate our near-shore shoreline ~ the
shellfishing that goes on, the habitat. The land should be purchased by a coalition of groups ~ by the
County, by land-trusts, by agencies, etc. I think there is a lot of interest in that area. Get the populace
involved. I think you can probably get together the funds to purchase the land. It would take a lot of
partnership and a lot of working together.
Here are a couple of reasons why: Firstly, Port Gamble isn’t just any piece of real estate, it actually has been
the homeland of the S’Klallam Tribe for centuries. And to just build on top of that and let it disappear, I
think, would be a terrible sin. Secondly, we have the Port Gamble Bay. It is a homeland for a lot of wildlife,
a spawning area for herring and migration habitat for many of our creatures. We shouldn’t just let it
degrade, and that is what happens when intensive development occurs along a bay and a marina is put in.
All of that stuff can degrade the bay. Thirdly, if an FCC was put there, it would create a lot of congestion,
you would have a major thoroughfare going north and south along Kitsap. It’s totally unnecessary. It would
entail the costs that go into building a community.
A number of people have already talked about FCC’s being failed projects and we certainly don’t need
another UGA. In summary, it is a bad idea for the bay, for the idyllic town of Port Gamble. It is a good idea
to conserve the forest ~ there are a lot of folks that would like to do that. There are trails associations,
conservation associations, the County. You could mobilize a number of organizations to try to buy the land,
including the town, and turn it into a true historical town, and have a forest full of parks, etc. It is going to
require some coordination, it will require a lot of people coming together ~ a lot of work has already been
done on the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership, we would want to give a fair price to Pope [Resources] for
that property. I hope such a coalition come into play. Thank you.
10. Jeromy Sullivan: Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
I would like to thank the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council and Patty Lent for allowing me to do this. I
know that it is rather un-orthodox for a member of the Board to testify during the comment period.
My letter is in opposition of the change in Countywide Policy that would allow for a new population
allocation for a Fully Contained Community, a Fully Contained Community (FCC) or a Historic Town Site.
My name is Jeromy Sullivan; I am Chairman of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. I would like to thank
you all for giving us the opportunity to express our concern about creating a new city in Port Gamble.
Currently, Port Gamble and the owners of the property have the right to do some developing and they have
gone through the process for that right. We have no objections to the permanent decision that has already
been made about that property and would like it to stay the same. My Tribe has a rich history with the
shores of Port Gamble. The S’Klallam people called it “Noo-Kayet”. There is proof of our existence that
dates back more than 2,000 years. Currently, where the General Store stands today in Port Gamble stood a
Smoke House and a surrounding village, the village was called Teekalet. We also had village sites along the
Page 6
waters of Port Gamble ~ seasonal villages. Our people have been harvesting shellfish and finfish from these
waters since time immemorial. We would like to continue to for the rest of time.
I would like to tell a little about my experience with the bay, and it is very brief. I grew up playing in the
bay and harvesting clams and finfish. I love to eat oysters, cockles, littlenecks, manilas, butter clams, horse
clams and geoduck. We have been fishing for bottom fish, such as ling cod (which we cannot find anymore)
and flounder in the bay for many years. We harvest salmon and we grow salmon from these shores. There
have been moments in my life when eating from our beach was the only option for my family, the only food
source. We still have families that rely on subsistence harvesting throughout the year.
If a city were to be an option, it most likely would be pursued. While we understand that this is a
countywide policy, we question where you would choose to use them besides Port Gamble. I have heard
that this is just a tool for the tool box. I don’t understand why this county would want to put a broken tool
in the toolbox. We only have heard or researched instances where FCC’s has not been successful. If we
don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
This is not the only instance that this company has affected our Tribe. Port Ludlow is an Ancestral Village
of the S’Klallam people and we were able to harvest there until Pope Resources, or its subsidiaries, built a
golf community complete with a marina. Our Tribe will never be able to harvest any shellfish or finfish
from those waters ever again. And it is not just our Tribe ~ nobody will be able to harvest. This is the same
company that owns the lands directly across from the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, where our Ancestral
Village was.
Our Tribe is not out to stop growth or prohibit the County in acquiring open space. We would love to have
more economic growth for our membership and we preserve a significant part of our reservation in open
space. What we want is responsible growth and our number one priority is the Port Gamble Bay.
The relationship with OPG ~ or Pope and Talbot, as most of us have known it to be ~ has been up and
down, with high points and low. We are currently trying to come to the table with this private landowner to
discuss our issues. While we have only had one meeting, it was positive. We would love to have the right to
get the land back into the Tribe’s ownership and are looking for ways to build a partnership ~ a legacy ~ that
could be beneficial to all the people of Kitsap County.
We do not agree that the land should change its current status ~ which is rural ~ to urban. We know that a
city on the shores of Port Gamble would be devastating. We don’t agree with the possibility of a population
allocation of more than 3,000 people. That would put way more homes ~ approx. 1,200 homes, in that area.
That is simply too much.
KRCC is the group that would make recommendations that will affect the whole County. When we are
doing so, we need to come to a decision with all the facts and use them to help all the citizens of the County.
Some of the question we have: How will the infrastructure be paid for? How will the roads be put in? I
understand, from the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership discussions, it will be paid for from grants acquired
by the County. Grants are usually for paid by tax money. This State is already paying for the clean up of
Port Gamble Bay, as well as Federal dollars. In the end, this cleanup effort could cost millions of dollars.
How much money do the citizens of Washington have to pay for this one landowner?
Thank you for your time and I want to say a special thanks the all courageous people that are about to share
a piece of their lives, and hope that everyone takes these personal stories in a good way.
11. Marie Hebert: Citizen
Good Evening. My name is Marie Hebert. My dad is Conrad Sullivan. My mom is Barbara Sullivan. My
grandparents are Frank and Cyrene Sullivan and Carl and Josephine Sparks. I am a proud Port Gamble
Page 7
S’Klallam. This is the way we properly introduce ourselves so you know who we are. I am speaking on my
own behalf and not as a spokesperson for the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. I am here to share with you one
of the many places important for our tribe ~ Port Gamble Bay.
I want to state for the record that I am against the Fully Contained Community rural city being proposed for
Port Gamble by Olympic Property Group. We, as tribal members, want to continue to enjoy our beach and
exercise the treaty right to harvest shellfish and salmon on reservation as well as off reservation. Many tribal
and community residents go to Point Julia in the summer for clam-bakes and picnics. It is a place to gather.
We are very fortunate that we are able to harvest shellfish on reservation for our clam-bakes and other
subsistence purposes.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to be a speaker at the Environmental Protection Agency conference
held in Anchorage. A speaker from one of the villages that was affected by the Valdez oil spill mentioned
that her people were told they could not harvest shellfish anymore. This was pure devastation to the people
~ for many it was their way of life. You know, they can’t just run to the market to get something for dinner.
I don’t ever want our people to hear those words ~ that the shellfish and finfish are unsafe for consumption.
You may not be aware of many of the traditions that are handed down tribally. I was taught by my
grandparents to dig clams, and so were others. We gather oysters and cook them over an open fire. I usually
have many young people come over for these events. They are drug and alcohol free gatherings. It is a way
to show young people you can have fun without drugs and alcohol, as well as sharing the culture.
You see, the bay is important to us in many different ways. If a city is created then we could lose our treaty
right to harvest shellfish and salmon in our own frond yards because if pollution and possible health risks.
We view the beach and the bay as one of the most important places in our world.
I thank you, Kitsap regional Coordinating Council, for taking the time to listen to all of us. I would like to
give you one of these posters ~ the words on the poster are from a speech I gave in Port Townsend when our
canoe was en route to Bella Bella. The poster reads: As Indian people we must be loving and caring to our
elders who represent the Tribe’s connection with the past. And we need to embody gentleness and
compassion to our children who represent the Tribe’s connection to the future. We look to our elders for our
values and we cannot forget that our children look to us for their values. We call for the healing and
restoration of our two cultures on this one land. If we come together, we honor and nourish human spirit.
When we work together with vision, imagination, and spiritual sensitivity, we will be able to protect those
values and lifestyles we share. The S’Klallam will not go away. We are here for good. And we intend to
work with you in saving our natural resources. We challenge the people of this country and this city to
honor this land and all the plants and creatures. Thank you.
12. Kelly Baze: Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Read into public record letter dated January 20, 2011 ~ included as part of public comment packet.
13. Dennis Jones: Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
I come to you today opposing what has been proposed for Port Gamble. As a young boy I went on an
adventure: I was following my dad around Port Gamble Bay when the tide was out, chasing him. In this
adventure, I did not know what I was learning. What I was learning is something that I teach my kids,
something I teach my grandkids today. When I was following my dad around, he was digging these holes. I
was following him around picking up these big horse clams. After that he was teaching me how to clean
them. He was showing me the different types of clams there are…showing where to gather these different
types of clams…teaching me where the different beds were…how high up on the tidelands they were…how
far up the tide went and where to gather these types of clams.
That adventure brought me to where I am today. Now and then, when hard times do come, I can go out
when that tide is low. I can go out, get me some dinner here, get some dinner there. My dad has also told me
Page 8
stories of times when he had fallen on hard times. You know what, there’s some dinner out there. There is
something out there that we all in Kitsap County might not have. But he has taught me, and I have taught
my kids and grandkids, that when hard times do fall ~ and I hope they don’t fall on you or anybody else ~
there is food right outside that doorway. When that tide goes out, dinner is there.
I also want to say that I have taught my grandkids, who are three, five and nine, the very same things my
dad has taught me ~ where the beds are…where the fish are…when the time is to gather. I want to go as far
as to speak for my three, five and nine year old grandkids to say, “Hey, you cant allow this development to
happen.” I want to speak for their grandkids, and say, “We can’t let this happen.” I want to speak for the
generations to come, “For the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, you cannot let this development happen.”
Thank you.
14. Ted Moran: Port gamble S’Klallam Tribe
I want to thank you for listening to me today. As the gentleman just said, when the tide is out, the table is
set. You can go out and eat anything off the beach. But if you let this housing [development] go through, it’s
going to destroy all of that. And the fishing, the hunting, everything is going to be gone. There is no hunting
over there right now already. What are we supposed to do? I don’t know. You’ve got the answers and I
don’t. When you go out and look at the beach you see clams here and clams there, cockles here, cockles
there, butter-clams, stuff like that. You think, wow, this is a nice place to live. Yeah, it really is. But, what
happens when the oil starts seeping down into the water? All gone. I don’t know what’s going to happen.
Speaking for my generation, and my future generations, I hope that this will not happen so we can all live
together and be happy.
15. Mary Trevithon: Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribal Elder
I just want to say that if the city is built over in Port Gamble, it is going to take away the air quality, the
ground quality, the water quality. Everything is going to be polluted. Our people will not be able to harvest
shellfish or finfish or anything. Like Jeromy said, it will become another Port Ludlow. Nobody will be able
to harvest any kind of food or anything there. Our children go out there. They play, they dig clams. They
will not be able to do that in future.
Highway 104 is a quant highway right now. If that city is built, it will not be able to handle all those cars.
Neither will the Hood Canal Bridge, or the ferry system, because there will be so many cars. Another thing I
want to stress: right now we can look out of our window, our doors, and we can see the mountains and the
trees, and it is so pretty out there. If the city is built, all we are going to see is houses, houses, houses, and
it’s not ever going to be the same.
With the cleanup ~ we are in the process now of cleaning up the bay ~ if that city is built it is going to be all
for nothing. The whole bay is going to become polluted and we are not going to be able to eat from it. I
respectfully ask that you do not consider building a city over in Port Gamble.
16. Noel Higa: Citizen
These comments are my own, not as a representative of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. My name is Noel
Higa, I am the Director of Economic Development for the Tribe. However, I believe that this is an important
enough issue that I am going to give you my personal opinion. These comments are my own and have not
been vetted or approved by the Tribe ~ they are mine alone.
I don’t get it. Kitsap County tells all of its cities they have to annex their UGA’s because the County can no
longer afford to provide urban services. Then they tell us it’s a good idea to create a new Urban Growth
Area at Port Gamble…I don’t get it.
Page 9
In three interviews with the press, Jon Rose, President of the Olympic Property Group, tells reporters that
OPG is planning no more than 800 homes at Port Gamble, which equates to a population of approximately
2,000. However, they reveal plans showing potentially 1,500 homes. Kitsap County tells us that they need a
population reserve of 3,300 – “just in case”…I don’t get it.
In VISION 2040, the PSRC advises that Fully Contained Communities (FCC’s) should be avoided because
they create sprawl and become the antithesis of Growth Management objectives. Kitsap County ignores this
advice, advocates for FCC’s and then claims they are fully compliant with VISION 2040….I don’t get it.
In 1995 the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board determined that Kitsap County’s
Comprehensive Plan was out of compliance with state law, in part because Port Gamble was inappropriately
designated as an Urban Growth Area. Now, a mere 15 years later, Kitsap County believes it appropriate to
make Port Gamble an Urban Growth Area….I don’t get it.
In resolving the same Growth Management Hearings Board dispute, Kitsap County designated Port Gamble
a Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development, a LAMIRD. In so doing, they said in the hearing, in
the Comprehensive Plan and their development regulations that the boundary and density designations of
the LAMIRD were PERMANENT. Now, just 15 years later, Kitsap County says that the promise they made
to the Tribe and the community to make these permanent designations was just a joke, they were only
kidding. Haha, Port Gamble should be a city after all…I don’t get it.
The courts have found that the Kitsap County Urban Growth Areas are much too large and that far too much
land is already set aside for future urban growth under the Growth Management Act. Now, Kitsap County
tells us the solution is to designate more area for urban growth. I don’t get it.
What is now known as Port Gamble and the ancestral homelands of the S’Klallam people around the town
were taken from the S’Klallam people by Pope and Talbot to build a mill that has earned them many
millions of dollars. They poisoned and polluted the bay that is the primary food source for many of the
S’Klallam people, in their quest for greater profits. Now, they say they have to be adequately compensated.
Now, a member of this council has the temerity to suggest that the Tribe is threatening THEIR property
rights? … I don’t get it.
The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe has actively engaged in discussions with the County and OPG for many
years regarding their fears and concerns for the health of the bay and the S’Klallam people ~ their culture,
their history, their ancestral homelands. That these concerns have fallen on deaf ears is made quite clear by
the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership’s (NKLP) constant insistence that the Tribe refuses to “come to the
table”. Nothing is farther from the truth. The Tribe and its people have spoken loudly and clearly for many
years. NKLP and others have refused to listen. … Sadly, I think I’m starting to get it.
You have heard from the S’Klallam people tonight. Please open your ears, your minds and your hearts and
listen with them all. I ask you to ask yourself this one simple question, “When is it time to say enough is
enough?” How much money does the landowner have to make before we say it’s enough? How much
pollution and despoliation of one of the most beautiful environments in the Puget Sound has to be tolerated
before we say it’s enough? How much of the Tribal food source has to be poisoned and how many shellfish
beds have to be closed before we say it’s enough? How many promises to the Tribe and its people have to
be broken before we say it’s enough? Thank you.
17. Jon Rose: Olympic Property Group
I work at 19254 Tenth Avenue NE, Poulsbo. Thanks for making this space and time available to us. For
those that don’t know the story well: Our company owns about 8,000 acres up in North Kitsap. It’s a big
number, kind of hard to get your arms around ~ it equates to about 12 ½ square miles of our county’s north
Page 10
end. Approximately four years ago the County passed a new law called the Rural Wooded Incentive Act,
and it called for clustering and trade offs for land zoned for 20 acres ~ most of the 8,000 acres is zoned for
20 acre lots.
In most parts of the planning world, 20 acre lots are viewed as an inefficient and wasteful use of the land.
After that [law] passed, and in 2007, OPG went and held its own community meeting up in North Kitsap,
and asked people the question, “Do you want us to stay with the 20 acre lots and go about our business? Or
do you want us to work with you in a partnership to try to save as much of that land in an undivided fashion
for future generations?” OPG ~ and our Board ~ is essentially indifferent. We are happy to move on with
the 20 acre lots. Our Board is happy to move on with the town-site zoning as it is. However, you must take
note that that night over 530 people showed up and said, “Please help us find a way to work together, to do
better than just having the land chopped up onto 20 acre parcels.”
The FCC is a tool. It may not be the best tool, but recently the RWIP was overturned. The court-case in that
appeal hearing threw into question whether we could even do Rural Clustering ~ and that is a standard landuse tool that we have all relied on for years to come up with the best land-use plans possible in rural areas,
and to be creative. That tool, this year, has been taken out of the toolbox.
Now, perhaps this is too big and too ambitious for this county and for all of us. Perhaps ~ at the end of the
day ~ we should give it up and move on. My company is looking for some direction from the public: Do
you want us to continue to spend private dollars, all of our salaries, to continue working at this effort. If the
answer is no, we’ll move on respectfully. If the answer is yes ~ we’re looking for some signs that this
community has the will to work together. But these are private dollars. And like anytime ~ good times and
bad ~ private dollars are dear and we feel every one of them…every hour of staff time that we put into this
project, which for now has been for four years running.
Concerning Port Gamble Bay…concerning the use and the Port Gamble Tribe’s use of that bay and
connection to the bay: I have to say that four years ago I had one view. I can say that today that view has
been well educated and is quite a bit different. The depth to which the Tribe relies on and uses and holds
that water and that land dear is understood by the company at a level that have never in the past. And we are
committed, regardless if there is FCC’s or if the land remains the same and we just go about our business, to
make sure that what’s out in the bay and in the town is something we can all be proud of and represents
breaking new ground in creativity.
But I would ask you to think ~ before another tool is taken out of the toolbox ~ to think long and hard about
what message you want to send private companies. Do you want us to try really hard to find win-wins? Or is
this something we should just leave to other folks? We have announced that we are moving on ~ it may take
us 20 years to do so. Do you want us to work hard at finding a solution up there? Or shall we just take the
easy path with 20 acre lots that are already created and are already saleable? We can go either way.
18. Joyce Wilson: Citizen
Read comment letter dated January 27, 2011 ~ included as part of public comment packet.
19. Naomi Austin: Resident, North Kitsap
20. Stephanie Sullivan: Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
I have come here today to speak against the urbanizing of Port Gamble. On our reservation in the last two
weeks there have been two deaths and it has been a very hard time. And in our culture we gather, or we do
what we can do. A lot of people make foods and bring them over to the house and try to comfort. I have
been at both of these homes, to help take care of the people…to help take care of my family and do
Page 11
whatever I can…clean the house, write stuff down. With the food, 65% of the food that’s been brought to
the houses has been native foods. The blueberries that were picked…the blackberries that were picked…the
huckleberries that were picked…all in our land. Not only in tribal land, in Little Boston ~ all over the Kitsap
area ~ including Port Gamble. A city moves in and we’re not going to have that anymore ~ we’re not going
to have our clams, our oysters.
This is our life ~ it’s not about money coming and going. Money will come and money will go. But once
you do something like pollute and kill off those plants and that seafood that we live on… that’s our way of
life. That’s killing us. I’m sorry that I am so emotional ~ but it is rough. I didn’t want to leave my family at
home but it is very important to me, and important to them, and they told me, “go and speak.” So I am not
only speaking for me and my children, I am speaking for the families that couldn’t be here also today
because of their loss. Thank you for hearing us.
21. Gabrielle Turnier: Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
I am part of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. If you build the city there, we will lose everything that we
have: our food, our jobs, and everything that we can do. Everything that we have is mostly that [which] is
on the beaches that we get. We fish, we go clam digging, and we get crabs from the ocean. If you pollute the
water then we will have nothing left.
22. Francine Swift: Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
I am a member of the Tribal Council. I am a parent and a grandparent. I have five children and 13
grandchildren. I have spent the last four years of my life studying the S’Klallam history and territories.
While I was growing up I had this really bad feeling of being in the way all the time as a native person. As I
went through my studies I learned that it is very true ~ that we were in the way of progress very often. I
have gathered oral history of our people. One of our elders told me a story that he learned when he was very
young growing up on Port Gamble beach. When they first moved to Port Gamble they at first lived right on
the beach. He said that when they were burning those houses down, his grandpa was standing there with him
with tears in his eyes because he was remembering when our people were moved from Port Townsend to
Port Gamble, and they burned the cedar homes. So when we moved to the other side again, after being
moved from the mill site, our homes were burned again ~ that was about the 1920’s or 30’s. I have also
learned that the sea-life was plentiful ~ there were sea urchins and sea cucumbers. And, you know, we
didn’t move from that side willingly. We did have an agreement with the Pope and Talbot people at that
time. It was entrusted to one of the elders. She wore it in a pouch because she knew that it was important.
We don’t know where that is now. I have heard the story from various other elders.
I know that when Washington State was being developed, the timber mills were granted all of the timber
territories all around the Puget Sound Region because land was cheap back then, and the only reason they
wanted the land, and why it was sold so cheap to them, was because this area was the easiest to get to. When
we stayed at our land ~ we were charged to go to Skokomish in Mason County ~ we wanted to stay here
because it is our home, we snuck into our canoes at night and came back. That was only in 1932.
And not only that, we bought that property and we paid for it in cash. That wasn’t given to us in a treaty.
Nothing was given to us ~ we have bought and paid for everything that we own and I want that to be
known. We have had developers approach us to build resorts. In my uncles chairman-ship people
approached him to build resorts and the fishermen and the people said no. Seattle wanted to build a dump
there and the people said no.
And so now we are here again to say, “Please consider these things.” We are not here for money; we are
here for our future and to avoid this form of genocide. Thank you.
Page 12
23. Darlene Peters, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribal Elder
My lineage is contained in the Tribe, plus many, many tribes up along the course: Lumi, Skokomish,
Suquamish, and I could go on in my lineage to go way back. This has been a good exercise for me because
what happened as I was thinking about it was bringing back memories, because although I haven’t lived it, I
have inherited memories of over 200 years: with my grandmother and grandfather and their mother and
father who lived and understood that.
When I was a little girl, we had to go to our grandmother’s house. She didn’t have any electricity and we
would have to get groceries so we would get in our little boat, our little skiff, and paddle across the bay to
the little grocery store up the hill. I don’t know if anybody remembers that, but she would tell me, “Just look
at this land. See it all over there. I remember when our people used to live all over there.” And then she
would slip into S’Klallam and I would understand her as a baby girl, but I would be just pulling away over
there to get her groceries with her few little pennies…her sugar and her flour to eat. And it dawned on me
that, although she had nothing, like our grandfather who served in the war (many of our people served in the
war and often came back damaged by war. They gave themselves to this country, and often they were called
drunken Indians and weren’t respected very well, and yet my uncle had purple hearts because he was
wounded many times, and I could share many stories about that). And I didn’t know that we were poor,
because all I knew was that grandma was sitting in the skiff with me and I was packing her food and she
was telling me stories and at night we could go down to the beach and we really did, in my living memory,
sit on the beach with salmon on a stick, with a big fire going ~ if you can envision that ~ and sitting there
and eating and talking and the babies crying and being put to bed ~ I remember that. I remember the clams. I
was there as a little girl, doing that, them telling the stories over what was happening there. I didn’t realize
that we were so poor.
It was only later when I realized, when I looked up or was once or twice allowed into the house of someone
~ which wasn’t often ~ that I realized they had lights you could turn on and they had this thing that they
could push the handle and it would flush. And you wouldn’t think that this could be in this day and age in
the middle of abundance here. And yet, you had a society that lived that way. And we didn’t know. I didn’t
know because I had everything I needed…I had the land, I had my family, and I had all that love. And I had
my family and came back and lived in Hansville too, and brought them back to the beaches.
I remember those qualities in life and not the poverty at all. And this brought me to my point right now: that
you and I are the same. I don’t know what your memories are of or what your lineage is. I don’t know if you
remember sitting on the beach building fires, or doing those types of things at all. But I do know that one
thing we do hare is a legacy. And that as a tribe we try to be good neighbors and have always done so. The
legacy of that bay is very important. If that legacy dies, piece by piece, as all those other bays, it is a little
piece of the earth that we killed, because the Puget Sound will just die. Please join us in keeping our legacy.
100 years from now, what will your children’s children say? My grandmother, my grandfather did this for
the people.
24. Jo-Ann DeCoteau, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Read comment letter dates January 21, 2011 ~ included as part of public comment packet.
25. Dawn Purser, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
26. Jim Aho, resident, Illahee
I just recently became aware of this document. I just have three concerns. One, I didn’t see anything in this
document about Sub-Area Plans, and in Kitsap County I know we have a number of Sub-Area Plans. I think
that should be addressed. Two, I looked at Element E: Countywide Strategies for Open Space Preservation
and Critical Areas. Item 1-A talks to Kitsap County Open Space Plan, and it talks to a Kitsap County
Page 13
Consolidated Greenway Plan. And I looked on the internet and I can’t find anything. What my memory tells
me is that Plan was never adopted. It was prepared but not adopted by the County. I am a little bit concerned
that it is referenced in here that we are going to follow it, and yet it hasn’t been adopted. Thirdly, Item 1-C
change “County and Cities should frame and separate urban areas and ….” This changes, “shall” to
“should.” It seems strange. Out of all the conversation we’ve had tonight about the importance of parks and
preservation of natural resources, now we are going ahead and changing a document that had “shall,” and
changing it to “should.”
Attendance:
Board Members Present:
Steve Bauer, Kitsap County
Josh Brown, Kitsap County
Tom Danaher, Naval Base Kitsap *
Hilary Franz, City of Bainbridge Island
Patty Lent, City of Bremerton
Will Maupin, City of Bremerton
Jeromy Sullivan, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Linda Berry-Maraist, City of Poulsbo *
Lary Coppola, City of Port Orchard
Becky Erickson, City of Poulsbo
Charlotte Garrido, Kitsap County
Bill Mahan, Port of Bremerton
Dianne Robinson, City of Bremerton
Greg Wheeler, City of Bremerton *
Executive Management by McClure Consulting LLC:
Mary McClure, Executive Manager
Vicky Clarke, Project Coordination
Myrna Knode, Executive Assistant
Board Members Not Present:
Kim Brackett, City of Bainbridge Island
Jim Colebank, City of Port Orchard *
Kirsten Hytopoulos, City of Bainbridge Island *
Carolyn Powers, City of Port Orchard
Roger Zabinski, Port of Bremerton *
* Alternate
* Alternate
Kelly Baze, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe *
Leonard Forsman, Suquamish Tribe
Mark Olson, Naval Base Kitsap
Rob Purser, Suquamish Tribe *
Others in Attendance:
Jim Aho, citizen
Naomi Austin, PGST
PGST Port Gamble
Eric Baker, Kitsap County
Kelly Baze, PGST
S’Klallam Tribe
James Brady, Illahee Community
Gene Bullock, WSCC
Sandra Bullock, WSCC
Rowan Bunich, PGST
OPG Olympic Property
Brian Bunker, Parametrix
Roma Call, PGST
Group
Edward Charles, PGST
JoAnn DeCoteau, PGST
HCEC
Hood Canal
Ray Dives, PGST
Mendy Droke, citizen
Environmental
Chris Dunagen, Kitsap Sun
Kim Freewolf, PGST
Council
JoAnn Gurney, PGST
Michael Gustavson, KAPO
KAPO Kitsap Alliance of
Marie Herbert, PGST
Noel Higa, PGST
Property Owner
Karen D Jargas, Next 20/Living Life Leadership Dennis E Jones, PGST
WSCC
West
Sound
Irwin Krigsman, citizen, Illahee
Judith Krigsman, citizen, Illahee
Conservation
Molly Lee, citizen
Bill Matchitt, HCEC
Council
Judy Matchitt, HCEC
Michael Maddox, citizen
Ted Moran, PGST
RB Nerf, citizen
Tom Nevins, WSCC
Darlene Peters, PGST
Joseph Price, PGST
Laura Price, PGST
Dawn Purser, PGST
Joseph Ray, WWU Student
Jon Rose, OPG
Stephanie Sullivan, PGST
Mary Trevathan, PGST
Canila Trevathan, PGST
Gabrielle Turnier, PGST
Bill Webb, Parametrix
James Weaver, City of Port Orchard
Joyce Willson, Tsimshia Elder & Hansville resident
Jan Wold, citizen, Poulsbo
Page 14
Kitsap Regional
Coordinating Council
Chair
Mayor Patty Lent
City of Bremerton
Proposed revisions to the
Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies
Public Comments
Vice-Chair
Commissioner Josh Brown
Kitsap County
Commissioner Steve Bauer
Commissioner Charlotte Garrido
Kitsap County
Council Member Will Maupin
Council Member Dianne Robinson
Council Member Greg Wheeler *
City of Bremerton
Council Member Kim Brackett
Council Member Hilary Franz
Council Member Kirsten Hytopoulos*
City of Bainbridge Island
Mayor Lary Coppola
Council Member Carolyn Powers
Council Member Jim Colebank *
Mayor Becky Erickson
Council Member Linda Berry-Maraist *
City of Poulsbo
Council Chair Leonard Forsman
Rob Purser*
Suquamish Tribe***
Council Chair Jeromy Sullivan
Council Member Kelly Baze
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe***
Commissioner Bill Mahan
Commissioner Roger Zabinski *
Port of Bremerton
Captain Mark Olson
Tom Danaher, PAO *
Naval Base Kitsap **
Mary McClure
Executive Management
* Alternate
* * Ex Officio Member
*** Associate Member
P.O. Box 1934
Kingston, WA 98346
360-377-4900 (voice)
360-297-7762 (fax)
www.KitsapRegionalCouncil.org
January 27, 2011
State Agency Review:
Received:
; WA State Dept. of Archaeology &
Historic Preservation
Not yet received:
Dept. of Commerce
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Ecology
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Recreation
Puget Sound Partnership
; Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Dept. of Corrections
Parks & Recreation Commission
Dept. of Social & Health Services
WA Dept. of Natural Resources
Recreation & Conservation Office
PSRC Review:
; Formal Comments Received
Member Agency Comments:
Received:
; City of Poulsbo
; City of Port Orchard
Not received:
Kitsap County
City of Bremerton (Individual
comment received by Council
Members McDonald & Robinson)
; City of Bainbridge Island
; Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Public Comments:
Received from:
; Futurewise
; Kitsap Continuum of Care Coalition
; West Sound Conservation Council
; Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners
; Hood Canal Environmental Council
; 55+ citizens (listed alphabetically)
Hi Vicky, thank you for sending the Proposed Revisions to the Kitsap Countywide Planning
Policies for formal review to the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP). On behalf of DAHP, I have reviewed the revisions to assess potential
effects to known as well as unknown significant cultural resources (including archaeological and
historic properties as well as traditional cultural properties) in the county. Based upon my review, I
am submitting the following comments:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
At the top of page 5, I note and support the Kitsap County vision for the future that
includes “the historical nature of our communities is respected in order to preserve
our heritage for future generations;…” In addition, I recommend adding supporting
language within the planning elements referenced in (a) through (f) on that page.
Suggested language may read something like the following:
Attractive, well designed, bike/pedestrian friendly and livable urban communities
enhanced by preserved historic properties and neighborhoods that are
supported by efficient…
On page 6, I note and support the reference to historic preservation in 1. b. In 3. b. I
recommend adding language that would include the KRCC coordinating and
cooperating on environmental and sustainability issues (to include cultural resource
management/planning issues) in addition to coordinating and cooperating on land
use, policy and capital planning.
On pages 11-12, thank you for including references to, and discussion about, the
National Historic Town designation of Port Gamble. Clearly, DAHP plus other
heritage organizations and tribes are very interested in participating in the planning
and design for new construction within the NHT designation as well as the short and
long term preservation and management of the National Historic Landmark (NHL)
district.
On page 15, under 1. a., I recommend make a change to the second sentence to
read: “…promote locally grown food, forestry, and eco- and heritage tourism.”
In 4. b. on page 16, I recommend a change to the first sentence to read: “…to protect
and enhance significant open spaces, natural resource, cultural resources, and
critical areas for more effective…”
On page 17, I recommend a similar change to 1. b. to read as follows: “…wildlife
habitats; critical areas and resource lands; historic and cultural landscapes; water
bodies and trails.”
On page 21, under paragraph 4, I note and support 4. g. but also recommend
additional language in 4. b. to read as follows: “Encourage development that reflects
unique local qualities and historic character plus provides an economic…” I also
recommend a change to 4. f. to recognize that rehabilitation of the existing built
environment (including historic properties) is the most effective sustainable building
and development tool. My recommended change reads as follows: “Use sustainable
building techniques (such as rehabilitation/re-use, LEED, Low Impact Development,
energy-efficient…)”
On page 33, I recommend adding language to 2. g. to include reference to supporting
the economic vitality of historic downtown and commercial districts. Recommended
language would read: “The County,Cities and KEDA shall collaborate to identify
opportunities that favor local suppliers for goods and services and supports the
economic vitality of the county’s historic downtowns and neighborhood commercial
districts.”
In closing, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed revisions to
the Countywide Planning Policies. Feel free to contact me should you have any questions
about the comments/recommendations made above. I may also be reached at 360-586-3073.
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091, (360) 902-2200, TDD (360) 902-2207
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia WA
January 31, 2011
Attn: Vicky Clarke
P.O. Box 1934
Kingston, WA 98346
SUBJECT: WDFW comment on the Proposed Revisions to the Kitsap Countywide Planning
Policies
Dear Ms. Clarke,
The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the Proposed Revisions to the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies.
We have several comments for your consideration listed by element below.
Element C. Centers of Growth
Section 4 (Pg. 14) lists additional items for consideration in a request for center designation or a change in
center status. We suggest adding “Impacts of ecological functions” to the list. This addition will support
part D of the countywide growth vision, as described in Element A (pg. 5).
Element D. Rural Land Use and Development Patterns
We suggest adding the phrase “and ecological functions” to Section 4a (Pg. 16), so that it reads as
follows:
a. Rural land use designations in the County's Comprehensive Plan shall recognize ecological
functions and support rural uses such as farming, forestry, mining, recreation, and other rural
activities, and permit a variety of low-density residential uses which preserve rural character and
ecological functions, and can be sustained by rural service levels.
Element E. Countywide Strategies for Open Space Preservation, Resource Preservation, Critical
Areas, Air Quality, and Water Quality/Quantity
The existing policies regarding regional networks and connectivity of open spaces are very
relevant to the protection of ecosystems, and we are pleased to see them retained. However,
Sections 1c and 2a (pg. 17) are both weakened by changing the language from the imperative
“shall” to “should coordinate” and “should consider”, respectively. We recommend leaving the
language in its original form in order to ensure that the policies remain robust.
We are pleased to see that you have given high consideration to the Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS) Program by specifically naming it in Section 2g (pg. 18). The PHS program is the
primary means by which WDFW communicates fish, wildlife and habitat information, and as
such represents an important tool for land use planning purposes.
WDFW comment letter: Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies
January 31, 2011
Page 2 of 2
The new Section 4 (pg. 18) contains some useful language specific to water quality issues.
However, the section is missing some key elements of overall water quality that are crucial for
fish populations and aquatic communities. Toxins and pathogens are important issues to the
municipal water supply, but should not be the sole determinants of water quality if aquatic
ecosystem health is also to be considered. The protection of water quality should encompass
parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen and other dissolved or suspended substances.
Degradation of these parameters can be directly linked to land use. WDFW’s publication Land
Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout (2009), lists the most common water quality
concerns for salmonid-associated aquatic communities as being adequate dissolved oxygen
concentration, temperature, pH and avoidance of contaminants. We recommend referring to this
publication for language to build a more comprehensive policy on water quality protection in
Section 4.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife wishes to thank you again for the opportunity
to provide comments on your Proposed Revisions to the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies.
We sincerely hope that you will find these comments constructive. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at the number listed below with any questions you may have regarding the comments
and recommendations found in this letter.
Sincerely,
Theresa Nation
Land Use and Environmental Planner
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone: (360) 902-2562
E-mail: Theresa.nation@dfw.wa.gov
cc:
Steve Kalinowski, Regional Habitat Program Manager, WDFW
Katie Knight, Technical Assistance Section Manager, WDFW
Steve Seymour, Watershed Steward, WDFW
Citations:
Knight, K. 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Available online at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00033
-2-
Puuet
Sound
l?eqional
Council
January27,2011
The Honorable Patty Lent, Chair
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Committee
25406 South Kingston Road NE
Kingston, W A 98346-9201
Subject: Comments on Kitsap County's Draft Counfiide
Planning Policies
Dear Mayor Lent,
Thank you for the opporhrnity to review the draft update to the Kitsap County Countywide Planning
Policies (CPPs). As the Kitsap Regiornl Coordinating Council began the update of the CPPs, it was very
well positioned for this work becauseof the attention that had been given to keep the CPPs up-to-date.
The Kitsap County CPPs continue to have a noteworthy typology for centersthat serveas a good model
region-wide for addressingthe roles of regional, secondary,and local centersand central places.
We've reviewed the public review draft of the countywide planning policies and would like to offer the
following commentsand recommendatiors on the work completed so far. Thesecomments are divided
into three parts: (l) noteworthy revisions, (2) key remaining issues,and (3) additional recommendations.
The first set of comments,"noteworthy revisions," addressesrnany of the additiors and improvements
being offered in the draft update to the policies. The section on "key remaining issues" speaksto policies
that require additional attention relating to consistencywith the multicounty planning policies in VISION
2040. The final section, "additional recommendations,"includes commentsoffered to make the policies
bettsr.
PSRC staff continuesto be available to provide assistanceand review as the policies continue to be
developedand refined. A very detailed set of planning materials are available on-line to assistas work
goes forward on the Countywide Planning Policies.
If you have questionsregarding our cornmentsor need additional information, pleasecontact me at
nabbott(Ppsrc.
org or 206.464.7134.
Sincerely,
f\n'-
6, olhty
Norman Abbott
Growth ManagementDirector
Attachments:
NoteworthyRevisions
Key Remaining Issues
Additional Comments
Mary McClure, Executive Director, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Committee
Nornwonrnv RnvtsroNs
The following draft changesdevelopedfor theKitsapCountyCountywidePlanningPoliciesare
particularlynotable.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Addingreferences
to VISION 2040,theRegionalGrowthStrategy,andtheMulticountyPlanning
Policies.Theseadditionalreferences
helptheuserbetterunderstand
therelationship
between
policy,andlocalplanning.
stateplanninggoals,regionalandcountywide
Additionsto theKitsapCountyvkionfor thefuture (ElementA), includingnewreferences
to
(a) bicycle/pedestrian-friendly
(b) training andeducationfor residents,
communities,
(c) shorelines,
(d) economicandecological
naturalsystems,
air and climatein discussing
public healthin
functionsof rural areas,and(3)productionof locallygrownfood. Incorporating
theCentralPrinciples.
Addingpolicy language
directingpopulationgrowthto citiesandcenters.(PolicyCW-l-a)
Adding languageto the growthpatternpoliciesrelatingto (a) urbandesign,(b) historic
(d) prcmatinghealth,
preserttation,(c) improvingthe naturaland built environrnents,
e)prosperoweconomy,
and(f) resiliencyin adaptingta changingconditions.(PolicyCW-l-b)
(PolicyCW-3-h),aswell as
Addinga policyto address
healthandwell-beingin decision-making
publichealth(PolicyPPCAAW-2-e)
committingto protectingandenhancing
whichstatesthatdevelopment
in ruralareasshouldbe at a compatible
sizeandscalefor maintainthecharacterandproductivityof rural lands. (PolicyR-l-a)
Addingpolicy languageto addresstheecological.functions
of rural areas(PolicyR-4-a)
gasemissions,
Addingnewpoliciesto address
air quality,thereductionof greenhouse
andthe
protectionof waterqualityandquantity. (PoliciesPPCAAW-3and4; alsoadditionallanguagein
PPCAAW-6-bandT-3-b)
planningalongcorridors- bothfor naturalsystems
to coordinate
andfor
jurisdictional
(Policy
infrastructure,
includingtransportationthatcross
boundaries.
CCOD-2-d)
particularly
The newpolicy sectionon CommunityDesignandDevelopment
is
noteworthyand
providegoodguidanceto communities,
countyandcity residents,
andtheprivatesectorfor
providingnewdevelopment
andinfrastructurein a mannerthat is moreefficient,more
sustainable,
to maintaining
andsensitive
theuniquesenseof placeof KitsapCounty'scities,
towns,andneighborhoods.
Addinga newpolicy statingthatfacilitiesprimarily serttingurbanpopulationsshouldbe located
in a city or within theurbangrowthareawherefeasible(Policy CF-Z-a)
committingto reducingdeathsandinjurieson theCounty's
transportation
system(PolicyT-1-b)
regulations
call for sffeamlining
to helpwith housingproduction(Policy
AH-a-g)
Additionalpolicylanguage
throughtheEconomicDevelopment
element(ElementJ) to address
economicdiversification,
theimportance
of callingout theneedsof peoplewhenspeakingabout
theeconomy,theimportantroleof defense-related
employment,
andthebenefitsof supporting
thelocaleconomy.
Addinga newpolicyto requirespecialdistrictsto siteandsize.facilities
rn a mannerconsistent
with localplans. (PolicyRR-4-h)
(Policy
Addinga newpolicyto address
in timesof disasters
coordination
or otheremergencies
RR-5)
Knv RnvrarNrNcIssuns
In reviewingthe publicreviewdraft of the countywideplanningpolicies,therearetwo issueswe
andaccurately
believestill needattentionin orderto ensurethat the CPPsareadequately
policy
in VISION 2040. Eachof theseissuesis identified
the fulI body of adopted
addressing
below followedby a rationaleand/orcommentsfor why the requestis beingmade.
# l: Fully ContainedCommunitiesand Master PlannedResorts(UGA-6).
Request:
Add provisionsandsupportinglanguagestatinghow fully contained
communitiesareavoidedin KitsapCounty.
Comment:
to KitsapCounty'sown
The CPPs(aswell asanyamendments
plan)shouldprovidespecificprovisionson how fully
comprehensive
containedcommunitiesarebeingavoidedin KitsapCounty. At a
for first pursuingother
minimum,this shouldincludedetailedprocedures
alternativesfor developinganynew community,suchasoptions(a) within
in the existingurban
existingcitiesin KitsapCounty,or (b) elsewhere
growtharea.
The publicreview draft of the CPPsdoesincludethe following:
(a) languagereferencingadoptedregionalpolicy in VISION 2040calling
for "avoidingfully containedcommunities,"(b) draft policy language
describingthe reviewprocessif a proposalfor a full containedcommunity
wereto be developed,and(c) a statement
that anycornmunityreserve
allocationfor a fully containedcommunityis to beredistributedto urban
totalby 2013if thereis not an
areasor removedfromthe countywide
adoptedsubareaplan (seePopulationDistributiontablein the appendix).
addresswhat
Howevero
the draft CPPsdo not directlyor adequately
would be put in placeto takestepsto avoidfully
specificmechanisms
containedcommunities.
Rationale:
Localelectedofficialsservingon PSRCboardsdiscussed
at length
whetherfully containedcommunitiesarebeneficialfor directinggrowthin
away that minimizesimpacts,or whethertheyhavecostsandimpacts
similarto unplannedsprawl. Particularly,thoseelectedofficialswith
frsthandexperience
with fully containedcommunitiesneartheir
jurisdictionsarguedthat suchdevelopment
resultsin creatingnew minicitiesthat competewith the existingcitiesin the regicnfor scarcedollars
andneededinfrastructure,
that residentsof suchcommunitiesused
facilitiesandservicesin nearbycitiesandtownswithout contributingto
thetax base.Issueswerealsoraisedregardingthe potentialthat new
development
furtherremovedfrom the existingurbangrowthareawould
havein increasingvehiclemilestraveledandcontributingto air pollution
gasemissions.In short,theregion'selectedofficials
andgreenhouse
concludedthat in a metropolitanarea,it is practicallyimpossibleto create
a truly "fully contained"community,wherepeoplelive, work, play and
receiveservicesfully within the communitywithout causingimpactsthat
spill over into adjacentjurisdictions.
# 2: Targets
Request:
Includean introductionto the targetsthat describeshow they areguided
by the RegionalGrowthStrategyin VISION 2040.
Comment:
Accordingto the PopulationDistributiontablein the appendix(TableBl), thenumbersfor residential
growthin the County'sfour citiesappearto
be going in the directionof theRegionalGrowthStrategy.This includes
Bremertonin the regionalgeographycategoryof a MetropolitanCity,
BainbridgeIslandasa LargerCity, andPoulsboandPort Orchard,which
arebothcategorized
asSmallCities. Silverdale,
whichis in the
unincorporated
urbanareaof KitsapCounty,is categorized
asa CoreCity
in VISION 2040.
Request:
TheRegionalGrowthStrategyprovidesguidancefor achievinga l6
percentlevel for KitsapCounty'srural areaby the year2040. We
continueto askthat the Countydecrease
its numberfor the rural area
duringthis currenttarget-setting
processto movein the directionof the
RegionalGrowthStrategy.A key focusfor eachof the countiesin the
regionthisplanningcycleneedsto beto work with the allocations
in the
RegionalGrowthStrategyto "bend"pasttrends.
Comment:
Unresolvedat this time aretargetsassociated
with the development
conceptunderdiscussionfor the Port Gamblearea. It is importantfor
growthnumbersfor that areato be clearlydiscussedin termsof the
RegionalGrowthStrategy.Theyalsoshouldbe discussed
with regardto
implicationsfor the citiesin KitsapCountyandtheir ability to be
successfulin achievingtheir localandregionalgrowthmanagement
goals
andobjectives.
TableB-1 introduceda new categorytitled "new communityreserve.o'
The footnoteexplainsthat the numberfor this reservecomesfrom the
rural allocation,andif not allocatedto a new communityby December
2013,it would be redistributedto areaswithin the existingurbangrowth
areaor removedfromthe overallcountywidetotal. Indeed,eitherof these
wouldresultin a majorsteptowardaligningwith Regional
outcomes
GrowthStrategyfor the year2040. However,the Countyis askedto take
additionalstepsduringthis currenttargei-settingcycleto reduceits target
numbersfor the rural areaandto reinforcereducedrural targetswith
specificpoliciesandactionsthat focusa higherproportionof the
countywidepopulationinto the existingurbangrowtharea.
Request:
Use2030asthe commonplanninghorizonfor population,housingand
employment.
Comment:
The horizonyearfor the populationdistributionon TableB-1 is 2030,but
TableB-2, which addresses
housingandjobs, lists 3 differenthorizon
years: 2023,2025,and2030. In the final distributionnumbersincluded
with therevisedCPPs,thereshouldbe a consistenthorizonyearfor all
population,housing
for expressing
numbersandcompatibleassumptions
andjob targetsrespectively.
Request:
Furtherdevelopthejob targetsin the CPPsso thatthe employment
in termsthat aremoreconsistentandcompatible
numbersareexpressed
betweenjurisdictionsin KitsapCountyandreflectconventionalpractice
for conveyingemploymenttargets.
Comment:
The footnotewith the tableshowingemploymentnumbersindicatesthat
jurisdictionsuseddifferentmethodologies
to expresstheir individual
A
more
methodology
shouldbe usedfor all
targets.
common
employment
five jwisdictionsin KitsapCountyto makeit easierfor usersof the
planningpoliciesto work with the employmenttargetsfor
county'uvide
both planningandmonitoringpurposes.
Request:
Explainhow the "new population"numberson TableB-1 relateto the
housingunit numberson TableB-2.
Comment:
Providingexplanations
of how the setsof numbersrelateto eachother,as
numbers,will
well ashavinga moreconsistentapproachto expressing
andtransparent
makethe CPPsandrelatedtargetsmoreunderstandable
for planning,cittzeninvolvement,decision-m*iog, andmonitoring.
Request:
In the final versionof the CPPs,separate
out housingnumbersandjob
numberson two tablesratherthanone.
Rationale:
Havingthis informationon two tableswouldhelp to avoidpossible
confusion.
Ann IrroNar, RncovrunNDATroNS
The following sevenrecommendations
are offered for thepurposeof helping to improve the draft
CPPs. Theseare not presentedas requestedchangesper se,but as recommendations,
including
suggestions
thatwould makethe CPPsclearerfor usersof the document.Many of these
recommendations
relateto implementation
actionsin VISION 2040thataredirectedto countywide
planningbodiesand/orlocaljurisdictions.
a. ProvideCPPguidancefor the identificationof underutilizedlands(perDP-Action-15- which is
directedto localjurisdictions).
Recommendation:
This issuecouldbe addressed
in the CPPsas an implementation
action- or,
at a minimum,througha sidebardescription.Relatingthis actionto buildablelandsanalysis
work and future targetsettingefforts would be beneficial.
b. Add a provisionto address"completestreets"or includeas a sidebarin the transportation
section.
Rationale: A major empha.sis
of bcth VISIO]'J2040andTransportation
2040is to ensurethat
groups.
transportationfacilities servevarioususer
It is appropriatefor the CPPsto provide more
specificityregardingtypesof completestreetsthat may be most appropriatein Kitsap County and
whatpracticesanddesignsshouldbe advancedamonglocalgovernments
in the County- especially
jurisdi
for faciliti es that cross
ctional borders.
c. ProvideCPPguidancefor developingstandardsand targetsto monitor water quality in the
county(MPP-En-13through16;Action-En-10).At minimum,discusspossiblecountywide
processes
andtimelinesfor addressing
theseVISION 2040actions.
Recommendation:
This issuecouldbe addressed
in the CPPsas an implementation
action- or,
at a minimum,througha sidebardescription.Providingmore detailon how this relatesto the
PugetSoundPartnershipAction Plan aswell as WaterResourceInventory Area (WRIA)
Planningwithin Kitsap County,is appropriatefor the CPPs.
d. Use theCPPprocessto identifzhow the countyandthe citieswill go forwardwith
planning,especiallyfor thoseecosystems
environmental
that crossjurisdictionalboundaries(per
En-Action-11).This couldbe an actionitem in theCPPdocument.
Rationale: There is an opportunitythroughthe CPPprocessto betteraddresshow to connect
many facetsof environmentalplanningthat have implicationsboth locally and countywide.
e. ProvideCPPguidanceon developingcommonmethodologies
for assessing
habitatneedsof
criticalandsensitivespecies(En-Action-9).This issuecouldbe addressed
in the CPPsas an
implementation
action- or, at a minimum,througha sidebardescription.
Rationale: In developingVISION 2040,therewas discussionaboutperformingthis on the
regionallevel, but a decisionwas madethat the countywidelevel was more appropriate,given
both the patternof habitatareasin centralPugetSound,as well as the mannerin which dataand
informationis madeavailableby stateagencies.This is an appropriateissueto bring into the
CPPs.
r. Consideraddinga brief summaryin the introductionto eachpolicy elementsectionthat
highlights how VISION 2040 addresses
that policy area. This could be a summarysentence
following the overviewparagraphs
thatbegineachsection.
Rationale: Adding a brief summaryhelpstheuserof the counrywidepoliciesto clearly
understand
therelationshipand consistency
betweenMPPs andCPPs.This techniquehasbeen
usedin the countywidepolicy documentsdevelopedin othercounties.
s. Considera modestreorderingof the CPPsthat would organwethe Policy Elementsin a manner
that betterparalleledthe multicountyplanningpolicies in VISION 2040 and the countywide
planningpolicies in adjacentcounties.
E.
A. OpenSpacePreservation,ResourceProtection,Critical Areas,Air
Quality, and Water Quality/Quantity
'L
B. CountywideGrowth Pattern
B.
C. Urban Growth Area
g
D. Centersof Growth
D
E. Rural Land UsesandDevelopmentPatterns
F.
Contiguous,CompatibleandOrderlyDevelopment
+
G. Housing
G
I{. Siting Public CapitalF-acilities
H.
L Transportation
J.
CountywideEconomicDevelopment
I-
K. Coordinationwith Tribal Governments
},tL
L. Coordinationwith FederalGovernment,including Navy
It
M. Roles& Responsibilities
IC
N. Analysis of Fiscal Impact
Rationale: The simplereorganizationdoesnot changeany policy content,but ordersthem in a
mannerthat bettermatchesup othergroupingsof policy usedin the region by the multicounty
planningpolicies and othercountywidepolicies,making themmore user-friendlyfor both decisionmakersand citizers.
City of Poulsbo
Office of Mayor Rebecca Erickson
January 28, 2011
Mary McClure, Executive Director
P.O. Box 1934
Kingston, WA 98346
Dear Mary,
Thank you for helping facilitate the Poulsbo City Council’s review and discussion of proposed
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. Although you heard the Council’s comments
and concerns at these meetings, I thought I would summarize them in a brief letter to ensure they
are part of the official record and considered by the KRCC Board through the
amendment/adoption process.
A primary concern expressed by the Council was in regards to the term “climate change”. The
Council stated it was not comfortable including this term because of the uncertainty as to its
meaning and, how such change, if it is occurring could or would be measured. The Council
questioned the “metric” by which such change could/would be measured and what, if any, would
an appropriate response be to such change if identified and quantified.
In light of these unknowns the Poulsbo City Council recommends removal of all references to
climate change from the document. Pages identified that contain such terminology includes:
Element A-d, page 5; Element E Introduction, page 17; Element H Introduction, page 24; and,
the “text box” in Element H-2, page 25.
Additionally, suggested changes in Element B (specifically 3 B and C and 4 A) and Appendix C
5 that limits our flexibility with regards to the annexation process are not supported. While the
City of Poulsbo acknowledges the obligations of annexation, it reserves the right to construct and
support annexation in a collaborative method with the County and citizens seeking annexation.
Another area of concern relates to Fully Contained Communities (FCCs). While policies related
to FCCs are generating a great deal of interest and apparent opposition, the City of Poulsbo is not
supportive of prohibiting that which is permitted under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
This is not to suggest that FCCs should be encouraged and/or approved in Kitsap County, but the
idea and/or discussion of such a development type should not be stifled because of the purported
bad experiences with such development types in other jurisdictions and/or public opinion that
may not be based on the best available information. We encourage the KRCC Board to direct
the Planning Directors to discuss this matter with the goal of balancing rights granted under
GMA and the desire to ensure all new development is accomplished in a way that considers all
impacts, both short and long term. As with all our decisions, FCCs should stand of fall on the
200 NE Moe Street♦ Post Office Box 98 ♦ Poulsbo, Washington 98370-0098
(360) 779-3901 ♦ fax (360) 779-5112
www.cityofpoulsbo.com ♦ berickson@cityofpoulsbo.com
merits of the proposal and not, as some would suggest, on the experiences of others and/or
impacts that can only be imagined at this moment.
In addition, the Poulsbo City Council recommends removing the text box on page 11 that
describes GMA and FCCs and references the Vision 2040 policies that state FCCs should be
avoided.
Recommended changes more minor in nature include:
- Spell out LEED acronym with “Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design” page 21
- Element C intro: find alternative terminology for “non-motorized facilities,” page 13
- Add reference to telecommuting and WSDOT-funded Telework Pilot Project to the H-2 text
box on page 25.
- Element I: Housing: pages 30-32: add policy language to ensure incentivizing private sector
responses to the affordable housing issue.
- Element N-5: page 41: explain what is meant by system integrity (perhaps in a text box) ~ is
this wording really necessary and if so what does it mean financially? It sounds expensive.
The City of Poulsbo appreciates the effort that was put forth to bring this amendment package
forward for review and comment and, once again Mary, we appreciate your efforts and
willingness to work through these policy amendments with us.
If you have any question regarding the above comments please do not hesitate to call me at 360779-3905.
Sincerely,
Becky Erickson, Mayor
City of Poulsbo
C: City Council
Planning Director Berezowsky
200 NE Moe Street♦ Post Office Box 98 ♦ Poulsbo, Washington 98370-0098
(360) 779-3901 ♦ fax (360) 779-5112
www.cityofpoulsbo.com ♦ berickson@cityofpoulsbo.com
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Office of the Mayor
City Hall • 216 Prospect Street • Port Orchard, WA 98366
Voice: (360) 876-4409 • Fax: (360) 895-9029
themayor@cityofportorchard.us
www.cityofportorchard.us
January 19, 2011
Mary McClure, Executive Director
P.O. Box 1934
Kingston, WA 98346
RE: City of Port Orchard Comments on Proposed 2011 Countywide Planning Policies
Dear Mary,
I want to commend you and the KRCC staff in all you’ve accomplished in bringing the
proposed 2011 Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to the Board for our review and comment.
Any update on documents as important as the CPPs are to the future of Kitsap County is a
daunting and frustrating task, and I applaud your patience and commitment in bringing it to
fruition.
I am writing to specifically address two items related to the January 7, 2010 KRCC Executive
Board Meeting. The first of the items is addressing the minutes of that meeting, where
substantial modifications to the CPP language were brought forward by Commissioner Garrido
and voted upon by the KRCC executive board. The record reflects that the motion to approve
these amendments carried forth unanimously, which is not the case. Although I had voted for
the underlying motion to release the document for public comment, on the specific motion
regarding the Commissioner’s last minute amendments, I had abstained from that vote and
would like the record to reflect that abstention.
The second item to be addressed on behalf of the City of Port Orchard is the content of the
last minute amendments proposed by Commissioner Garrido, prior to distribution of the 2011
CPPs for public comment. The specific amendments were to Element B-6, and Appendix B-1/B2 and are anticipated to have significant consequences to all Kitsap Cities in relation to
annexation and the associated Urban Growth Areas.
As a whole, I believe the amendments (highlighted in RED below) should be provided to the
Planning Directors for review and comment prior to any approvals by the KRCC Executive
Board, given these last minute amendments were made without the benefit of the Planning
Director’s review and comments, and were submitted well after any analysis or
recommendations from the Planning Director’s had been already been received by the KRCC
Executive Board. As to the content of the amendments, I will address the City of Port Orchard’s
concerns individually.
The City of Port Orchard does not support the proposed changes to Element B in general.
Specifically related to changes to Element B, Item 3 below, Urban Growth Areas are approved
and funded for 20-year planning cycles, both in the Kitsap County Comprehensive and Capital
Facilities Plans, as well as Kitsap Cities Comprehensive and Capital Facilities Plans. The
proposed change is inconsistent with existing planning requirements outlined in RCW 36.70A
and requires excessive commitments of funding reserves for six-year capital facilities plans to
accommodate a 20-year planning area. The proposed changes may also be determined as not
consistent with RCW 35.13 regarding municipal annexations requirements.
Element B:
2. Process and criteria for establishing, expanding, and adjusting Urban Growth
Areas in Kitsap County:
c. All Urban Growth Areas shall be reflected in County and respective City
comprehensive plans, and six year Capital Facility Plans.
4. Coordinated Growth Management in Urban Growth Areas:
a. Adopted City and County comprehensive plans shall reflect the intent that all land
within unincorporated Urban Growth Areas will either annex to a city or incorporate
within the 20-year planning horizon.
The City of Port Orchard also does not support the specific proposed changes to Element B,
Item 4 above. City and County Comprehensive plans both reflect the intent to annex Urban
Growth Areas into municipal boundaries as prescribed in the Growth Management Act, but
nearly all annexation methods are subject to a majority vote by property owners. Disregarding
the majority decisions by voters for any jurisdiction is seen to be detrimental to local government
in general, and disastrous in regards to comprehensive planning in regards to citizen
representation. A prime example would be the failed “West Bremerton” annexation efforts where
the majority populace repeatedly rebuffed efforts to be annexed into a municipality. The City of
Port Orchard opposes the efforts to remove the word “intent” which reflects the ability of voters
to determine who would represent their local government. The City respectfully requests that the
“intent” of these plans remains within the CPP language.
Finally, the City of Port Orchard respectively requests the restoration of the approved 2007
language where all the Cities and Kitsap County previously agreed to the concept and language
for conducting pre-annexation planning, but was also respective of the all the jurisdictions
limitations as to determining exactly when citizens would decide to submit an annexation
request. Again, the concept of prescribed annexation areas (County-led or otherwise) does not
address the citizens rights to annexation as described in RCW 35.13, and how the property
owners of a given area have the right to determine when and who they would want to represent
their governmental interests subject to those State requirements. The changes to these plans
indicate a requirement for annexation which may ultimately ignore the ability of voters to
determine who would best represent their local government interests. As stated previously, the
City of Port Orchard opposes the efforts to make these changes to remove the previously
agreed upon 2007 language which identifies “pre-annexation” plans as the mechanism to plan
and forecast for municipalities potential of possible annexation.
Appendix C:
4. Develop pre-annexation plans, which shall include:
d. City priorities for City-led annexation efforts, as appropriate for the 20 year planning
horizon.
I thank you for considering these City of Port Orchard comments and for your careful
consideration in the creation of a final Countywide Planning Policy document that can be
approved and ratified by all Kitsap County jurisdictions. I personally look forward to inclusion of
this letter in the official comments related to the 2011 Countywide Planning Policies public
comments as well as distributed to the Executive Board at the January 25, 2011 meeting for
review of KRCC Member Jurisdictions’’ Issues & Concerns as well as the January 27 public
hearing. I believe these items can be easily addressed in a manner that best reflects the
interests of all jurisdictions and ultimately best reflects the best interests of Kitsap County
citizens. Thank you again and please feel free to contact my office should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Lary Coppola, Mayor
cc:
Becky Erickson, Mayor of Poulsbo
Patty Lent, Mayor of Bremerton
Bob Scales, Mayor of Bainbridge Island
PORT GAMBLE:
BETTING ON A FULLY
CONTAINED COMMUNITY?
Prepared by:
Noel Higa
Director of Economic Development
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
7950 Little Boston Road
Kingston, WA 98346
Phone:
360.297.7432
Email:
noelh@pgst.nsn.us
Date: December 14, 2010
PORT GAMBLE:
BETTING ON A FULLY
CONTAINED COMMUNITY?
Introduction:
This paper considers the Fully Contained Community (FCC), as defined by the
Washington State Growth Management Act, currently proposed by the Olympic Property
Group (OPG), a subsidiary of Pope Resources, in Port Gamble at the north end of the
Kitsap Peninsula.
Fully Contained Communities have been the source of much controversy and
consternation in Washington State since the inception of the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) in the early 1990s. One of the primary attractions of Fully
Contained Communities, as defined in GMA, is that a “mix of uses is provided to offer
jobs, housing, and services to the residents of the new community.” (Revised Code of
Washington (RCW), Section 36.70A.350(1)(d)). The legislature believed that FCCs were
one of the very few development types that could overcome objections to urban
development in rural areas by being self-contained.
The promise of FCCs is that they will provide all the requirements and amenities for
living in a self-sufficient community. Schools, shopping, employment and recreation will
be provided within walking and biking distance, and thereby reduce reliance on the
automobile, traffic and other off-site impacts.
Experience has shown that FCCs have not worked as envisioned in the Puget Sound area
and across the country. Instead of becoming the model contained communities promised,
they have simply become sprawling suburbs, the very antithesis of their intent. The
primary objection to FCCs it that traffic to and from these communities remains as high
as in any other comparable suburban community and has led to massive congestion and
expenditures on off-site roadways. Many analysts attribute this to the fact that few of the
promised jobs ever materialized in the community and those that did were not well suited
to community residents and were filled by non-resident commuters.
It is unlikely that OPG will be able to overcome obstacles to creating a fully contained
urban community in this rural area and become the lone FCC success story in the state.
Evaluating the Fully Contained Community Experience:
In VISION 2040, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the four-county regional
planning body for Pierce, King, Snohomish and Kitsap Counties, advised that member
jurisdictions should “avoid” FCCs:
Port Gamble:
Betting on a Fully Contained
Community?
1
RURAL LANDS GOAL AND POLICIES
Goal: The region will permanently sustain the ecological functions, resource
value, lifestyle, and character of rural lands for future generations by limiting the
types and intensities of development in rural areas.
MPP-DP-22: Do not allow urban net densities in rural and resource areas.
MPP-DP-23: Avoid new fully contained communities outside of the designated
urban growth area because of their potential to create sprawl and undermine state
and regional growth management goals.
Similarly, in a January 10, 2010 letter to the State Legislature recommending the passage
of a bill to prohibit FCCs in Western Washington, the Washington State Chapter of the
American Planning Association stated:
None of the existing FCCs have ever achieved any common sense
meaning of the phrase “full contained” nor have they achieved a balance
between housing and employment. These FCCs have worsened traffic
congestion on the surrounding rural road network and added pressures for
conversion of surrounding resource and rural lands to urban areas.
In practice, FCCs that are not far enough from existing employment
centers to be truly remote become bedroom communities, stressing the
intervening road network, and further increasing vehicle miles traveled
and associated greenhouse gas emissions. We frankly cannot see how
circumstances supporting a truly “fully contained community” could exist
in the western part of the state.
Norman Abbott, director of Growth Management Planning for the PSRC, framed the
issue bluntly in a 2007 interview:
“The question is, ‘Can these communities be fully contained, or is that an
oxymoron?’” Mr. Abbott’s answer to his own question was emphatic: “It isn't
possible in reality.”
(From the article “Living near work? Great idea, in theory” which appeared in
The Seattle Times on August 14, 2007.)
The available literature analyzing the problem of failing self-contained communities
indicates that it is not only a Puget Sound phenomenon, and it is not just a matter of poor
implementation. Rather, there are flaws inherent in the concept. Even the most highly
touted examples of New Urbanism and Neo-Traditional Design, which are versions of the
Fully Contained Community concept, failed to achieve full containment as seen in this
analysis:
Port Gamble:
Community?
2
Neo-Traditional Town Planning
Neo-Traditional Town Planning draws from the design and functions of
pre-automobile communities. This approach has been promoted in the
USA primarily by architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth PlaterZyberk,
and Peter Calthorpe. Like its nineteenth century models, this community
type exemplifies sustainable design principles. Despite recent acclaim,
however, few completed examples exist. Two projects planned by Duany
and Plater-Zyberk served as the cases for this type: Seaside, Florida, and
Kentlands, in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Seaside, Florida
Seaside is located on the Gulf Coast of the Florida
Panhandle, west of the resort-lined beaches of Panama
City. As the first built example of Neo-Traditional
Town Planning principles, it has become more a tourist
attraction than a community. Duany and Plater-Zyberk
planned this 80 acre development as a small town, with
residences surrounding a commercial and civic center.
As an isolated 80 acre enclave, there are few
opportunities for local employment or alternatives in
shopping or recreation. The success of Seaside lies in
its beach-front location, its highly publicized planners
and planning approach, and hence, its uniqueness.
Kentlands, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Located in metropolitan Washington, D.C., Kentlands
was designed in the 1980s as a new community
offering "small-town charm." While street network
and residential areas have been completed, the civic
and commercial uses remain to be developed.
Kentlands is bounded by arterial roadways on three
sides, and currently is accessible only by auto.
Despite its internal connectivity, density and mix of
uses, Kentlands does not function as a complete
community. Employment opportunities are limited.
(From the Center for Urban Transportation Research study “Transportation, Land
Use, and Sustainability,” published in 1994 by the University of South Florida’s
Florida Center for Community Design and Research. Available at:
http://www.fccdr.usf.edu/upload/projects/tlushtml/tlus110.htm#6)
Port Gamble:
Community?
3
Based on these leading examples, it is apparent that fully contained communities have not
become a practical reality. The primary reasons for their failure appear to be two-fold: a
lack of employment opportunities, and a mismatch between the skill sets of the residents
and the skills needed for the jobs that do emerge.
Where Employment and Housing Don’t Balance:
The problem of jobs creation is clearly illustrated by Redmond Ridge, an attempted FCC
near Redmond, Washington. The project was approved in 1997. By the time of the
“mid-point review” in 2006, all of the residential development was completed or
permitted. 1,500 homes were built or under construction. However, the business park
that was intended to provide jobs for the residents was only at 26% completion, with only
314,717 sq. ft. of the 1,200,000 sq. ft. constructed or permitted. Retail development was
at 61% of the maximum 105,851 sq. ft. allowed. See King County’s Department of
Development and Environmental Services, Land Use Services Division report Midpoint
Review Report for Redmond Ridge (formerly known as Northridge) and Trilogy at
Redmond Ridge (formerly known as Blakely Ridge), DDES File No. L03MI042
(November 13, 2006). The jobs needed to create a balanced community did not
materialize and many of the jobs that were created were in the retail sector, which is an
unlikely source of family-wage employment for the community.
The mismatch of resident skills to available jobs has its roots in supply and demand
economics. In 2007, The Seattle Times reported the frank observations of Mark Rowe,
senior real-estate manager at Opus Northwest, which oversees the business park at the
Snoqualmie Ridge FCC near Redmond.
On the one hand, he said, you have the master-planned ideal of creating a
place to "live, work and play."
Then there are the economic realities. Real-estate developers build for the
companies that want to be there.
"We're responsive to the market in terms of who comes," Rowe said.
"Snoqualmie Ridge is a pretty expensive place to live. The majority of
jobs don't pay enough to let people buy homes here."
(“Living near work? Great idea, in theory.” Seattle Times, August 14, 2007.)
Mr. Rowe’s observations are echoed by Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson, planning
economists at the University of Southern California, in a presentation entitled A Critique
of New Urbanism, delivered to the American Collegiate Schools of Planning in Pasadena,
California in November of 1998.
New Urbanist communities are intended to be more than residential subdivisions.
The plans are to have shops, a wide array of personal and consumer services, and
Port Gamble:
Community?
4
workplace sites. Only by developing a broad mix of land uses can the goals,
perhaps a dream, of walking to work and walking to shop be met. [… In British
“New Towns,”] employment centers did emerge, but they did not cater to the
local population. […] As a result, the strategy probably resulted in more
commuting rather than less. […] There is a stronger argument for having retail
and other consumer services provided locally, but even in this case facilities have
developed slowly as shoppers are attracted to major malls and other large-scale
clusters.
Workers could not afford to live in the communities in which they work. […]
This brings us to a major claim of the New Urbanists is that their proposals will
lead to major changes in travel behavior: reduced automobile dependence, more
transit use, increased cycling, and pedestrian-friendly development. Unfortunately
for them, there is little justification for these claims. A high proportion of trips is
external to the community (for instance, almost all jobs are outside), and cars
remain vitally necessary for mobility.
The Response to Failure:
It is not surprising that Puget Sound developers have responded to the failure of the FCC
model by claiming that more and denser housing and expanded boundaries will solve the
problem. They are also pushing back against original design concepts that constrained
development and protected the environment. What is needed, they say, is a larger
population base to attract commercial interests and a loosening of the regulations to allow
them to be more competitive in the marketplace. The Issaquah Highlands example has
been repeated in FCCs throughout the Puget Sound.
The Swedish Medical Center, viewed as the area’s best short-term hope of
spurring ancillary retail and office growth in the area, is expected to
provide over 1,000 jobs in the Issaquah Highlands by 2012 and create
many other jobs from businesses looking to serve the hospital. But in
order to spur even more retailers to locate there, both developers and
brokers appear to agree the immediate challenge is to continue developing
more residential density there.
“I believe you need more density," said (Tim) Weber (a vice president at
commercial real estate broker First Western Properties). "Residential
drives commercial real estate.”
[…]
Issaquah has largely moved away from master-planned developments such
as the Highlands.
Revisions to Issaquah’s comprehensive plan are moving forward with an
ad-hoc Central Issaquah Plan Task Force developing recommendations on
Port Gamble:
Community?
5
how to eventually recycle lower-density strip malls and parking lots in the
valley floor with denser, mixed-use development.
But these changes are too late for some who identify themselves as part of
the local environmental community. Wary but hopeful of initial claims by
Port Blakely that hundreds of acres of forested hillside above Issaquah
could be traded for a development that promoted a “green” lifestyle,
several said their doubts were reinforced by a recent decision to push for
approval of a gas station there. Linda Seebeth, a concerned resident on
nearby Black Nugget Road, said not enough attention was being paid to
how development of rural land was having a real impact on climate
change, and planning decisions should begin to take those costs in to
account.
"How many homes do we really need?" she asked. "We're something like
30 years ahead of our growth targets."
“In its current rendition, it’s not very green,” she said. “Everyone is so
desperate to get something — anything — that they’re willing to
compromise to get businesses in. I just don’t think that anyone is willing
to stand up and say, we want it right.”
(Kendall Watson, “Green or gone astray? Port Blakely's views evolve in
Issaquah Highlands.” Sammamish Reporter, February 3, 2010.)
How will Port Gamble overcome these hurdles?
Given these experiences, it is hard to conceive of a Fully Contained Community that
could actually live up to its promise. An examination of the Port Gamble proposal
reveals that it is destined to fail for the same reasons that others have failed in the past.
It is not clear that Port Gamble is, even in concept, intended to be fully contained.
The partnership wouldn’t bring traditional economic development by way of
luring large new businesses to Kitsap or a zoning change to allow more
commercial use. But if the county approves development rights in Port Gamble,
OPG can turn the historic townsite into a bedroom community.
(Brynn Grimley, “Port Gamble Project Seen as Potential Economic Boon for
Kitsap.” Kitsap Sun, January 23, 2010.)
Kitsap Commissioner Steve Bauer, OPG President John Rose and other developers were
very optimistic in the Sun article. Rose asserted that “Trails absolutely drive economics”
and speculated that “We should be pumping millions of dollars in the north end through
this trail system.” The article does not suggest there is data to support these claims.
Whether the trails alone will be enough to drive sufficient commercial development into
Port Gamble:
Community?
6
Port Gamble to create a jobs balanced community is highly doubtful. And, even if jobs
are created, it is unlikely that they will be filled by the residents of Port Gamble.
OPG is confident that recreational trails can serve as economic engines, but the odds are
probably against trails driving any significant economic activity. The jobs created are
predictably in the tourism, hospitality, food service and visitor services categories. The
Olympic Peninsula has struggled to maintain and grow this type of economy. Kitsap
County has no stronger track record.
One example lies not far to the northeast. The City of Arlington anticipates an extension
of the Centennial Trail, a regionally significant trail system, through town. The
Centennial Trail runs through highly populous suburbs just north of Seattle, and through
the foothills of the spectacular Cascade Mountains. The Trail is reported to have around
350,000 users each year. According to an October 26, 2009 story in The Everett Herald:
“[T]rail supporters also view the trail as an economic driver. They hope it brings more
delis, cafes and perhaps a bicycle shop and a hotel to downtown Arlington.” Clearly, the
jobs expected are in tourist services, which are seasonal and vulnerable to economic
downturns.
It is difficult to imagine that a network of old logging roads in rural north Kitsap County
will draw the level of use enjoyed by the Centennial Trail. Even in the best scenario,
trail-related businesses will not be a sufficient economic base for a self-contained
community or to drive an economically successful FCC. Bike shops and other trail
tourist businesses may produce a few jobs, but not enough to support a small city.
If the jobs do appear, the question is: who will work in those jobs? Not the anticipated
residents of Port Gamble, who have been identified by OPG as well-educated, mid- to
upper income professionals and retirees. It is hard to imagine this demographic filling
the jobs that may be created. They will still be commuting to their professional jobs
elsewhere. Nor will the cooks, maids, landscape maintenance workers and other service
personnel for New Port Gamble be able to live in Port Gamble. They will instead be
commuters from nearby communities of Kingston, Poulsbo and Silverdale.
Port Gamble:
Community?
7
(From OPG’s “Port Gamble and Uplands Design,” presented to the NKLP Advisory
Committee on July 1, 2010)
Conclusion:
Port Gamble is unlikely to succeed as a Fully Contained Community. The commonly
acknowledged market and economic forces that have caused other FCCs to fail will be
present at Port Gamble. It is even questionable that Port Gamble is intended to become a
fully-realized FCC. In all likelihood, OPG’s proposal for Port Gamble will lead to a new
bedroom community of more than 3,000 people in a rural area miles from jobs and
services. If this is the result, it clearly will not foster compact urban growth in the
existing UGAs nor will it protect the rural area. Thus, it will not meet the basic goals of
the Growth Management Act nor its definition of an FCC.
OPG has plans to revitalize and expand the old company town, but the necessary
employment opportunities to make it fully contained and self sufficient are unlikely to
materialize. If higher residential density is allowed, developers will focus on the housing
component and the resulting bedroom community will be incompatible with the major
goals of the Growth Management Act. The FCC as an experiment in rural planning has
not worked elsewhere in Washington or the nation. OPG’s plans do not propose any new
solutions. Betting on trails to support an affluent bedroom community as a fully
contained community is a long shot at best. An unrealized FCC at Port Gamble is a
wager that Kitsap County cannot afford to lose and shouldn’t make.
(RCW 36.70A.350 is attached for reference)
Port Gamble:
Community?
8
RCW 36.70A.350
New fully contained communities.
A county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may establish a process as part of its urban
growth areas, that are designated under RCW 36.70A.110, for reviewing proposals to authorize new fully
contained communities located outside of the initially designated urban growth areas.
(1) A new fully contained community may be approved in a county planning under this chapter if
criteria including but not limited to the following are met:
(a) New infrastructure is provided for and impact fees are established consistent with the requirements
of RCW 82.02.050;
(b) Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are implemented;
(c) Buffers are provided between the new fully contained communities and adjacent urban development;
(d) A mix of uses is provided to offer jobs, housing, and services to the residents of the new community;
(e) Affordable housing is provided within the new community for a broad range of income levels;
(f) Environmental protection has been addressed and provided for;
(g) Development regulations are established to ensure urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban
areas;
(h) Provision is made to mitigate impacts on designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral
resource lands;
(i) The plan for the new fully contained community is consistent with the development regulations
established for the protection of critical areas by the county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170.
(2) New fully contained communities may be approved outside established urban growth areas only if a
county reserves a portion of the twenty-year population projection and offsets the urban growth area
accordingly for allocation to new fully contained communities that meet the requirements of this chapter.
Any county electing to establish a new community reserve shall do so no more often than once every five
years as a part of the designation or review of urban growth areas required by this chapter. The new
community reserve shall be allocated on a project-by-project basis, only after specific project approval
procedures have been adopted pursuant to this chapter as a development regulation. When a new
community reserve is established, urban growth areas designated pursuant to this chapter shall
accommodate the unreserved portion of the twenty-year population projection.
Final approval of an application for a new fully contained community shall be considered an adopted
amendment to the comprehensive plan prepared pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070 designating the new fully
contained community as an urban growth area.
Port Gamble:
Community?
9
January 27, 2011
PO Box 1934
Kingston, Washington 98346
Dear Chair Lent and Members of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council:
Subject: Comments on the update to the Kitsap County Countywide Planning
Policies
Send via e-mail
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the update to the Kitsap County
Countywide Planning Policies. Futurewise strongly supports the update. Like any set
of policies, the countywide planning policies need to be periodically reviewed and
updated to reflecting the changing needs of the community and changing
requirements.
Futurewise is a statewide nonprofit organization. Our mission at Futurewise is to
promote healthy communities and cities while protecting working farms, working
forests, and shorelines for this and future generations. We have members in Kitsap
County as we do through Washington State.
This letter contains our current recommendations for the update. We thank the
coordinating council in advance for considering them.
We Support Updating the Countywide Planning Policies so they fully
implement the Multi-County Planning Policies
Vision 2040 and the multicounty planning policies are the four county Central Puget
Sound region’s long-term vision and land use plan. Vision 2040 and the multicounty
planning policies were adopted by Kitsap County’s elected officials together with the
elected officials of the other three counties. Vision 2040 a major step forward to
achieve the goals we all share: a vibrant economy, more high quality family wage
jobs, environmental stewardship including the recovery of Puget Sound, improved
mobility, lower cost public facilities and services, better protection of working farms
and forests, and better protection of the region’s rural character. We appreciate that
the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council is working to update the countywide
planning policies to incorporate Vision 2040 and the multicounty planning policies
(MPPs).
January 27, 2011
Page 2
Adopt a Population Allocation Consistent with the Regional Growth
Strategy in Vision 2040
To achieve the benefits discussed above, the Multicounty Planning Policies call for the
countywide planning policies to implement the Regional Growth Strategy in Vision
2040.1 The Regional Growth Strategy includes specific numeric guidance that “is
intended to guide and coordinate the region’s cities and towns as they periodically
update local residential and employment growth targets.”2 The percentage allocations
maybe more useful when allocating population than the absolute numbers because the
projections “will change marginally in future rounds of regional forecasts.”3
Table 1, enclosed at the end of this letter on page 12, compares the proposed 2000 to
2030 projected population growth for Kitsap County with the Regional Growth
Strategy. That comparison shows some significant differences. The Bremerton urban
growth areas (UGAs) are projected to include 19 percent of the growth under the
proposed projections, but the Regional Growth Strategy calls for 26 percent of the
growth to be allocated to the Bremerton UGAs. In contrast, 29 percent of the
population growth is allocated to the small cities by the proposed projections,
compared to eight percent by the Regional Growth Strategy. In fact, the projected
population growth for 2030 exceeds the Regional Growth Strategy growth for 2040 by
over 16,000 people. The draft projection for the rural area is 21 percent of the growth
while the Regional Growth Strategy calls for 16 percent of the growth to be allocated
to the rural area. And this 16 percent population growth allocation is already the
highest rural allocation among the four counties.4 If we are going to achieve the
benefits promised by the Regional Growth Strategy, Kitsap County’s population growth
allocation needs to match the regional projections. We urge Kitsap County to adopt
population and employment growth allocations consistent with the Regional Growth
Strategy.
Please do not include a Population Reserve for a Fully Contained
Community and Prohibit Fully Contained Communities
Fully contained communities have failed to solve the problems they were intended to
address, the private funding of infrastructure and more opportunities for jobs and
housing. As former King County Executive Ron Sims told the Seattle Times:
1
Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2040 Part III: Multicounty Planning Policies p. 29 (December
2009). Accessed on Dec. 26, 2011 at:
http://www.psrc.org/assets/1738/Part_III_Multicounty_Planning_Policies.pdf
2
Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2040 Part II: Regional Growth Strategy p. 17 (December 2009).
Accessed on Jan. 26, 2010 at: http://www.psrc.org/assets/1737/Part_II_Regional_Growth_Strategy.pdf
3
Id.
4
Id. at p. 19.
January 27, 2011
Page 3
King County Executive Ron Sims was blunt. The developments had
looked beneficial on paper, he said, because they provided private
financing for public infrastructure such as road improvements. But they
carried "unintentional consequences," he said.
"If we were at the point we are now, knowing what we know right now,
I can assure you, you would not see the communities that we
authorized," Sims said.5
One of the most noticeable adverse impacts of the fully contained communities (FCCs),
really new cities in rural areas, is increased traffic on rural roads and highways. As a
2007 Seattle Times article documents:
Longtime residents feel the squeeze as thousands of new commuters jam
highways and once-quiet back roads.
While no one specifically tracks how many urban-village dwellers drive
to their jobs, transportation data show a jump in the number of cars on
the road as more people move there.
From 2003 to 2006, for example, 6,000 more cars traveled on Interstate
90 at the Sunset Interchange where Issaquah Highlands is located,
according to figures from the state Department of Transportation.
Similar spikes were noted near Snoqualmie and Redmond Ridge.
Redmond Ridge and its companion developments were immersed in
litigation for years, in part because the county failed to upgrade Novelty
Hill Road, the main link to Redmond. As a result, the mostly rural area
was flooded with urban-style traffic jams.6
These traffic jams and the failure of the FCCs to generate jobs are one of the reasons
that King County now prohibits new FCCs and Snohomish County prohibits all FCCs.7
5
Diane Brooks, Mini-city plan could be turning point for Snohomish land-use policy The Seattle Times
Snohomish County edition (April 16, 2008). Accessed on September 3, 2010 at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2004351438_minicities16n.html A copy
of the article is also enclosed with this letter.
6
Sonia Krishnan, Living near work? Great idea, in theory The Seattle Times (August 14, 2007).
Accessed on September 3, 2010 at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003835247_urbanvillages14e.html A copy of the
article is also enclosed with this letter.
7
King County Comprehensive Plan 2008 Chapter Two - Urban Communities p. 2-4 Policy U-106
(Adopted October 2008) available at:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/permits/codes/growth/CompPlan/2008.aspx; Editorial Snohomish
January 27, 2011
Page 4
This is consistent with the Multicounty Planning Policies which direct the county to
“[a]void new fully contained communities outside of the designated urban growth area
because of their potential to create sprawl and undermine state and regional growth
management goals.”8
We urge the Kitsap County Coordinating Council to prohibit fully contained
communities by deleting the reference to fully contained communities in “for Urban
Growth Areas” Policy 3(a) on page 8 and the fully contained communities provisions
in “Policies for Urban Growth Areas” Policy 6 on pages 11 and 12. We also
recommend the council not allocate the population to a potential FCC through the
“New Community Reserve” in Appendix B-1: Population Distribution 2005 – 2030 on
page b. Instead the council county should direct that growth into its existing
communities, especially the categories of cities that are most out of alignment with the
Regional Growth Strategy. That way the county and cities can promote the vitality
and economic development of existing cities and towns, prevent urban style traffic
jams on rural roads, and maintain the county’s quality of life.
If the council does decide to allocate a population reserve to a future potential FCC, it
must wait until either its next five year or ten year evaluation of the urban growth
areas.9 We understand that Kitsap County last conducted its ten year urban growth
area review on December 11, 2006.10 So the county cannot allocate an FCC
population reserve until December 11, 2011.
Policies for Centers and Growth
We appreciate and support the countywide planning policies support pedestrian and
transit oriented development, such as in Transportation Policy 4. An overarching goal
of Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040 states that “the region will focus
growth within already urbanized areas to create walkable, compact, and Transit
Oriented Communities that maintain unique local character.”11 We recommend that a
policy be added to the countywide planning policies that includes criteria for planning
for pedestrian- and transit-oriented communities. We recommend that the countywide
planning policies incorporate the measures from our report Transit-Oriented
County Council bans vast rural developments The Seattle Times (Sept. 9, 2009) accessed on September 3,
2010 at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2009833804_edit10fully.html
8
Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2040 Part III: Multicounty Planning Policies MPP-DP-23 p. 55
(December 2009).
9
RCW 36.70A.350(2).
10
Kitsap County Ordinance No. 370-2006. Accessed on September 3, 2010 at:
http://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/10year/final/10-Year%20Adoption%20Ordinance_Final.pdf
11
2009).
January 27, 2011
Page 5
Communities: A Blueprint for Washington State.12 Research documented in TransitOriented Communities shows that these measures produce valuable community and
environmental benefits consistent with Vision 2040. So we recommend a new Policy
5 for the Policies for Centers and Growth and renumber the other policies.
Alternatively, it could be added to the transportation section as Policy 11. This is an
entirely new policy:
5.
Designated metro centers, urban centers, town or city centers, and mixed use
centers/neighborhoods should include plans and development regulations that
meet the following performance measures to maximize their social, economic,
and environmental benefits:
a. Plan for “complete streets” that are designed and operated to allow safe
access for users of all modes and ability levels with a street center line mile
average of no less than 30 center line miles per square mile, as a measure of
street connectivity. Street grids should strive to have blocks no larger than
three hundred feet by three hundred feet square. In areas where this is not
possible, well designed mid-block pedestrian and bicycle pathways could be
used to accomplish a similar result;
b. Plan for sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure commensurate with population
and traffic patterns, including measures of street type, vehicle volume and
speeds;
c. Plan for housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households
commensurate with the identified through Snohomish County’s fair share
housing methodology;
d. Include plans and regulations that guarantee no net loss of affordable
housing;
e. Plan and zone to allow a residential and employment density of no less than
25,000 housing and employment units, of which at least 15,000 must be
housing units. A residential unit is one housing unit. An employment unit
is enough building space to accommodate one employee;
f. Plan and zone for a balance of residential, commercial, retail and
recreational uses. At least one housing unit shall be allowed for each
employment unit in the center;
Futurewise │ GGLO │ Transportation Choices Coalition, Transit-Oriented Communities: A Blueprint
for Washington State pp. 48 – 55 (2009). Accessed on May 27, 2010 at:
http://futurewise.org/priorities/resources/publications/TOC%20Blueprint%20Final%2011-2309%20for%20Website.pdf. A copy was enclosed with the paper original of Futurewise’s September 3,
2010 letter to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council.
12
January 27, 2011
Page 6
g. Plan for adequate open space and public areas within or near the station
area;
h. Plan and adopt development regulations to increase the urban tree canopy
within the center and incorporate low impact development measures to
minimize storm water runoff;
i. Develop with the community and adopt design guidelines and standards for
buildings and streets that include criteria to make safe and activated
streetscapes, discourage uses and designs that disrupt pedestrian and bicycle
flow and access, incorporate locally important characteristics and historic
structures, and promote good building design;
j. Eliminate minimum parking requirements for all uses and set appropriate
parking maximums. Prohibit surface parking lots and at-grade parking, with
the exception of on-street parking; and
k. Locate the centers where one of the following levels of transit service are or
will be provided during the planning horizon:
i. Five or more local bus routes which operate at least twelve hours per
day. Mixed Use Center/Neighborhoods may have three or more local
bus routes operating at least twelve hours per day;
ii. One or more express bus routes which operates at least twelve hours per
day; or
iii. One or more Bus Rapid Transit stations.
In recent years the connection between land use planning and the health of
community residents become well documented. Vision 2040 also emphasizes
planning communities in a manner that promotes human health.13 We recommend
that the countywide planning policies add a policy directed planning for improved
community health. Peer reviewed studies show that residents walk bicycle more where
there are higher densities, a mix of uses to provide walking destinations such as stores
near their homes, and a connected street system.14 We recommend including
something like the following policy, perhaps as part of Element F Continuous and
Orderly Development:
X
13
The County and cities should address the safety, health, and well-being of
residents and employees by:
2009).
14
Brian E. Saelens, James F. Sallis, and Lawrence D. Frank, Environmental correlates of walking and
cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures 25 ANNALS OF
BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE 0883 (2003).
January 27, 2011
Page 7
a. Adopting development standards encouraging design and construction of
healthy buildings and facilities;
b. Providing infrastructure that promotes physical activity including complete
and well connected streets and walking and bicycle paths;
c. Working with state and federal agencies to address environmental hazards,
especially those that disproportionately affect low income communities and
communities of color;
d. Incorporating community design measures that encourage walking,
bicycling, and other healthy activities. Examples include designating
neighborhood commercial areas near homes and planning for parks and
recreation areas well distributed through the community;
e. Planning and zoning for densities that support walking and bicycling
throughout the urban growth areas; and,
f. Planning and zoning for transit-oriented development consistent with Policy
5 of the Policies for Centers and Growth.
Compact, higher density urban growth areas reduce the costs of public facilities and
services.15 This can help control costs for taxpayers and ratepayers. Multicounty
Planning Policy MPP-DP-2 calls on counties and cities to “[e]ncourage [the] efficient
use of urban land by maximizing the development potential of existing urban lands,
such as advancing development that achieves zoned density.”16 One important way of
doing this is to set minimum densities within urban zones. These minimum densities
can provide flexibility by allowing the deductions of critical areas, streets, and storm
water facilities from the land used to calculate the minimum density. By setting a
minimum density the community is setting a standard for the efficient use of the land.
We recommend an additional countywide planning requiring the setting of minimum
densities. Our addition is underlined.
X.
15
Minimum residential densities or intensities shall be adopted for each zone
within the urban growth area.
John Carruthers and Gudmundur F Ulfarsson, Urban Sprawl and the Cost of Public Services 30
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B: PLANNING AND DESIGN 503, 520 – 21 (2003). Accessed on September 3,
2010 at: http://www.mundyassoc.com/publications/urbspra.pdf. A copy was enclosed with the paper
original of Futurewise’s September 3, 2010 letter to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council.
16
2009).
January 27, 2011
Page 8
Adopt a Goal of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy: A Preliminary Assessment
of Risks and Opportunities concluded that: “Climate change impacts are visible in
Washington State and their economic effects are becoming apparent.”17 The
University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group recently finished an analysis of the
impacts of climate change on Washington State. They concluded that the
[p]robable impacts associated with projected 21st century change in
Northwest climate include the following:
● April 1 snowpack is projected to decrease by 28% across the state
by the 2020s, 40% by the 2040s, and 59% by the 2080s
compared with the 1916 – 2006 historical average. As a result,
seasonal streamflow timing will likely shift significantly in sensitive
watersheds.
….
● Due to increased summer temperature and decreased summer
precipitation, the area burned by fire regionally is projected to
double by the 2040s and triple by the 2080s4. The probability that
more than two million acres will burn in a given year is projected to
increase from 5% (observed) to 33% by the 2080s. Primarily east of the
Cascades, mountain pine beetles will likely reach higher elevations and
pine trees will likely be more vulnerable to attack by beetles.
● Although few statistically significant changes in extreme
precipitation have been observed to date in the Puget Sound, the
Spokane area, or Vancouver/ Portland, regional climate model
simulations generally predict increases in extreme high
precipitation over the next half-century, particularly around
Puget Sound. In that region, existing drainage infrastructure designed
using mid-20th century rainfall records may be subject to rainfall
regimes that differ from current design standards.
● Climate change in Washington will likely lead to significantly
more heat- and air pollution-related deaths throughout this
17
Washington Economic Steering Committee and the Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a
Sustainable Environment University of Oregon, Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy:
A Preliminary Assessment of Risks and Opportunities p. 7 (Washington State Department of Ecology
and State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development: November
2006). Accessed on October 28, 2009 at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0701010.pdf
January 27, 2011
Page 9
century. Projected warming would likely result in 101 additional deaths
among persons aged 45 and above during heat events in 2025 and 156
additional deaths in 2045 in the greater Seattle area alone5. By midcentury, King County will likely experience 132 additional deaths
between May and September annually due to worsened air quality
caused by climate change.
4
5
Relative to 1916 - 2006.
Relative to 1980 - 2006.
The significance of these regional consequences of climate change
underscore the fact that historical resource management strategies will
not be sufficient to meet the challenges of future changes in climate.
Rather, these changes demand new strategies.18
The Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy: A Preliminary Assessment
of Risks and Opportunities identified a variety of economic effects:
● Federal and state costs of fighting wildfires may exceed $75 million
per year by the 2020s (a 2ºF warming), 50 percent higher than
current expenditures.
● Water conservation expenditures to offset the decline in firm yield
of Seattle’s water supply due to climate change impacts could exceed
$8 million per year by the 2020s and $16 million per year by the
2040s.
● Tourism and recreation revenues may be reduced in some localities
due to forest closures and smoke intrusion associated with larger,
more frequent wildfires.
● Hydropower revenues may be affected as stream flow regimes
change in response to rising temperatures.
● Consumers could face water price increases in some basins that
supply municipal water.
….
18
Littell, J.S., M. McGuire Elsner, L.C. Whitely Binder, and A.K. Snover (eds); The Washington Climate
Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate - Executive
Summary in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's Future in a
Changing Climate pp. 1 – 2 (Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington:
June 2009). Accessed on October 28, 2009 at:
www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciaexecsummary638.pdf
January 27, 2011
Page 10
● New sea level rise projections could trigger costly re-design of some
long-term investments in shoreline protection such as Seattle’s
Alaskan Way seawall and critical infrastructure such as bridges and
culverts.
● Cumulative economic effects larger than the sum of individual sector
or regional effects may occur due to interactions between industries
and economic sectors.19
In addition to these costs, the report also identified benefits concluding that:
efforts within the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as
action to prepare for impacts that appear all but inevitable, will create
economic opportunities. Among the key opportunities, this assessment
emphasizes initiatives in transportation, biofuels, renewable power,
energy efficiency, and carbon capture. These emerging industries can
help the state achieve greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change
adaptation goals, while enhancing Washington’s capacity to export
technology and expertise to trading partners around the nation and
world seeking to meet the challenges of climate change.20
We appreciate and support the references to greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation
in the proposed countywide planning policies. These would be strengthened by
including a goal for the reduction greenhouse gas emissions in the countywide
planning policies. This goal should, at a minimum, be consistent with Washington
State’s greenhouse gas emissions limits. These standards limit greenhouse gas
emissions to no more than the 1990 level by 2020, to 25 percent below the 1990 level
by 2035, and 50 percent below the 1990 level by 2050, or 75 percent below the state’s
expected emissions that year.21 The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council should
consider a goal with greater reductions as there is evidence that these emissions
reductions will not be sufficient to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at levels that
would minimize the adverse effects of global warming. To stabilize atmospheric
carbon dioxide equivalents at a concentration of 450 parts per million (ppm),
greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 80 to 95 percent below the 1990 level
by 2050 in developed countries.22 More recent studies show even this level of
19
Washington Economic Steering Committee and the Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a
Sustainable Environment University of Oregon, Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy:
A Preliminary Assessment of Risks and Opportunities p. 8 (Washington State Department of Ecology
and State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development: November
2006).
20
Id. at p. 9.
21
RCW 70.235.020(1)(a).
22
S. Gupta, D. A. Tirpak, N. Burger, J. Gupta, N. Höhne, A. I. Boncheva, G. M. Kanoan, C. Kolstad, J. A.
Kruger, A. Michaelowa, S. Murase, J. Pershing, T. Saijo, A. Sari, 2007: Policies, Instruments and Co-
January 27, 2011
Page 11
atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalents may be too high to stabilize the climate at a
level that does not produce serious adverse impacts on the human and natural
environments and the economy. We recommend the following policy:
X.
The greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, buildings including their
construction and operation, and land conversions should be no higher than their
1990 levels by 2020, 30 percent below their 1990 levels by 2035, and 80
percent below their 1990 levels by 2050.
As we have seen, counties and cities in Washington are going to be faced with sea
level rise due to global warming. Other natural hazards, such as flooding, are likely to
be exacerbated due to more severe storms. We recommend that the Kitsap
Coordinating Council include a policy that encourages the county and cities to
identify those impacts that are likely to adversely affect Kitsap County and take steps
to minimize the adverse impacts. We recommend the following policy:
X.
Local governments should use readily available information to identify how
climate change will adversely affect their communities and take steps to reduce
these adverse impacts.
Thank you for considering our recommendations. Please call me at 206-343-0681 Ext
118 or tim@futurewise.org if you would like additional information.
Sincerely
Tim Trohimovich, AICP
Co-Director of Planning & Law
Enclosures
operative Arrangements pp. 775 -76 in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz,
O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Accessed on December 10, 2009 at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
January 27, 2011
Page 12
Table 1: Draft Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Population
Distribution Compared to the Regional Growth Strategy (Comparison of
Additional Population)
Area
Metropolitan Cities
Bremerton City
East UGA
West UGA
Gorst UGA
SKIA
Metropolitan Cities Subtotal
CPP Draft 20002030
Number Percent
Regional 20002040
Number Percent
14,759
2,210
2,017
73
-68
18,991
19%
39,000
26%
Core Cities
Silverdale
Core Cities Subtotal
8,059
8,059
8%
19,000
13%
Larger Cities
Bainbridge Island City
Larger Cities Subtotal
8,352
8,352
8%
16,000
11%
Small Cities
Port Orchard City
UGA
Poulsbo City
UGA
Small Cities Subtotal
11,624
9,709
3,739
3,355
28,427
29%
12,000
8%
Unincorporated UGAs
Central Kitsap UGA
Kingston UGA
New Community Reserve
Subtotal Unincorporated
8,733
3,135
3,300
15,168
15%
39,000
26%
UGA Growth
78,997
79%
125,000
84%
Rural
20,605
21%
25,000
16%
Total Population Increase
99,602
100%
150,000
100%
Sources: Draft Countywide Planning Policies Appendix B-1: Population Distribution
2005 – 2030 p. b & Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2040 Part II: Regional
Growth Strategy pp. 19 – 25 (December 2009). Accessed on Jan. 26, 2010 at:
http://www.psrc.org/assets/1737/Part_II_Regional_Growth_Strategy.pdf
Snohomish County News | Mini-city plan could be turning point for Snohomish land-use policy | Seattle Times Newspaper
The Seattle Times Company
NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWapartments | NWsource | Classifieds | seattletimes.com
Snohomish County
44°F
●
Home
●
Local
●
Shopping
●
Nation/World
●
Jobs
●
Business/Tech
●
Autos
●
Sports
●
Homes
●
Entertainment
●
Rentals
●
Living
●
Classifieds
●
Travel
●
Opinion
●
Buy ads
Our network sites
seattletimes.com | Advanced
●
●
Quick links: Traffic | Movies | Restaurants | Today's events | Video | Photos |
Blogs
Your account | Log in|Contact
us
More Snohomish County News
Originally published Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 12:00 AM
E-mail article
Print view
Mini-city plan could be turning point for Snohomish land-use
policy
It's the kind of community where Ramona O'Connor can swing by the general store in her fuzzy pink Mickey Mouse pajama bottoms, to pick
up...
By Diane Brooks
Times Snohomish County Bureau
Land-use controversy
Lake Roesiger
The community: Lake Roesiger historically has been
ringed with summer cabins, with nearly 500 waterfront lots
crowded along its 7-mile shoreline. The nearest grocery is a
20-minute drive away, on two-lane roads. Over the past 20
years, the number of year-round residents has swelled from
about 50 families to more than 150, and many older homes
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2004351438_minicities16n.html (1 of 6)2/5/2009 9:38:53 PM
are being replaced with pricey new construction. Ruralcluster subdivisions are multiplying in the surrounding area,
greatly adding to local traffic.
Falcon Ridge
The proposal: Developer Dave Barnett, of Shoreline, owns
3,000 acres of timberland directly west of Lake Roesiger. He
is working with people who helped build Snoqualmie Ridge
in King County and Northwest Landing in Pierce County to
create a mini-city that could include 6,000 homes, shops,
businesses, an 18-hole golf course, emergency services
and schools. At least half of the property must remain in
open space, with wetlands, trails and parks. Sewage would
be treated on-site, and a new water-treatment plant would
be served by Everett's Cascades pipeline, which runs
through the property.
The timeline: Barnett must pay for a $250,000
transportation study before filing development applications
with Snohomish County, possibly by year's end. It could
take up to seven years for Barnett's company to complete
environmental-impact studies and comply with state and
local laws that would establish mitigation requirements such
as road improvements and community resources like
schools and a fire station. The community would be built
over 20 years; the first phase probably would include homes
and shops, with jobs to follow later.
Fully contained communities
State Growth Management Act: The state GMA allows
citylike developments to be built in unincorporated areas
beyond urban-growth areas under certain conditions.
Counties must ensure that new communities include jobs,
services, sufficient infrastructure, traffic planning, mitigation
for impacts on farmlands and forests and affordable housing
for a range of income levels. Redmond Ridge was the
state's first fully contained community to be permitted and
built in the post-GMA era; another has been approved near
Black Diamond in rural King County. The new mini-cities
often are compared to master-planned communities such as
Snoqualmie Ridge.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan: Snohomish
County's original comprehensive plan, adopted in 1995 to
comply with the GMA, did not allow high-density residential
development outside existing urban-growth areas. The
County Council's 10-year plan update, approved in late
2005, added provisions that would allow a fully contained
community to be built on at least 2,000 rural acres to absorb
an estimated 15,000 residents.
It's the kind of community where Ramona O'Connor can swing by the general store in her fuzzy pink Mickey Mouse
pajama bottoms, to pick up a couple of lattes, without thinking twice about how she looks.
Where toy firetrucks are parked among the daffodils ringing the flagpole outside the all-volunteer fire station — and
Video
Seattle's Olympic
Sculpture Park
Larry Lancaster is a 69-yearold volunteer at SAM's
Olympic Sculpture Park. He
is one of the park' s
"ambassadors" and helps
visitors navigate the park.
nobody steals them. Where neighbors share stories about the local bobcat, who likes to sit on the porch and stare
Year of the Ox Celebration
through windows at the house cats. Where many cellphones still can't pick up a signal.
School Board votes on school closures
O'Connor was in sixth grade when she came to live with her grandmother, Eileen Pelkey, in 1979. Twelve years ago, she
moved back onto Pelkey's property, just east of Lake Roesiger, and commutes to her nursing job in Everett. Pelkey —
Valentines Performing Pigs
who died 10 days ago — remains "Mom" in her heart.
"The Bachelor" attends fundraiser
"Mom used to milk a cow and sell milk and eggs to the judge who lived next door — which of course was a mile away,"
she laughed, recalling the late Justice William Goodloe of the state Supreme Court.
"Starting over"
But her smile faded when she contemplated a mind-boggling development proposed for a 3,000-acre dome of forestland
What are "Trapsters?"
rising above the country lake's western shoreline.
Earth Sanctuary on Whidbey Island
The landowner has hired people who oversaw the creation of major master-planned communities, including Snoqualmie
Ridge, to help him win Snohomish County's blessing for a 6,000-home mini-city with shops, schools, jobs, parks and a
Pt. 3: An Inaugural Journey
golf course.
Middle school watches Inauguration
While most of the new community would lie out of sight of the existing Lake Roesiger neighborhood, it would spill over
More videos
the top of the plateau, which affords lovely views of the lake, the Cascades and the Olympics.
And its estimated 15,000 residents would transform traffic patterns on the two-lane country roads linking the lake with
AP Video
Lake Stevens, Snohomish, Granite Falls and Monroe.
The state Growth Management Act generally requires urban-density development to be channeled into the urban-growth
areas designated around existing cities.
But the law also allows counties to approve huge developments, called "fully contained communities," where in theory
residents would live, work, shop and play without significantly affecting the surrounding areas.
Marketplace
Lake Roesiger's future lies in the hands of the Snohomish County Council, which has a new majority skeptical of the fully
contained-community concept. Three of its five members — Dave Somers, Brian Sullivan and Mike Cooper — have
taken office since the council's 2005 creation of a county policy allowing such projects.
Somers tried unsuccessfully in February to pass an emergency moratorium on the concept. His motion, which required a
four-vote supermajority, failed 3-1. John Koster voted no, and Dave Gossett was out of town.
Now Somers is pursuing a more conventional strategy. Later this month, he plans to introduce a regular ordinance to
create a six-month moratorium.
shopping
Beauty products
Locally made Wiggle
perfumes prove you
don't have to be rich
to...
More Shopping
events for Thursday, Feb. 5th
Next year, the council will consider changes to its comprehensive plan, and Somers wants to permanently nix the
communities.
●
Alhambra Half-Off Jewelry, Clothing...
●
The Sneakery First Annual Cute Sale
●
Northwest Art, Vintage...
If he retains the support of Sullivan and Cooper, the Lake Roesiger debate could be moot.
More Shopping Events
That would please the Puget Sound Regional Council's executive board. Three weeks ago, the board endorsed Vision
2040, a regional planning strategy that includes a new goal: Counties should avoid creating fully contained communities
editors' picks
"because of their potential to create sprawl and undermine state and regional growth-management goals."
County Executive Aaron Reardon unsuccessfully tried to remove that language, which he believes is an intrusion upon
●
Fremont shopping
Snohomish County's right to make its own policy decisions.
●
Phinney Ridge & Greenwood shopping
●
Top spots for tea
"We believe fully contained communities are a better tool to allow us to grow and control the sprawl, while providing the
More Shopping Guides
key and necessary services to the citizens ... " he told the board. "I don't think anything prevents sprawl."
Reardon's comments provoked strong comments from a half-dozen other board members, including mayors and council
members from cities affected by similar projects.
"We have one of these things, and it certainly has been devastating to all of Northeast King County," said Redmond City
Councilman Richard Cole, referring to the 1,500-home Redmond Ridge, which is expected to grow by an additional 700
homes. "The traffic impacts — it affects Carnation, out to Duvall, out to Woodinville."
King County Executive Ron Sims was blunt. The developments had looked beneficial on paper, he said, because they
provided private financing for public infrastructure such as road improvements. But they carried "unintentional
consequences," he said.
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
1. Controversial measure would require DNA sampling at
arrest
2. Bicyclist killed in Ballard crash
3. Mariners must make decision on Griffey soon
"If we were at the point we are now, knowing what we know right now, I can assure you, you would not see the
4. Judge orders Kent murder suspect held on $2 million
bail
communities that we authorized," Sims said.
5. Huskies sign 18 players
Jim Nyberg, a consultant to Lake Roesiger property owner Dave Barnett, scoffed at Sims' comments. King County
6. Washington Huskies' incoming class of football
recruits gets low grades from analysts
7. City treasure or city property?
essentially is "out of the business," he said, because master-planned communities already have been built on all
available sites.
"If something was driving a fully contained community that was viewed as good for the politicians, they wouldn't say that."
Nyberg says the communities are beneficial to the region, providing a way to accommodate growth in a meticulously
planned fashion. The Lake Roesiger project couldn't be built unless the county's environmental analyses addressed all of
8. Execs among 200 layoffs at Swedish Medical Center
9. Jerry Brewer | Sarkisian, Huskies did the best they
could in this recruiting battle
10. Unusual diamond leads to break in 1996 King County
murder case
its impacts, he says.
In past instances, the only groups that remained opposed to the developments, once their true impacts were understood,
were the nearest neighbors.
"It's very shortsighted to eliminate a planning tool because a community doesn't want to have one in their neighborhood,"
he said.
"Everyone wants to live in the country," said O'Connor. "And then it's not the country anymore."
Diane Brooks: 425-745-7802 or dbrooks@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
E-mail article
Print view
Share:
Digg
Newsvine
Ads by Google
Ford® Escape Hybrid
Get Photos, Specs, More on
2009 Ford Escape Hybrid.
FordVehicles.com/EscapeHybrid
Get home delivery today!
Site map
More Snohomish County News headlines...
Local News | Living near work? Great idea, in theory | Seattle Times Newspaper
Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - Page updated at 08:45 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The
Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
Living near work? Great
idea, in theory
By Sonia Krishnan
Seattle Times Eastside bureau
On a warm weekday morning, the downtown
sidewalks of Snoqualmie Ridge bustle with
JOHN LOK / THE SEATTLE TIMES
well-dressed residents. They enter the bank
and grocery store. They walk past a nail salon
and a corner spa offering discounts on Botox
Dan Metteer and his wife, Rebekah, stand in front of their
Snoqualmie Ridge home with Julia, 3, and Katie, 10 months. The
Metteers moved to the community in March after Dan got a job on
the Eastside, but it's still a 15-minute drive to work in Issaquah.
injections.
They grab their a.m. java, jump into cars and
head to work.
Urban-village life.
JOHN LOK / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Marketed as suburbia's answer to sprawl,
three master-planned communities on the
Restaurants, salons and coffee shops thrive in the business
district at Snoqualmie Ridge, but corporate employers are hard to
find.
Eastside were once billed as places where
residents could saunter down the street and
show up to work a stone's throw from their
doorsteps. Nearly a decade later, homes have
sprouted like mushrooms, restaurants and
salons thrive, and locals gather at coffee
shops to catch up on the latest gossip.
But for the most part, urban villages in
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?do...section_id=2003925728&slug=urbanvillages14e&date=20070814 (1 of 6)2/5/2009 9:30:18 PM
Issaquah, Redmond and Snoqualmie have yet
to provide one missing link — jobs.
Corporate employers have been a critical void.
And without nearby jobs, the traffic woes
brought on by more development only
continue.
"Having employment anchors in urban villages
BETTY UDESEN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Microsoft had planned a major new campus at Issaquah
Highlands but chose instead to expand its main campus at
Redmond. Microsoft still owns 63 acres at the site that remain
unused.
is often the final piece to be included — and it
Redmond Ridge
is the most difficult," said Stephen
Start of construction: 1998
Filmanowicz, spokesman for the Chicago-
Size: 1,383 acres, with about 800 acres of open space and
parks
based Congress of New Urbanism, which
promotes mixed-use neighborhoods as an
alternative to sprawl.
Developers blame it largely on the dot-com
bust but point to the state's economic upturn
as promising.
"We did envision people taking their bikes or
walking to work," said Snoqualmie Mayor Matt
Larson, who lives on the Ridge. "We need to
create an environment where there is a critical
mass of a certain sector, like software or
aerospace. Right now, the Ridge doesn't rise
to the ideal that most folks thought of."
Homes: About 1,500 homes and more than 4,500 residents.
Will add 700 homes when Redmond Ridge East is finished.
(No completion date has been set.)
Prices: Quadrant does not track resale values. Pricing not
set for Redmond Ridge East.
Source: Quadrant Homes
Snoqualmie Ridge
Start of construction: 1996; first family moved in 1998
Size: About 2,100 acres, including more than 1,000 acres of
parks and open space
Homes: About 2,500 homes and more than 6,000 residents
now. With the completion of Phase II expected in 2012, full
build out will be up to 4,300 homes.
Prices: Average prices range from $400,000 to $800,000
for new construction for Phase II.
Source: Quadrant Homes
Issaquah Highlands
Start of construction: 1997
The developments were pushed during the
1980s and '90s as a return to pedestrian
Size: 2,200 acres with 1,500 acres of open space and parks
centers of days past. Parks, narrow streets
Homes: Currently, 2,000 homes are occupied with 4,000
residents. Maximum build out is 3,950 homes.
and convenient transit stations were designed
Prices: Home prices range from $260,000 to $3 million
to get residents out of their cars. Jobs and
Source: Port Blakely
retail were supposed to encourage people to work and shop where they live. Essentially, urban villages
would deliver what isolated subdivisions hadn't — a sense of community.
In the years since, environmentalists have complained that these often-massive projects have eaten up
forests and animal habitat to make way for houses and roads. Longtime residents feel the squeeze as
thousands of new commuters jam highways and once-quiet back roads.
While no one specifically tracks how many urban-village dwellers drive to their jobs, transportation data show
a jump in the number of cars on the road as more people move there.
From 2003 to 2006, for example, 6,000 more cars traveled on Interstate 90 at the Sunset Interchange where
Issaquah Highlands is located, according to figures from the state Department of Transportation. Similar
spikes were noted near Snoqualmie and Redmond Ridge.
Redmond Ridge and its companion developments were immersed in litigation for years, in part because the
county failed to upgrade Novelty Hill Road, the main link to Redmond. As a result, the mostly rural area was
flooded with urban-style traffic jams.
Gene Burrus and his wife, Leah, bought their Snoqualmie Ridge home in 2002. The dramatic Mount Si views
sold them, he said, not the "live, work, play" mantra. Burrus makes the 35-minute drive to Microsoft in
Redmond every day; his wife commutes to downtown Seattle.
"The Ridge has delivered to some degree," Burrus said, with a new library, grocery store and a Starbucks.
"But that dream of a self-contained work environment hasn't come to pass. And I don't think it will."
Some companies commit
Some companies have committed to the master-planned communities.
Philips Oral Healthcare, which produces the Sonicare electronic toothbrush, occupies 275,000 square feet of
office and light-manufacturing space in the business park opposite Snoqualmie Ridge. Fourteen Philips
employees live on the Ridge and walk to work; the company's CEO, Chris Robins, is among them.
In November, Prime Advisors, a bicoastal insurance investment company, moved its Kirkland headquarters
to the Redmond Ridge business park. More recently, officials for Swedish Medical Center announced plans
to pursue building a new hospital in the Issaquah Highlands after getting state approval in June.
Still, it's been a slow go. And when jobs do come, they often don't pay enough for workers to afford to live
there.
At Snoqualmie Ridge, for instance, only 30 percent of the business park is occupied, with many of the jobs in
light manufacturing. Issaquah Highlands — dealt a setback when Microsoft bailed on its plans to expand
there — also has no major employer.
Developers say they're not surprised.
It takes years for all the elements of an urban village to jell, said Peter Orser, president of Quadrant Homes,
developer of Redmond Ridge and Snoqualmie Ridge.
"I am not panicked. This is an evolution," Orser said.
It's also about supply-and-demand economics, said Mark Rowe, senior real-estate manager at Opus
Northwest, which oversees development of the Snoqualmie Ridge business park.
On the one hand, he said, you have the master-planned ideal of creating a place to "live, work and play."
Then there are the economic realities. Real-estate developers build for the companies that want to be there.
"We're responsive to the market in terms of who comes," Rowe said. "Snoqualmie Ridge is a pretty
expensive place to live. The majority of jobs don't pay enough to let people buy homes here."
Big plans fell through
When the first homes were built in the late '90s, no one expected real-estate values to skyrocket at such a
feverish pace.
Then came the dot-com crash. Jobs were lost and office vacancies jumped. Office space in downtown
Seattle and Bellevue tumbled to as little as $13 a square foot, half its previous value, Rowe said. In some
cases, big plans to lure corporate employers simply fell through. Take, for instance, the Issaquah Highlands.
Fast growth in the late 1990s prompted Microsoft to look to Issaquah for expansion because Redmond had
imposed a moratorium on commercial development. In 1997, Microsoft signed a deal to buy 150 acres in the
Highlands to build a campus that would hold as many as 12,000 employees.
Two years ago, Redmond lifted its moratorium, so Microsoft decided to expand its Redmond campus instead.
The company ended up buying just 63 of the 150 acres from Port Blakely and let its options lapse on the
remaining land. The 63 acres still sit fallow.
Microsoft's change of plans left the office portion of the urban village in the lurch, said Judd Kirk, Port Blakely
developer of Issaquah Highlands.
Concerns about the ability of such projects here and elsewhere to deliver on the jobs promise led the Puget
Sound Regional Council — a four-county planning agency — to suggest that counties avoid such
developments outside of the urban-growth boundary in the future because of the impacts to surrounding
communities.
"The question is, 'Can these communities be fully contained, or is that an oxymoron?' " said Norman Abbott,
council director of growth-management planning. "It isn't possible in reality."
But there are signs that a shift is happening. As job growth continues and rental rates in Seattle creep up,
companies are looking more at outlying cities, said Tom Bohman, senior director at Cushman & Wakefield, a
brokerage firm in Bellevue.
In the Seattle area, "land is more constrained by mountains, hills and zoning, so companies are forced to
consider other alternatives," he said.
That means thinking — and looking — beyond Seattle and Bellevue.
A technical glass-making company is headed to the Snoqualmie Ridge business park this year. And Opus
officials feel confident enough to construct a speculative office building there.
"We're all disappointed that it didn't happen all at once," said Karen Wolf, senior executive policy adviser for
County Executive Ron Sims. "But I think that they [urban villages] are on the right track. We're hoping that the
right economic situation will come together for the commercial piece to happen."
It might be another decade or two until all of the parts fall into place, said Quadrant's Orser.
"People expect these things to happen much faster than they do," he said. "But it takes years to let all these
ingredients percolate."
Some urban villagers say they never expected to ditch their drives.
Dan Metteer and his wife, Rebekah, moved to Snoqualmie Ridge from Mountlake Terrace in March. He used
to drive 45 minutes to his job as a pastor in Issaquah. Since the move, he's slashed his commute to 15
minutes.
It's not ideal, he concedes. "I've always wanted to walk to my job."
But the family got more house for their money in Snoqualmie Ridge, and can walk to restaurants, a grocery
store and a coffee shop.
"I have a view out my front window, and for the first time in my life, I'm living in a walkable community," Dan
Metteer said. "So far, it's working for us."
Sonia Krishnan: 206-515-5546 or skrishnan@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
HOOD CANAL ENVI
P. O. BOX 87 I
MENTAL COUNCIL
ttitlte Herilage
Attterit
BECK, WASHINGTON 98380
January 27, 2011
Kitsap
Regional
Coordinating
Corincil
My narne is Willianr t{atchett and I am here to qpeak for the Hood Canal
Brvironnental
Cor.:ncil, of which I am the Presid.ent.
We are active menbers
of the West Sorrnd Conservation Council and are represented. in the position
they will be presenting,
so I will keep ny further
remarks brief.
HCECfirst
becarne interested
in tonightrs
issue through our concern
for the health of Port Gamble Bay, threatened by the proposal to buiId. a
new city above it.
Our study of the issue hae enlarged our concern.
0f course false labeling
is the n.arneof the advertising
gane. I perr..
sonally find it both a^rnuslng and adnirable that, to join the new S{CA in
silverdaler
one need not be yor:ng, male or a Christian.
But we do not
find the current use of tttr\r11y Contained Cornnrlnitiestteither
anusing or
admirable for, if anything is clear; they wil.1 not be fu1ly contained.
They will be bedroom communities, allowing urban dqnsity where the G:owth
ivlanagement Act specifically
forbids
itr and this at the sarne time that we
have cosle S4owherenear meeting the allocated
growth areas in our cities.
That the Latter have been much too large is already clear.
There is no
excuse for adding Rorso
N0 excuse and, as far as we can see, no dernandl except frour speculators.
Dook at the cuuent
sales figures
in the Colmty,
!,ook at the houslng now on
the market.
Can we possibly argue that we need more? In factl we should be
considering
the reduction
of our cunent
overblown urban growth boundaries.
We have not forrnd anlplace where so cal1ed l\rtrly Contained Comnunities
have workedr and we are aware of counties which adopted the idea and, finding
j.t r.rnworkable, h,ave abandoned it.
We do not believe there is any reason to
push the concept in Kitsap Cor.rnty, and there are nultiple
reasons not to do
SOo
Thank you for your consideration.
,iturM-
''l.oF
-
YXnLP"
V
t
{
-
I U??11\
I
z
\r{r$.(*
-
'
v^FV n-u\ -;\
LoY't'^'
" vK*
V"W:I",*-k^1
w
West Sound Conservation Council
-a coalition of conservation groups in the West Puget Sound
dedicated to bringing the voice of environmental responsibility
to the public debate
Our Mission: To conserve and restore our natural resources.
1/26/2011
Honorable Members,
West Sound Conservation Council opposes the proposed revision to the Countywide
Planning Policies to allow Fully Contained Communities. Kitsap County currently has excessive
urban growth capacity. Fully Contained Communities are defined as Urban Growth Areas. There
is no need for additional Urban Growth Areas. The proposed policies are premature and enable
uncoordinated urbanization of the rural areas of the County.
The current Countywide Planning Policy states: “The primary role of Kitsap’s urban
communities is to encourage growth, through new development, re-development and in-fill.” And,
“The basic premise for designating Urban Growth Areas is to encourage the location of urban
density residential, commercial and industrial developments in areas where services can be most
economically provided.”
The current Countywide Planning Policy recognizes the benefits of directing growth
to designated urban areas. West Sound Conservation Council supports the attainment of
these benefits. West Sound Conservation Council believes that the provision for Fully
Contained Communities in the Countywide Planning Policies thwarts attainment of these
benefits.
Support for these amendments, in part, is driven by the proposed North Kitsap Legacy
Project (NKLP). The NKLP proposal is worthy of further discussion. However, it is very
premature to adopt countywide policies for the establishment of Fully Contained Communities.
WSCC along with many other groups and individuals support:
Restoration and protection of Port Gamble Bay.
Habitat preservation and protection.
Limited public access consistent with habitat preservation and protection.
Resource management consistent with habitat preservation and protection.
West Sound Conservation Council requests the Kitsap Regional Coordinating
Council excise Fully Contained Community language from proposed revisions to the
Countywide Planning Policies.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Nevins for WSCC
January 27, 2010 Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council PO Box 1934 Kingston, WA 98346 To whom it may concern; I’ve listened with keen interest as to what the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership is and what it provides because the bountiful natural environment and rural atmosphere with open space is why I have chosen North Kitsap as my home. That is true for most people who live here. We live with the understanding that to be surrounded by such splendor means we do without some of the conveniences that urban cities provide in exchange for a more serene, calmer, seemingly safer place to raise our families. We get to walk outside and see what others may only imagine. I followed an eagle as he bobbed and weaved through the electrical lines and then spread his wings and soared upward out of sight last week after dropping my grandson off at Breideblick Elementary. I regularly eat crab and shrimp harvested from the Hood Canal and occasionally get the treat of some clam chowder made with geoduck. During a time before my hind end got so large and my legs were still young and fresh, I rode horses across some of the land we are now discussing as making into permanent open space and I would love to see those acres remain open and even more available for use for my grandchildren and their children and all who reside and visit this place we are so privileged to live but as I search for answers as tothe cost, concerns arise from numerous aspects. One of the obstacles is the cost of acquiring the land. The terminology used of “land transfer” or “swap” sounds like a trade but in reality I believe there is no gifting of the land, but must be purchased. Coming up with millions to pay for this “transfer” would seem difficult in a cash‐strapped county that is currently looking at annexationinto municipalities as a means of remedy to financial shortfalls. The issue of proper taxation or the lack of it when looking at OPG land might help the county’s current financial woes. The cost of managing these lands needs a realistic figure. As parks are being shut down or hours and services cut, is it realistic that we can afford maintenance after purchase? Even with volunteers, responsibility will ultimately rely with the owner of the property which in this case would be the county. My parents use to always tell me that the cost of a horse was insignificant as to the cost of caring for one. If we would struggle to come up with the money to buy the land how will we come up with the money to maintain it when we don’t have enough to keep current fire and police. Maybe our eyes are bigger than our stomach. Maybe a little less additional acquisition of open space might still allow for that rural feel and closeness to nature and not break the bank. These money concerns are legitimate but the true concern centers around the environmental impacts of dense development of Port Gamble. The real “swap” in this endeavor is the sacrifice of the bay in exchange for some 6,000‐7,000 acres of open space because it seems under this plan, we cannot have both. The viability of the bay will not sustain an FCC or anything close to such a project. Commissioner Steve Bauer was quoted in the Kitsap Sun as saying, “We are polluting Puget Sound by not treating the effluent to a point where it is benign…We made a conscious decision in the past that we didn’t want to pay the true cost of treating sewage. Everybody assumed that since Puget Sound was a big body of water, it could tolerate all the pollutants we could dump into it – but it can’t.” Port Gamble Bay can’t either. The herring beds vital to the chain of life will go away, the fish will die as dead zones increase, the eagle nesting will cease, the shellfish will be contaminated and a way of life for the inhabitants surrounding the bay, Native and non‐native alike will end. No, the needs a few should not outweigh the needs of the many but we here in Kitsap County don’t really need 7,000 additional acres in open space, we want it, myself included but not at the expense of a people’s culture, tradition and livelihood when it is not necessary. The Port Gamble S’Klallam need the bay. They need it in ways that my words struggle to express and if we as a people turn a deaf ear to their cries for fairness, if we do not honor the rights set forth by treaty then we have diminished ourselves. Find another solution to gain some additional open space without building a city in Port Gamble. Find a way to have both and do the right thing as well. Allow integrity to prevail and vote no to amendments that would allow for a Port Gamble FCC or any other form of dense development adjacent to Port Gamble Bay. Thank you, Naomi Austin 26426 Tytler Rd. NE Poulsbo, WA. 98370 grammawarrior@yahoo.com
Steve Bauer quote: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/nov/13/county‐planning‐big‐but‐costly‐
improvements‐to/?partner=yahoo_feeds#ixzz15JXPHYHH
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Fully%20Contained%20Cieties%20Not%20the%20Solution.htm
From: Gene Bullock [genebullock@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:45 PM
To: KRCC
Subject: Fully Contained Cieties Not the Solution
Attn: Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
I hope we can come up with a win-win solution for the North Kitsap Legacy Partmership
(NKLP). We all want to preserve open space for future generations. But Fully Contained
Communities (FCCs) are not the solution. They are a way to circumvent the letter of the GMA,
while violating its intent. FCCs have been unsuccdessful elsewhere because the concept hinges
on unrealistic expectations and false assumptions.
In theory, residents of an FCC do not need to drive long distances to jobs, shopping and
recreation because it is all right there. But the jobs and shopping do not materialize. The few
jobs that come to Port Gamble will be filled by people who can’t afford to live there. Its 3,000
upscale home owners will drive long distances to better-paying jobs in urban centers, often a
ferry ride away. They will do most of their shopping in big box malls and shopping centers. The
additional traffic congestion will require more and wider roads, and will greatly worsen tie-ups
from summer traffic to the Olympic Peninsula.
It is unrealistic to think businesses that provide well-paying jobs will locate in a remote corner of
a peninsula that depends on the ferry system to move goods and raw materials. Businesses are
not flocking to SKIA. They are not even coming to commercially zoned areas in Kitsap where
the infrastructure already exists.
Except for new schools, police and fire departments, and small convenience stores, there will be
few new jobs in Port Gamble. A major marina could be a job generator, but turning Port Gamble
into another Port Ludlow is an unacceptable threat to Port Gamble Bay.
It is also unrealistic to believe that jobs requiring special skills and experience will be filled by
people who live nearby. And it is unlikely that candidates for unskilled jobs can afford to buy
homes in the new Port Gamble.
The GMA is premised on the obvious fact that services such as schools, police and fire
protection, water, sewers, etc., are costlier and less efficient in isolated areas, remote from other
UGAs. The GMA correctly assumes that there are economies of scale in clustering development
within existing UGAs (which are already underutilized).
Future planners and commissioners will find it necessary to expand the new Port Gamble UGA
again and again in a futile effort to make it self supporting. They'll reason that the damage is
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Fully%20Contained%20Cieties%20Not%20the%20Solution.htm (1 of 2)2/1/2011 10:48:41 AM
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Fully%20Contained%20Cieties%20Not%20the%20Solution.htm
already done (grandfathered), so there will no longer be any reason to limit further growth and
expansion.
FCCs faile because the promised jobs don't materialize, and pleace a heavy burden on taxpayers
for the required new infrastructure will heavily burden county taxpayers.
Gene Bullock
1968 NE Lind Ct.
Poulsbo WA 98370
360-394-5635
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Fully%20Contained%20Cieties%20Not%20the%20Solution.htm (2 of 2)2/1/2011 10:48:41 AM
Vicky Clarke
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kim Freewolf [kfreewolf@pgst.nsn.us]
Friday, January 28, 2011 10:24 AM
Vicky@KitsapRegionalCouncil.org
1/27/11 Public Hearing
I wanted to submitt to you that myself, Kim Freewolf & Edward Charles, Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribal members were present at last nights meeting in the Norm Dicks Bldg. We
failed to sign in, and we apologize and would like to be counted as being opposed to OPG's
proposal to build a planned community in Port Gamble. After listening to many people with
many various concerns regarding this development project happening now or in the future we
can only hope it will now be nipped in the bud., and no future options for this project
will be written in. We think historic status is needed for Port Gamble, and would like to
see the Port Gamble Tribe eventually be able to acquire the area. We truly appreciated
the time and attention that was given in regard to this issue by the council. Sincerely,
Kim Freewolf & Edward Charles
1
The same letter as on the previous page was also received from 12
others, through the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe:
Date of letters: January 22, 2011
Betty Decoteau
33401 Hood Canal Ln. N.E.
Kingston, WA 98346
John Price
P.O. Box 755
Kingston, WA 98346
Jodi Fulton
30635 Bearridge Dr.
Kingston, WA 98346
Rudolph Purser Sr.
5570 NE Boston Ln.
Kingston, WA 98346
Rose Purser
5590 NE Boston Ln.
Kingston, WA 98346
Kenneth Charles
31689 Little Boston
Kingston, WA 98346
Bridgette Woodward
35490 NE Hood Canal Dr.
Hansville, WA 98340
Paul William Trevathan Jr.
31180 Little Boston Rd N.E.
Kingston, WA 98346
Date of letter: January 25, 2011
Brandon Fulton
30662 Cubby Sparks Pl.
Kingston, WA 98346
Victoria Quinney
5678 NE Boston Ln.
Kingston, WA 98346
Date of letters: January 26, 2011
Melvin Sullivan
31925 Little Boston Rd
Kingston, WA 98346
Wendy Fulton
91925 Little Boston Rd
Kingston, WA 98346
January26, 20LL
Kitsap RegionalCoordinating
Council
Norm Dicks GovernmentCenter
Main Meeting Chambers
345 6'hSfteet
Bremerton,WA
RE: NKLP Comprehensive Plan Amendments on Fully
Contained Communities
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
I am vwiting to you to share concernsregarding the proposed
Fully Contained Community in the town of Port Gambleby
Olympic ResourcesGroup.
I am a member of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and have
lived here at Port GambleS'Klallammost of my life.
Members of my family and friends harvest shellfish from Port
Gamble Bay. It is imperative that this never change,that we
have the "Right" to harvest in our front yard. Many people
who either don't make much money or have no employment,
this is an important way of life for them, to harvest and eat
shellfish.
I attended an EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA)
conferencein Anchoragea few years ago and a tribal member
from Alaska spoke regarding the Valdez oil spill and how it
affected their native people. The people were told they
couldn't harvest the shellfish anymore and for them it truly
was a hardship becauseit was what they knew to eat. Many
ate the infected shellfish anyway. I pray that never ever
happensto the Port GambleS'Klallampeople - being told we
can never harvest clams, and oysters from our beaches.
During the summermonths,many membersof my family and
friends cometo my home and we gather oystersduring the
day and we cook the oystersover an opencampfire.. I feel I
am teachingthem to havefun without drugs or alcohol,as well
as part of our culture. This is anotherinstanceof the
importanceof not having a city in Port Gamble,ensuringthe
water is clean in Port GambleBayso that the shellfish are safe
to eat and traditions will carry on.
A hugeconcernfor our peopleare oil/dieselspills in Port
GambleBay,especiallyin the summer. We haveclambakes,
and we really do not like to hearthat there hasbeena spill
from Port Gamble- and we cannotharvestany shellfish. This
happeneda coupleyearsagowith Keikosin Port Gamble.
Harvestingwas closedfor a few months. Thenlast year,a boat
dumpedover 100gallonsof dieselin the bay down near
MiddleCreek.Wewereunableto harvestshellfishfor two
months and the peoplewerereally angered.
Wehopeyou will think abouthow this "so calledtrade" really
looks and how it reallyis not a trade. Reallylook at how it
could closeanotherbay and ruin the lives of over 1,000
people. Thereare over 1,400enrolledmembersbut not all live
on reservation.
We appreciateyour time and efforts on this board and hope
you havea good day.
. .. Respectfully,
\
\
lt
M
|, I
MarieHebert-
r\
,,
v 4
33383HoodCanalLane,NE
Kingston,WA 98346
Vicky Clarke
Project Coordination
I have diligently read the entire “Proposed Revisions to the Kitsap Countywide
Planning Policy” document as posted on your website, and I have major
objection to the revision regarding adding the:
Policies for Growth Outside of Urban Growth Areas:
Fully Contained Communities,
National Historic Towns and Master Planned Resorts
This Policy appear to be in contradiction to the rest of the document which
repeatedly over and over again emphasizes the Natural and the
Rural characteristic one try to achieve for this community. I have quoteverbatim excerpts from the Policy document from 2007 below as you can well
see:
“Seeks to maintain and enhance the quality of life that makes our County a
special place to live and work... envision a future in which our natural
systems are protected; the water quality in our lakes, streams and Puget
Sound is enhanced; the village character of some of our smaller towns is
preserved; the historical nature of our communities is respected in order to
preserve our heritage for future generations; the rural appearance of our
county is perpetuated.
Maintenance of the traditional character, appearance, economic and ecological
functions, and lifestyles of Kitsap County’s rural communities
Expansion of Urban Growth Areas shall direct growth:
(1). First to areas already characterized by urban growth that have
adequate existing public facility and service capabilities to serve development;
(2).
Second to areas already characterized by urban growth that will
be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and
services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are
provided; and
(3).
Third to areas that are adjacent to incorporated
cities or established Urban Growth Areas once the available land
meeting the first or second priority has been designated.”
For some unknown reason the Policy for FCC and National Historic
Towns and Master Planned Resorts was inserted totally out of
character of the Planned Policy document and stick out like a sore
thumb.
“Vision 2040 policies state that new FCC’s are to be avoided”
So why would anyone want to add this policy to the Revision if that is the
VISION. Good question!
One wonders if this is done as a favor for a special developer.
Your 2007 Planning document went on to say:
"Protection and enhancement of the natural environment, including
wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, shorelines, water quality, and air, climate,
and natural resource lands.
Future assessment of adverse impacts to public infrastructure, nearby
communities, adjacent rural areas, environmental resources, and designated
resource lands.
Such impacts should first be avoided, second minimized, and third mitigated.
Rural land use designations in the County's Comprehensive Plan shall should
recognize ecological functions and support rural uses such as farming, forestry,
mining, recreation, and other rural activities, and permit a variety of lowdensity residential uses which preserve rural character, and can be
sustained by rural service levels."
This added policy that could open the door to high-density development in FCC.
It would then be disastrous for the environment, the land, water, the wild life,
the County and the residents of the County.
I would therefore like the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council to reconsider and
remove this provision from the pending Revision at the next meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Paul P. Lee M.D.
Kingston WA.
Vicky Clarke
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michael Maddox [gnafswo@gmail.com]
Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:37 PM
Vicky@KitsapRegionalCouncil.org
Comments for the 27 Jan meeting
Dear Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council,
Enclosed are my comments regarding the proposed North Kitsap Legacy Partnership of which a
Fully Contained Community is a significant part of that plan. They are for the 27 Jan
meeting of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council. I've enclosed the comments both as a
Word Document and as pasted text.
Thank you,
Michael Maddox
2441 NE Trailway Road
Poulsbo, WA 98370-6921
gnafswo@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 Jan 2011
Of North Kitsap, the S’Klallam Tribe, and my mistake.
In a 2010 letter to the Kitsap Sun, I supported the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership
proposal, which would allow Pope Resources and Olympic Property Group to intensively
develop land in and around Port Gamble. In exchange for re-designation of the Port Gamble
land, Pope/OPG offered the County (in conjunction with land trusts and other
agencies) a chance to buy thousands of acres of forested Pope Land in North Kitsap, which
could then be designated for conservation, with a guarantee of trails and access to the
water for residents of Kitsap County. Otherwise, Pope/OPG would probably sell the land
off in 20-acre lots.
In contrast to the present pell-mell rush to develop the Peninsula, the North Kitsap
Legacy Partnership appeared, to me, to be one means to secure open space while it’s still
possible. The sacrificial-lamb to acquire this forestland would be the tranquility of
Port Gamble, which seemed destined to develop anyway. But then I heard our Native
Americans speak, and I realized how wrong I was to support a course that would pack houses
into Port Gamble and degrade the Bay.
In November, three representatives of the S’Klallam tribe told a packed Audubon Society
meeting in Poulsbo that preserving a clean and healthy Port Gamble Bay, without intense
development and without a dock or marina, is something the tribe would not compromise
on...and here’s why:
Port Gamble is the S’Klallam tribe’s homeland. It’s where they settled at least 2,000
years ago. They have cultural and spiritual roots dug deep into the shoreline that
surrounds the Port Gamble Bay.
Their ancestors are literally part of the ground under the town.
Creating a Bellingham equivalent on those sacred grounds, and directly across the water
from where the tribe now lives in Point Julia, would be sacrilegious and gross.
Intense development along the Bay would further dirty the waters (already polluted from
mill activities) and the food that the S’Klallam tribe has always depended on. The clean
shellfish and fish they’ve always known, and have a treaty right to, would forever be at
risk from pollution. The S’Klallams don’t want disease.
Marie Herbert, the Tribe’s Cultural Resources Director, told the mix of Audubon members,
environmentalists, trails advocates, and developers why Port Gamble Bay is different for
her people than for
others.
The S’Klallams have lived there as long as is known,
1
generation after generation. She’d learned the way of the Bay from her mother, who had
learned from hers, who had learned from hers, and on and on. Being part of the Bay’s
environment is a very real concept for the S’Klallams.
Ron Charles, past Chair of the Tribal Council, related how Native Americans had coexisted
with the Puget Sound for thousands of years,
but were decimated by disease when outsiders arrived.
The Tribe was
once present throughout the Sound, from West Clallam Bay, East to Hansville, north to the
San Juans, and south to the lower Hood Canal.
In the 1800s, the S’Klallam population was reduced 50-75% by introduced diseases and
entire villages were lost to smallpox.
Survivors consolidated in three villages: Blyn (Jamestown S’Klallam), Port Angeles (Lower
Elwha Klallam), and Port Gamble. In 1852 lumbermen arrived and determined that Port
Gamble was the place to build a mill, so they relocated the S’Klallam village across the
bay to Point Julia. For years after that, until the mill closed, the S’Klallam men rowed
across the bay to work in the mill.
In the 1840s and 1850s settlers poured into the Pacific Northwest, and the U.S. government
sought to push Native Americans off their lands and onto reservations away from
transportation corridors and the most productive farmland. A shrewd and ruthless
negotiator named Isaac Ingalls Stevens arrived specifically to acquire Native American
land.
In 1855, with the Point No Point treaty, the S’Klallam tribe—already weakened by disease,
intimidated by the militia, and not entirely aware of the implications of the proposed
agreement—ceded away hundreds of thousands of acres of their land. As part of the
treaty, the Tribe was guaranteed that they would always have access to the water and its
food, which is the legal basis for the tribe’s rights to the Bay’s fish and shellfish
today.
This right is important for the Tribe because they are a water people who depend upon a
healthy Port Gamble Bay. As Charles said of his tribal members, “No one moves away.”
They’ve known the Port Gamble shores and its food their whole lives. He told of how,
during the depression, his mother’s family survived on the crabs, shellfish, and fish from
the Bay, and how he, living just feet from the water, has eaten its shellfish his whole
life. The Bay has struggled with pollution from the mill and from development, and the
Tribe has worked closely with government agencies and Pope resources in efforts to clean
it up.
The treaty guarantees the Tribe access to the Bay’s fish and shellfish, but what good is
that guarantee of access if those waters and shellfish are polluted? This begs the
question: if Pope/OPG intensely develops the shoreline (a process known to adversely
affect shoreline ecosystems), then won’t Pope/OPG, the shoreline owners, and perhaps
Kitsap County, forever be at risk for liability damages because shellfish harvesting
closure will forever be a possibility.
The Tribe has consciously chosen to abstain from developing the Bay.
Noel Higa, the Economic Development Director for the Tribe, said that when he first
arrived on the job, he toured Point Julia and saw that the Tribe could be wealthy if it
built a hotel, casino, and a marina on the point. In short order he was told to stop that
type of thinking or he’d be handed his walking papers. Though the Tribe is not wealthy,
its members believe in the Bay and want to preserve it clean and natural. It sustains
them.
The Olympic Property Group is proposing 550 homes at Port Gamble and zoning for commercial
and industrial use. The Tribe is petrified with such a prospect, and the likelihood that
a marina will eventually be built and that shellfish harvesting will be closed, as it was
at Mystery Bay on Marrowstone Island, and at Port Ludlow. Additionally, 800 homes are
proposed for the ridge above Port Gamble and there are other areas along the shoreline
proposed for development. Higa displayed an aerial photograph of Port Gamble Bay, with
its tree-lined shores, and then contrasted it with one of Port Ludlow (another Olympic
Property Group project) that showed house-lined shores, a marina, and a hotel. The
previously clean Port Ludlow waters, that at one time used to be a productive S’Klallam
tribe shellfish area, have since been closed to shellfishing.
He acknowledged Pope Resource’s need to profit, but he explained how the Fully Contained
2
Community for Port Gamble that has been proposed by OPG sounds great in concept, but it
has never worked where it’s been tried elsewhere in Washington. Rather than creating
self-contained communities with jobs, homes, schools, and recreation all in one place, the
jobs did not materialize and instead the FCCs became urban sprawl subdivisions with heavy
loads of commuter traffic.
Higa stressed that if 1,000 acres had to be developed, that it should be developed
elsewhere other than Port Gamble, perhaps closer to transportation corridors that are
already built and not in the most environmentally sensitive portion of North Kitsap, and
definitely not
in the most important area for the Tribe.
Port Gamble is the Tribe’s
ancestral homeland, and for them it means much more than having access to walking trails
and a place to ride a bike on Sunday.
John Rose of the Olympic Property Group replied that his group has, from the beginning,
solicited suggestions from the community and from groups about what to do with the
property. He said that Pope Resources is moving out of North Kitsap, even though it may
take twenty years. They have the option of selling the land off parcel by parcel, but
they’re trying to come up with a solution that’s good for the community as well as to
obtain value for their land. The North Kitsap Legacy Partnership was what they came up
with. A tense moment occurred when Higa made clear that the Tribe would never accept a
marina and intense development at Port Gamble, and Rose countered with, “Then what are
your suggestions?”
The Tribe has said recently that it is willing to work on alternative solutions and to
initiate and facilitate discussions; however, it has not relaxed its opposition to a
marina and intense development along Port Gamble Bay.
So what’s the solution? How can the Tribal health and heritage that is wrapped up in Port
Gamble and the Bay be preserved; OPG divest itself of its forest property for a fair
price; and ideally, conserve for our people and animals open land in North Kitsap that
could eventually transform into old growth forest, with walking, biking, and horse riding
trails; as well as preserve a quaint Port Gamble village?
One suggestion I have (and I’m sure that other informed people have alternative
suggestions): Land trusts, the Kitsap Population, and the Kitsap County Government should
buy the town of Port Gamble and the adjacent forestland. It could be a major fund-raising
effort that galvanizes the community.
Make Port Gamble a true historical/educational town. In current deliberations, Port
Gamble is being proposed for “historical”
designation with the ulterior purpose being to allow the population to increase and mirror
the high-density popluation of the mill-town’s past, which would be a mistake. Instead,
make Port Gamble a true National Historical Park that celebrates three key elements of the
Northwest’s history: 1) Northwest Native Americans; 2) loggers/ fishermen/farmers; and 3)
Salish Seas wildlife. In other words, preserve the village town of Port Gamble as is,
with added displays about the S’Klallam Tribe, the history of the Kitsap
logging/fishing/and farming era, and education about our nearshore wildlife, habitat, and
ecosystem.
The adjacent thousands of acres of forest-land would be allowed to mature into an old
growth forest. It would contain walking, biking, and horse trails and would serve as a
buffer against development at the margins of the historical park.
Key to the success of such a project would be to keep the shoreline and Port Gamble Bay as
unperturbed as possible. Educational centers would be constructed so as not to adversely
impact the Port Gamble Bay nearshore.
Far fetched to set aside so much land? It won’t seem so in the coming decades as 200,000
persons are expected to move into Kitsap in the next century. As Americans have
appreciated the foresight in setting aside our national parks, national monuments, and
historical sites, they will also appreciate our foresight in setting aside some of the
Puget Sound in North Kitsap with its rich history of Native Americans,
loggers/fishermen/farmers, and Puget Sound nearshore wildlife.
What would it take to make this happen? A purchase of the Pope properties by a coalition
of land trusts, the Tribe, the County, conservation groups, and other agencies. In other
word, it will require planning, cooperation, and a big fund-raising effort by persons
3
dedicated to accomplishing four essential goals: (1) preserve Port Gamble, the Bay, and
its history; (2) maintain the sacredness of the Bay and Port Gamble for our Native
Americans and other citizens;
(3) set aside land for old-growth forest; and (4) offer a fair deal to Pope Resources.
In contrast, we could do the usual. We could do nothing and OPG will sell off the land in
20-acre parcels. Eventually, pressure would build to subdivide the land into 5-acre, and
then smaller parcels, and we would inevitably march on to become another suburbia with
traffic congestion, lack of open space, and waters and shorelines without many shellfish,
ducks, fish, and other wildlife. Doing “nothing” to conserve land, shorelines, and waters
is, in reality, a decision to fritter away our natural lands, shorelines. Intensively
developing around Port Gamble Bay is also a big mistake.
Pope Resources has said that all options are on the table. I’ve made a suggestion;
perhaps you have others. As County Commissioner Steve Bauer said in the November Audubon
Kingfisher newsletter, “I believe that we have common interests in preserving large blocks
of forests with public access and Port Gamble Bay. This is the time to make our mark and
leave our legacy. This is quite literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to insure that
Kitsap County stays a very special place connected to its environment for generations to
come.”
Getting back to the beginning of this article and the mistake I made:
the Port Gamble Bay in North Kitsap is not just another piece of real estate. It is the
ancestral and spiritual homeland for the S’Klallam tribe now, as it has been for thousands
of years. It should not be sacrificed either for expediency or for the short-term profit
of the current times. We should not create a suburban congestion in Port Gamble. Now is
the time to purchase and preserve both the town of Port Gamble (without intensive
development or a marina) and thousands of acres of adjacent forest.
Michael Maddox
Poulsbo
4
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Proposed%20CPP.htm
From: Doug Skrobut [doug@mccormickwoods.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 12:48 PM
To: Vicky@KitsapRegionalCouncil.org
Cc: mcclure@kitsapregionalcouncil.org
Subject: Proposed CPP
January 12, 2011
KRCC
PO Box 1934
Kingston, WA 98346
Phone: (360) 377-4900
VIA EMAIL
Vicky;
I am writing to suggest that on page #7 under “Policies for Urban Growth Areas” of the
proposed County Wide Planning Policies the reference to RCW 36.70A.115 be revised
to RCW 36.70A.110, which is the RCW that applies to Urban Growth Areas. RCW
36.70A.115 includes both urban and rural areas, which are treated differently under the
GMA.
One of the differences is that a Land Capacity Analysis is not required \ appropriate for
the rural areas. The focus in rural areas is not capacity, but rather preserving rural
character, rural development patterns, rural levels of service, etc. The GMA and GMHB
decisions do require the provision for a variety of rural lot sizes in the rural areas, but do
not require any “sizing” analysis.
The following quote is taken from the Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board Digest of Decisions:
“The Board disagrees that the word “sufficient” in RCW 36.70A.115 should be
found to mean “not too much and not too little” as previous Board cases have
found in relationship to RCW 36.70A.110. This is primarily because RCW
36.70A.110 goes to the establishment of an urban growth boundary and the ability
of the area within the boundary to accommodate the allocated growth and to
provide for urban facilities and services. The Board does not find that RCW
36.70A.115 mandates the same type of analysis for rural areas. To conclude RCW
36.70A.115 requires a LCA like Petitioners assert, is essentially finding the GMA
requires a county to size both its UGA and its rural areas which would be
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Proposed%20CPP.htm (1 of 2)2/1/2011 10:42:24 AM
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Proposed%20CPP.htm
contrary to various provisions of the UGA which require that development be
encouraged in urban areas and that sprawling, low-density development be
reduced. In other words, the emphasis and focus as to capacity applies to the
urban growth areas. The Board reads RCW 36.70A.115 as requiring a coordinated
effort between a county and its cities to ensure that the adoption of subsequent
amendments to comprehensive plans and development regulations, when taken
collectively, will not adversely impact the supply of land needed to address
allocated housing and employment growth for which the County and cities have
planned. Friends of Skagit County, et al v. Skagit County, Case No. 07-20025c, (Order on Reconsideration, June 18, 2008) at 16-17”.
Sincerely,
Doug Skrobut
McCormick Land Company
4978 SW Lake Flora Road
Port Orchard, WA 98367
360-876-3395 ext. 220
Fax: 360-876-3511
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Proposed%20CPP.htm (2 of 2)2/1/2011 10:42:24 AM
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Fully%20Contained%20Cities%20are%20NOT%20the%20Solution.htm
From: S Thomas [spt1@centurytel.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:00 PM
To: KRCC
Subject: Fully Contained Cities are NOT the Solution
The goal to preserve open space for future generation is a worthy goal that could even be considered
gallant in nature. When I read in National Geographic and other publications of destruction of rain
forests in Brazil and Madagascar it seems so alarming. Yet we are considering improving legislation
that would destroy a rain forest and pristine drainage basin in our own back yard.
These days we hear so many buzz words, “Fully Contained Communities”, “Legacy Partnerships”,
“Saving our Puget Sound Heritage”. Everything sounds so wonderful. For example the Kitsap Legacy
Partnerships will preserve 7000 acres, have an upscale housing community with trails on the 1000 acres
and you can walk to work or school. What a great concept. The problem is, things are just not adding
up. OPG has various properties that conceptually would be part of the Legacy Partnerships, the
Hansville block (1784 acres), the Port Gamble Block (4198 acres), the Divide (663 acres) and the
Option property (366) acres. This adds up to 7011 acres that are zoned at one house per 20 acres or 350
houses. With the average population density in Kitsap County of 2.6 persons per household that would
be a population increase of 911 people on 4 parcels of land that are 5 to 10 miles apart. And yet what is
under consideration is a “fully self contained community” with a population of over 3,000 being built on
the drainage basin of Port Gamble, the most environmentally fragile of all the properties. With an
increased in the allowed population density of 362%.
Port Gamble Bay is one of the last pristine bays in Puget Sound and is classified and protected as a
Shoreline of State Wide Significance. It is most likely the most important remaining spanning area for
Pacific Herring South of the Straight of Georgia (ref Office of Hearing Examiner Case 070426-024) and
provides spawning, feeding, and migration habitat for Pacific Herring, Sand Lance, Surf Smelt, Chum
Salmon, Puget Sound Chinook, Bull trout, Pacific oysters, Dungeness crab, Geo duck clams, Sea
Urchins and other invertebrate species, Bald Eagles and Marbled Murrelets. (Sandra Lange DOW
2/26/2007). Many of these are threatened or endangered species.
Fully Contained Communities (FCCs) have failed in many parts of the county, and have not worked
other areas in Western Washington that were closer to secondary schools, colleges, hospitals, police and
court facilities and high paying jobs, all a few miles or freeway exits away. On the contrary, Port
Gamble is 24 miles from the nearest hospital, 30 miles to the court house and Kitsap Sheriff Head
quarters (the Kingston office is only open a few hours on certain week days). Our schools are over
crowded and over budget with layoffs projected, the Kitsap Sheriff Office is has a huge budget deficit.
The potential jobs in Port Gamble are for hotel and restaurant workers, grounds keepers, house keepers,
not the types that would support living in one of the luxury view homes they have planned. Another of
Pope’s developments has forever altered Port Ludlow, once also a pristine bay. With a current
population of 1,611, Kingston has very little infrastructure and the population will double with the
completion of OPG’s 751 unit Arborwood and other currently stalled developments. There is a potential
of 3300 more residents if this Port Gamble FCC is approved with on average 18% (or 594)
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Full...Contained%20Cities%20are%20NOT%20the%20Solution.htm (1 of 2)2/1/2011 10:38:43 AM
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Fully%20Contained%20Cities%20are%20NOT%20the%20Solution.htm
communting to work on the already over loaded ferry system. The current return evening commute
has an average one hour wait due to reduced sailing forced by budget cuts. The WSF has a projected
deficit of $180 million for operations and $865.5 million for capital costs over the next 10 years. North
Kitsap taxpayers are still paying on a 2001 voter approved $60 million bond for building upgrades,
renovations and construction of Kingston High School with another bond most likely being necessary
once Arborwood is completed. State Highway 104 and 307 already are over crowded with frequent fatal
accidents. The Kingston to Poulsbo stretch has its own “rush hour”. With the additional populations,
these highways will need to be widened to 4 lanes at a cost of 3.75 million dollars per mile, in other
words $45,000,000. And then of course, the center of this all is the trails, which according to OPG,
“Trails absolutely drive economics” and speculate that “We should be pumping millions of dollars in the
north end through this trail system.” Where are the millions of dollars goring to come from? Who will
build them, who will buy the property, who will maintain them?
There are so many questions that can not be answered. There are too many concepts and buzz words
floating around. The USA and even the World is in an economic down turn comparable to the great
depression. Is this the time to approve a project that no one knows what the cost will be? With the
current State budget, property taxes are already expected to double over the next few years. We look at
third world countries and shake our head in disapproval as they cut down their rainforests, and yet we
have one right here in Kitsap County. Years ago I co founded of the Friends of Port Gamble Bay. I ask
you, please be a Friend of Port Gamble Bay. Help us keep our Bay pristine and turn down this proposed
revision to the Kitsap County regional growth management guideline that allows for this FCC.
Gwenn Thomas
28737 ST Hwy 104 NE
Kingston WA 98346
360 297-7474
file:///Z|/CPP/2010%20%202011/Public%20Comment/Full...Contained%20Cities%20are%20NOT%20the%20Solution.htm (2 of 2)2/1/2011 10:38:43 AM
The same letter as on the previous page was also received from 9 others,
through the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. The bulleted information
pertains to each individual’s letter.
From: Brett DeCoteau
33401 Hood Canal Ln. N.E.
Kingston, WA 98346
• Contaminate Port Gamble Bay and surrounding streams and estuaries
From: Curt Fulton
• Contaminate Port Gamble Bay
From: Fred Fulton Jr. (Fish Committee Member)
• Further polute Port Gamble Bay from all the run offs of all their oils, fertilizers,
pesticides. All these pollutants, I feel, will run into Hood Canal on the west side.
From: Shyia Fulton
30623 Bear Ridge Dr.
Kingston, WA 98346.
• Cause Pollution and shellfish closures
From: Stonefield T. Moran
30859 Little Boston Rd.
Kingston, WA 98346.
• Take away shellfish rights, my sustainability
From: Aaron Newman
6030 Eaglewood Ln.
Kingston, WA 98346.
• Take out the fishing/harvesting traditions of my people for my grandchildren. Port
Gamble is on a hill; the drainage, (people fertilizing their lawns) will run down to
our bay. And Stottlemeyer Forest is my favorite mountain bike/running trails.
Please do not take that away. I moved here to get away from the city. I love our
way of life.
From: Adrian Purser
30623 Bear Ridge Dr.
Kingston, WA 98346.
• Cause pollution and close subsistence fisheries
From: Julianna Sullivan
26067 Iowa Ave. N.E.
Kingston WA 98346.
• Most likely shut down the Bay for commercial and subsistence harvesting of
shellfish for the members of my community, which directly affects their and my
livelihood, and I am not willing to risk that
From: Randy Wellman
33453 Hood Canal
Kingston WA 98346.
• Be very detrimental to the shellfishing that is our Tribe’s way of life
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council’s Kitsap County
Proposed Population Distribution and Countywide Planning
Policies
January 27, 2011
by Jan Wold, aquatic biologist
P. O. Box 1340
Poulsbo, WA 98370
I am commenting on the population distribution (Appendix B-1) and the resulting
oversizing of urban growth areas countywide, the narrative concerning the countywide
planning policies (CPP’s) and the proposal for fully contained communities.
History of Kitsap County Growth Management Act and Urban Growth Areas
The Growth Management Act (GMA) works very well in numerous venues across
the United States. It could be working well for all of the citizens of Kitsap County, but it
is not.
A proposed KRCC population growth distribution for 2030 serves two functions:
1. It determines the amount of urban growth area (UGA) acreage made
available to developers
2. It shows where that growth will occur within the county.
A decision to support this proposed excessively large urban growth area for all of
Kitsap County will probably have more impact on the citizens you represent than any
other decision you make. It does not represent the best interests of Kitsap citizens due to
higher infrastructure construction and maintenance costs, destruction of the environment,
visual impacts and traffic problems. Please look at the graph before you.
1
More than a decade ago, the politicians of Kitsap County and its cities, perhaps
unhappy about having to use GMA and probably wanting to keep large areas open to
development, selected the Office of Financial Management (OFM) Intermediate estimate
level of population growth for establishing and sizing the urban growth areas (solid pink
line and pink triangle on attached graph). They could have selected OFM’s low level
estimate (blue square on bottom blue line on graph at 2025), but apparently wanted larger
urban growth areas to be made available to developers. They then selected the county
areas into which the growth would be directed.
For example, the growth rate allocated to Poulsbo’s UGA was the highest in the
county at the time, resulting in a UGA that is 14 times the size needed to absorb
Poulsbo’s proportionate share of the Kitsap County actual population growth rate. All of
this Poulsbo UGA is perched above sensitive Liberty Bay, a 303d site due to pollution.
The city has no sewer system in place. Sewage is pumped under Liberty Bay nearly to
Bremerton. The city is running out of water and is hoping to obtain a supplementary
supply from near Seabeck.
Every year since 2000 the county and KRCC received the updated OFM
population growth estimates (see OFM chart in attachments). Growth was obviously
occurring more slowly, even during the real estate boom, than what county planners and
politicians had anticipated. The county has made no effort, year after year, to reduce
these huge, obviously erroneous growth projections and oversized UGA’s.
In 2007 the Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report (BLR) was signed. This
document serves as the GMA monitoring tool, the purpose of which is to identify areas
needing change. The BLR showed that actual growth for the first half of the decade,
2
from 2000 to 2005, was occurring at only half the projected population distribution rate
selected by Kitsap County. There was apparently no effort by county politicians to revise
downward the growth projection and reduce the size of the UGA’s. The UGA’s were all
still supersized. In 2006 Kitsap County was directed by the Growth Hearings Board
(GMHB) to correct a procedural error responsible for over-sizing the UGA’s. Instead,
the County again elected to retain the oversized UGA’s and the large disconnect
regarding population growth projections (see Eric Baker’s email of August 3, 2006 in the
attachments). The county did this by changing its density assumption from 5 dwelling
units per acre (du/acre) to 4 (du/acre), rather than using the achieved, on-the-ground,
development density of more than 5.5 du/acre. This enabled the county to again avoid
allowing the GMA to work as designed.
The decision to use 4 du/acre was appealed by private citizens through the Court
of Appeals where the court’s findings substantiated that the UGA’s were still too large.
Our present three county commissioners recently elected to avoid right-sizing our UGA’s
after the adverse Court of Appeals decision. Instead, they spent even more precious tax
revenue on appealing to the Washington Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to
review the Court of Appeals decision. To this day, Kitsap County has not reduced the
size of its UGA’s. The area between the red dotted line at the top of the chart and the
green solid line below it depicts the over-sizing of the UGA’s created by this decision.
The total amount of UGA oversizing is depicted as the area on the graph between the
bottom blue line with blue squares and the top dashed red line.
Kitsap County made the unfortunate choice in 2000 to immediately size the
UGA’s countywide to the full proposed population in 2025 (now being proposed to
3
stretch to 2030) using OFM’s intermediate population growth projection. For example,
in 2000 the UGA was immediately oversized (the area from the blue bottom line to the
green horizontal line) for handling nearly 100,000 persons. UGA sizing should have
been implemented gradually as time progressed, not a quarter century ahead of an
anticipated need.
There is only one real problem with the GMA in Kitsap County: supersized
UGA’s open to developers have created expensive, inefficient, urban sprawl. Here we
are now, ten years later, and this latest KRCC proposed process by our elected
representatives is still attempting to maintain over-sized UGA’s. We, the citizens, have
suffered ten years of disastrous results, financially and environmentally, due to this large
gift to developers. The time to begin correcting this problem has been every year during
the last decade. Please do not ignore the problem and delay its solution any longer.
Kitsap County citizens can no longer accept the consequences of inaction.
A few days ago, the county commissioners announced that Kitsap County could
no longer afford to provide services in unincorporated urban areas. Yet the dithering,
year after year, is responsible, in part, for the sprawl, for which the county says it cannot
afford to provide services. GMA will work for us if you let it. It cannot work if you fight
its requirements and ignore your responsibilities.
The Kitsap County Commissioners and all of Kitsap county’s cities are preparing
to decide the future population growth rates for the county and its cities until 2030. This
is the only opportunity during the next five years to decide how much population growth
to plan for in the entire county and all cities within the county. Although the actual
population growth rate in Kitsap County will be determined by the marketplace over the
4
next two decades, this decision by our elected officials will determine the size of the
urban growth areas (UGA’s) open to developers countywide as well as the locations for
growth throughout the county.
The total countywide acreage of these UGA’s, and their locations, are the most
influential decisions in terms of the efficient use of public funds, degree of sprawl and
environmental protection, or lack of it, for all of Kitsap County. The greater the
population allocation, the greater the acreage devoted to countywide UGA’s made
available to developers. This leads to higher public expenses due to the associated
sprawl, infrastructure and traffic costs. Worse yet, it is the most important determinant of
whether our largest city, Bremerton, with the greatest amount of infrastructure in place, is
either allowed to continue its decline, losing 1,069 people of its population over the
decade, or is to become a vibrant city once again (37,259 population in 2000 and 36, 190
population in 2010, for a loss of 1,069 people over the decade).
What Does the Previous Decade of Population Growth Tell Us?
Kitsap County has grown at the rate of 7.04% per decade, or 0.7.4% per year
(16,331 persons per decade from 231,969 to 248, 300). If this rate continues over the
next decade, one would expect about 1,748 more persons per year over the following
decade from 2010 to 2020, or 17,480 persons per decade, for a total of 267, 528 persons
in 2020. One would also expect 1,883 more persons per year over the following decade
from 2020 to 2030, or 18,830 persons. This would result in a total county population of
286,358 persons in 2030.
The real estate boom of the last decade is over; one is unlikely to develop again
anytime soon. If anything, we should anticipate a lower population growth rate in the
5
coming years. Yet Kitsap County, through KRCC, is showing a population of 331, 571
for 2030, or an increase of 83,272 for the two decades from 2010 until 2030. This is a
plan based on more than twice the growth each decade from 2010 until 2030 than the
growth experienced during the real estate boom from 2000 to 2010! Unbelievably,
Kitsap County expects this growth at a time when the Office of Financial Management is
apparently expecting the population growth rate to decrease. The triangles and the
squares on the graph and CPP document Appendix B-1 show the OFM population growth
estimates as follows:
OFM Official
Kitsap Total Population
Population Estimate
2025
2030
Low
268,573
245,397
Intermediate
331,571
314,610
This puts the KRCC proposed population level for 2030 at levels even higher, by 16,961
people countywide, than the intermediate level projected by OFM!
One is hard pressed to derive any rationale for these tremendously inflated
population growth figures other than a desire to maintain inflated urban growth areas
countywide that are made or kept available for developers. These tremendously inflated
population growth figures lead to sprawl, and greatly increased public costs for
infrastructure costs and maintenance, as evidenced by the county commissioners’ recent
declaration that the county can no longer afford to provide services in unincorporated
urban areas. These inflated population growth figures completely undermine the logical
6
operation of the Growth Management Act in Kitsap County. Indeed they are the major
cause of urban sprawl that increases the costs of providing services, which the county
commissioners now complain are unaffordable.
This very high growth rate distribution impacts the environment, including our
bays, salmon streams and Puget Sound. This excessive population growth allocation and
its resulting sprawl taxes our infrastructure and increases the cost to the public of
developing and maintaining the necessary new infrastructure. The UGA’s that are twice
as big countywide as necessary result in growth and developments scattered over much
broader areas of the county and stress our transportation systems. County citizens are
living with the effects and the costs.
As stated earlier, the situation in Poulsbo is even more extreme. The Kitsap
County actual growth rate from 2000 until 2010 was 0.7% per year. Amazingly, the
Poulsbo UGA was set to grow at 6.41% per year, or 9.16 times faster than the actual
growth rate in all of Kitsap County. Poulsbo is also using 4 du/net acre for residential
low while developing at more than 6 du/net acre. Poulsbo’s leadership in 2004 and 2007
apparently still wanted the very highest population distribution.
Adding to this effort to garner more area for developers’ use in Poulsbo is the
additional inflation of the size of the Poulsbo UGA’s by using artificially low density
figures for Poulsbo that are even more disconnected from reality than those in most of the
rest of the county. Our previous Poulsbo Comprehensive Plan and Sub-Area Plan used
an average housing density of 5 du/acre in residential low, rather than the achieved
6+du/acre being built in Poulsbo over the last several years. This inflates the acreage
placed in urban growth areas around Poulsbo by 25% more than necessary under the old
7
plan. In the new Comprehensive Plan of 2009 puffs these lands made available to
developers in urban growth areas of Poulsbo by over 50% based on the incorrect use of 4
dwelling units/net acre. These two disconnects from reality result in a huge gift to the
developers by increasing the land available to them for subdivisions in Poulsbo by about
14 times more than what would have been made available to developers based on
Poulsbo’s share of actual county growth and use of correct density data. Of course, this
glut of urban growth area reduces the value of existing development properties owned by
the rest of the citizens within the City of Poulsbo.
The Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040 shows Bremerton and Silverdale
having much greater population growth allocations KRCC is showing. This is because
Bremerton and Silverdale have more complete infrastructure in place. The PSRC Vision
2040 document shows that Poulsbo and Port Orchard should be growing at less than their
present 2030 population allocations clear out to 2040. This KRCC population
distribution proposal ignores this PSRC input.
Fully Contained Communities
If you proceed with the fully-contained community idea for Olympic Property
Group, try to select the least environmentally, culturally and visually sensitive ground in
the entire Olympic Property Group holding of about 8,000 acres. However, the county is
currently considering a fully contained community located on the most environmentally
and culturally sensitive location of all.
Countywide Planning Policy Narrative
The additions of references to air, water and climate in several sections of the
document is an improvement.
8
On page 17, at 10: It is important to require urban separators. Do not make the
proposed change, but instead retain the present sentence “as is,” including retaining the
word “shall.”
On page 17, at 2a: Do not eliminate this statement. The biggest challenge for the
future, worldwide, is availability of domestic water. Certainly on the Kitsap Peninsula
and on Bainbridge Island, we are starting to experience drinking water shortages. The
water quality of Puget Sound is also critical.
On page 18, at #2 at h: Do not remove the “maintain and enhance water quality.”
Item #3 should not replace #2, but merely dilutes the statement in 2h. Do make the
change to add #4.
On page 15, at 1a: These are excellent changes.
Summary
The members of KRCC need to be leaders by getting our countywide, oversized,
urban growth areas right-sized. Annexing every last UGA would be a disaster for the
citizens and their pocketbooks. It would cause higher road construction and maintenance
costs, traffic gridlock, lower service levels, sprawl and skyrocketing taxes on any
property larger than 1/3 acre.
Each of you needs to ask yourself whom you represent. Whether you realize it or
not, most of you are doing an outstanding job of supporting the developers’ wishes and
agenda: providing them with abundant, cheap land for rapid development – with
predictable consequences. There is absolutely no incentive to build a home in Bremerton
where the developer can only sell the house for 1/3 the price of the same house in
Poulsbo or ½ the price of the same house in Port Orchard. In this process you are rapidly
9
raising the cost to our citizens of supporting this development sprawl with higher sewer
and water fees and destruction of our wildlife, salmon streams, Puget Sound bays and the
area’s natural beauty.
The population of Kitsap County has been growing at the Office of Financial
Management low range of projected growth. You need to select the OFM low range of
projected growth for the county to be more in line with actual county growth. You need
to select a population growth allocation rate and urban growth area configuration more in
line with GMA and with the actual growth rate.
KRCCHEARINGPOPN#01282011@1/28@1615
10
l00z'61 f,aqaaôN
nq7-nh acuDulprot1uno7 dos11y[q padopy
'pa1{1pow
[p1c11dxa
n pawtg{oat aq [ou pBtot aqt ,as!il.taqto .t00e '0e
aruaulpro ftuno3 dosgy [q paudopnsa141o4SuluuDld aprm,t1uno3 pas!âr aql nd
TsnBnVuo
I0-892#
sD '(%tg) st1t4sangfot uaâ-t 111ttt
uolnpdod ,nau n!n7nt
aqt 'papaaexaro put ato sla]tot uollilndod
llDraô aWpuD qtmot8 uogolndod mau .rolad.oqopauoguaut TaBnTVDfi %o9l atplJ .suognqqrp
P&'nl8umatq)o u! ssa-8o'tds tlunoJ puo
aqtlo slstQouDuo apryzu! IIIM n atftar aq1 -stoat aqf
,saltlJ
{'taaa ssacotdftcuno) Sutjoutp"too) louo8ay dos11yaql q&notql pawalvar aq
nynuo!wq!4s!p uot\o\ndo}
',....-:
-):
;i
t.j.
.,t
,.
:,.i:
..-l
:
.'
!
,-'.'
.:......'.!:
::.:
-.
',.:.:
.':.::...
.
:
J
earespooMlolu,uoCct/U
paxauuedes11y
qnos sapnpul c
eleuqsalelcuJo
lueura6eueyl
lenueurllo aoulo ;
Ouruueld
eere-qnsro/puesrs{leueraqynJfq paplluegsqns
aq ol pOiil i
Ouruueld
eere-qnsro e^tsueqerdruo3
l{1uno3
rolpueAIC uo paseg ]
lapowSusd uo paseg ,
628'96e
L6t'ZrV
1.29'tCe
tL9'892
9ZOZ
019'tre
L6t'gVZ
0002
L$'LE€
209'66
q0!H
alE!pouualul
:q6norql
uo;1ce[or6 11g3g
/1 O'l
uonendod €,.'ii' AJunocpJo!
696'.1€Z
%2,
uoge;ndo6v9n-uoN
zw'86
%1"89
uollelndodvgn
ZEg.TTL
9tr'e
900'9
809'02
z9t'g
et8'9
6tz's
OLg''L
106'8
t06
602'6
?29'rL
99r'8
,L8'1.
gLZ'91
E?L'LZ
ttz'g
geg'gz
glr'Oe
690'g
6LZ'LZ
899'02
992',V
299'01
099'82
orz'z
zz9'L
2t0'z
tL
LZZ
9V2'.9
89-
0
LLO'29
evon uolsDury
, vcn alepJe^lrs
r von desltylerluac
, v9n
q.zAllc
pleLpro uod
- vcfl
oqslnod
, Al!3
, Alrc puelsleoptJquteg
z Vl)S
, VCN lsJOC
, VON }SEM
89
v9L
612'E
, ven lse3
ZLV'9
69L,?L
u!
, Al!3
692'Lt
uo11e1ndo6
/UroN +
lslol =
uoueueJg
gZ0Z ttEnorql9002
uolnqplslg uo;1e1ndo6
uo;1egndo4
oooz
- 9002uopnqlr$lo uopBlndod:,.:lgqpueddy
998'8
0rt'8
029'9t
062'ez
902'LL
96e'0l'l
009'Liiz
026'8
0t6'0t
06r'90
08e'tz
00r'61
006'891.
008'8tz
929
9r0'r
091't
}tZ'Ll028'1.
|W'rZ
090'8r
006'60
919
9r0'r
zgr't
978'Lt
028'L
896'rZ
209'81
009'01
\ZZ',Z
gvL'E
989
099'9
099'et
@z'02
992'Z
otz't
069
919'9
928'Sr
009'0e
98t'r.
019'9t
919'62
999'9t
002'9t
98t'Z
019'9,
069'62
0|6'91
009'91
966
09e'il
06t'8r
098'6
szz
089'19
000'2r.9
068'92
0L0'1,
0ez'98
089't9
0zz'9
999'9
019'9
996'6
9e8
068'ZZ
086'Z
00r'ez
Im'zL
029'61
09/'88
099'02
09|Lz
oLt
09/'88
06r'il
066'9
062'62
0'9'zt
9r8'Z
916't
oez're
062'Lr
06,'1
006'zz,
ozt
09r'r9
gtz'L
0r9'9t
9ee'62
990'9'
oDl''L
902'z
gZL'E
0s9
0!9'9
06r'sl
00''02
0s9
91.0'1
9rL't
0€t'zt
999'1
9€6'rZ
9W'1''
0{tr'58
0w'L
ozr'8
098'9t
081'sz
00e'91
009'0lr
0{}8'9tz
996
0L6
019'01
099'01
0zt'8t
080'01
0e/'6
09e'6
otz
0rz,
lzg'w
0rt's9
000'209 008'269
0EL'92
lz[sz
01.9'0t
099'01
099'e8
082'81
068't9
0zt'r9
002'9
0zt'9
09/'t
}tL',
98r'9
9Z?'9
926'6
0zL'6
088
928
\ZL'ZZ
099'ZZ
0L6'Z
996'Z
018'02
o8r'02
028'2l,
0t8'2,
0t0'6'
0tt'8'
08S'89
086'98
09,'02
0zz'02
068'92
0zt'92
99t
sL,
089'88
010'88
09t''l
olv'tt
086'9
926'9
0Lz'62
08r'62
0e9'zl.
099'zt
gtS'Z
908'Z
0t6'1.
906'L
06s'lt
0r9'rs
o$z'Lr
0er'LL
08!'t
99r'b
009'0zt
002'6r!
st0
ote
028'09
00r'09
9r0'l
029'91.
Lz0'62
gz0'9r
oor'rl
96t'z
grz'e
089
069'9
0ls'er
006'6!
089
020'I
gel'r
\zz'Lt
9t8'l
061'rZ
0r9'9r
00e'88
099'z
09e'8
0t8'9e
080'ez
008''l.
000'0r.r
008'ttz
982''
000'!
010't
906'6
S0t8'6
0EZ'LL
,LZ'L\
|Lz',
066
9t6'6
O'Z,LI
0t t'9
096
0?l'0t
OL|-,LL
Irg'9
0t0'1.
0!6'/
0el'8s
09e'!z
000'91
000'z9r
000'z0z
002'L
090's
029'LE
09L'rz
ovs'rl
096'r9t
009'6cz
09r'L
092'8
089'rs
o0z'zz
$w'zl
026'291
00i'wz
06''r.
0l€'8
0r6'9e
009'zz
OrE'tL
060'69r
00?'sjz
999
.
020'r
00t'l
0s8'91.
gLL't
082'02
0zg'rL
008't8
099
020'1
0zt',
016'91.
9U''
9rr'02
981'tt
002'98
999
020'l
0gl.'r
06s'91
981'r
068'02
0t6'tt
008'9e
029
020'1
9eI't
002'91
008't
SZZ'LZ
9r€'9!
009'98
929
020'I
ger'r
080'l.t
0r8'r
029'tZ
082'9!
00t're
06t'z
ozl't
029
0S9'9
0ZL'Z\
00e'61
0zz'z
099't
999
929'9
9LL'ZL
008'6]
069't
9'9
9S9'9
99[Zt
00e'6,
099'€
999
0'4'9
096'Zt
(Xxi'61
990'/
0r0'9t
082'82
026'tb
002'02
0t0'/
0I !'9t
s9z'sz
9b|2,
fl!''01,
glr'zb
00,t'02
002'z
crz'tb
009'tz
gtz'z
9rz'z
g!Z't
089
0t9'9
09r'€r
008'6t
920'L
0e''9t
e8L'82
LL|'W
006'zz
91,6
0t6
06t'0,
09€'0r
000'9t
0s6'r.r
009'8
.9t8'1.
gtz
otz
061'€9
0€8'29
002'989 002'829
0€9'92
0Ez'92
092'0t
0t/'6t
062'09
090'89
089'09
068'6t
9'6'9
9t8'9
90/,
069't
9e''9
9!''9
099'6
9lt'6
9ZS
928
088'ZZ
098'tZ
096'Z
9t6',2
020'02
0rt'6!
ill'zt
LLIZL
068'2!
08r'Lt
099'98
099'98
016'61
089'61.
|LL'vz
01.9'6t
08t
08t
06s'l.s
0t9'98
0z9'rt
ozz'Ll
9t8'9
9e/'9
060'62
020'62
06!'zt
0rz'LL
OLS'Z
96tZ
006'1
006't
0!r'rg
080'tc
096'91
009'9!
\zt',
980't
00t'8tt
000'2t1.
0t0
00€
00s'''
028'Ev
066'9
0'€'9t
L8E'82
otz
009'29
000's/9
011.92
0rc'8s
0ta'99
009'zr
019'9
989't
98e'9
068'8
9t8
0LL'tz
0e6'z
0Ls'1|OE/ZI
0vl'9v
026'w
062'61.
090'zr
09r
008'98
061.'!t
969'9
096'82
0!9'9t
081'Z
006't
010'1.€
092'91.
080'1
009'9tl
L6Z
0'9'sr
086'9
002'9t
S8Z'82
otz
0}|29
009'z/9
0er'92
099'9S
09t'99
006'9t
919'9
099''
00r'9
9ZS'8
008
0s8'lz
996'Z
082'9t
OLL,ZI
008'9t
099'iB
0lt'6t
0t9'91.
09t
069'e8
09!'tt
9?9'9
0Z0'62
06r'9r
O6L'Z
968'r
0el'rs
092'9!
000't
009'91.
t
00s
029'e'
0rz
900'z
006'z
0e9'/8
026'02
ggt'ez
Ire'rgr
002'ttz
Itz
Lgt
Lrl'L
90t't
,rr'91
992'r
Irz'6t
rlg'tl
298'8t
t'9
Lrl'L
90r'r
09t 9t
99L''
088'6t
0zL'rt
(xn'm
e6l'z
09r'€
ZLg
929'9
999'Zr
,9t'8r
9tz'2,
gvl'e
9r,9
9S9'9
999'Zr.
009'6!
190'L
zrL'tL
6LL'LT
tz8'0v
009'89
9t0'1
096'rl
ttt'82
Lgt't
009'69
996'9
01.8'2
092'Ls
wL'02
SLL'ZL
929'091
0or'8ez
010'1.
$928'6
OtZ'Lt
. 9l''g
9rz
0EL'ZS
092'99 $ tzt'eg
006'tz9 $z0s'029 $z0t'899
0zt'92
00r'92
08e'92
0$'9e
099'rs
099'rs
006't9
0r8'e9
0t!'t9
08t9r
0ro'9r
06t'9r
929'9
S0?'9
08e'9
Se/,.'
089''
99L''
Irt'g
96S'9
90r'9
0ze'8
902'8
9rg'z
9r.8
028
9r8
0m'tz
996'tZ
OL6'LZ
0r0'e
oL6'Z
066'z
0ez'9!
0r0'9t
069'tt
091'Zt
098'Zr $ 688'Zl
089'91
062'9'
0LL'9V
glz'm
0rz'w
006'f8
002'6t
0gt'6r
061.'81
0il.'9r
062'tl
096'zt
9W
99r
99t
009's8
0sg'88
06s'e8
o'L'lt
96r'11
081.'tr
09''9
06r'9
098'1
019'62
0zr'62
009'62
098'rr
968'tt
0'8'gr
968'z
ots'z
006'z
906't
906'r
026'r
0r8'le
0t8'!0
$r9z'9t
swz'gt
gto',r
9r0''
000'zl.l. 009'Ll.t
962
ott
0/6'er
,zr'Ev
08r're
092'9t
966't
00t'9rt
zot
068'S'
s!leqaqc
elF4uac
pelaodrooul
pelerodr@upn
slll
"'^.
uoqesoul,.
olepuapp9
uo6u€
poleJodrooul
pslerodr@ulun
lst!I3!ty
ulnB elc $nos
u,tlsou
seuD,l
0rnqsusl13
urnl3alc
petaodJooul
pepodrooupn
sEl|lt)l
oqslnod
et8'9
pJeqcrollod
e69'z
uououeJS
692'Lt,
80e'02 pueFl aopuqureg
pslerodjooul
EL}'ZL
poleJodJocu!un
968'69!
de$fi
696'tez
800't
$608'6
tgt'Lr
ttg'r
,rz
$ 962'e9
$9/e's99
96''92
90t're
290'09
992'9t
820'9
wL',
z6s'9
LT,L,L
,tg
9t0'ZZ
r t0't
802'r,
$ t/8'Zl.
rg0'9'
iz9'6l
829'8!
ztz'tr
CW
692'e8
gll'il.
91.9''
lurod /r oJJeA
alilAufpooM
EllrqnL
e!ulenbous
rtsrurol^)ls
3u!laroqs
€Beas
cPlees
qs!ueuues
uoluo!r.puorup
pedcu|c!--.
pueSr{uoN
Ued ^pueuuoN
allsec/naN
J/ed uolul l
puelslra|on
eu!p€t^l
Iepnepeyrl
ued lsorol ole'l
puqrr!)
luo)
eJouruey
qenbessl
lurod slunH
IeM terapal
lredmepunuf
lle no
sulol l sacl
Lgaaz
uol6u!ôC
e8z's}
068'z
[H apAc
uoflPureS
e68'1
uaung
t88'r.c
$6tr.'9t
/ed lpr{lo8
puourerolsBl€
0t6's
enâllsg
Lz8'6or
aoelll\suvmeog
ros
1.06'z'
/ed urnqnv
panuuuoo6u1y
(xDz
snauo9
Eimli[ffin
IlunoC
'eFp
FcFolslq ol sa6ueqclcaBal ol peqaa.rp'tr are sqeul|sr lpdy ppgp.roud ileor{luaunc aql ol (gpggIllensn) snsuac lsel eql
u o 4 a 6 u e q c u o p e s e q $ [ e U ! l 9 u o g e 1 n d o d a P n | e ^ = | . : u o ! $ P c
uogu;qse61o eplg
sanuaêu olels papa|as to uoltsJollv rct pesn
sa!runoCpue 'sur ol 'sal1;Olo uo;pgndo6 1 lFdy
6l^,;,'lf +
F r o m : E r i c B a k e r I m a i l t o : E b a k e r @ c o .k i r s a p . w a . u s ]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 11,:01 AM
To: Betsy Cooper; mcclure.krccGcenturytel.net;
tarry Frazier;
Chris Hugo,Matthew Keough,' lToAnne Longwoods; E Berghoffman;
AIan Trunnell,.
acastleOkitsaphba.corn;
Phil Dorni byronGpnwre.com; Tom Nevins,- Tom Donnelly;
Rich Brooks; Bill
Palmer,' Fred Depee; Gary Lindsey;
Richard Browni Vj-vian
Henderson,' Ron Ross
Cc: l0yearGco.kitsap.wa,usi
Angie Silva;
Nash; Eric Baker; Greg Cioc; .Iim Bolger;
Bentley;
Phillip
Fletcher;
Scott Diener;
Subject:
Updated Land Capacity
Analysis
Brynan Piercer Cindy Read; David
James Weaver; Katrina
Knutson; Linda
markpersoniusGhotmail.com
and Buildabl-e
Lands Report
-Status
puget Sound
Based upon the recently
issued decision
by the Central
Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB)on the Kingston Sub-Area Plan
appeal' members of the Updated tand Capacity Analysis
(ULCA) Stakeholders
group have had questions
about its impact on thej-r previous
work compJ-eted in
2005.
The decision
on the Kingston appeal has one main implication
to the work of
the ULCA Stakeholders
group, the se$rer reduction
The Hearings Board
factor.
found that removing properties
from the land capacity
based on their
restricted
ability
to receive sewer provision
was a violati-on
of the goals of
Growth Management. Their interpretation
is that all properties
withi-n UGA's
should be able to receive urban services
in which sewer i-s one. Thev remanded
this issue back to the County to be addressed.
The 1O-Year Update wilL have to address this issue to resolve the Kingston
sub-area as weLl as aII other County UGA's. The County has been prepared for
a decision
of t.his nature and will
propose to remove the sewer reduction
from
the countywide UICA methodology.
With other revisions
proposed by the l-0*Year
Update (reducing some zones from 5 dwelling
units an acre to 4, population
and mixed-use zoning),
the removal of this reduction
"banking"
factor
should
have little
impact on the UGA boundaries proposed by the various citizen's
groups or those included
advisory
as Alternative
2 in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) .
Additionally'
there has been concerns regardi-ng the expectations
of the
BuildabLe Lands Report Technical
Committee that has been formed to address
data coll-ection
for the upcoming Buildable
Land Report (BlR).
The BLR Technical
Committee is not rehashing or revising
the methodology
agreed upon by the ULCA StakehoLders gJroup in 2005. This methodology,
minus
the sewer reduction
factor,
will
remain unchanged. This technical
committee
is only working on how best to gather the data necessaryl to plug into this
methodology to complete the BLR. There are issues with compiling
the
necessary permit and subdj-vision
data and the consistency
between the citiesl
and county's
lnformation.
These need to be addressed if we are to complete
the report by June 2007 as mandated by Growth Management.
If any members of the ULCA Stakeholders
group are i.nterested
in being
notified
of the BLR Stakeholder
please contact Katrina
meetings,
Knutson via
e-mail at (kknutson0co.kitsap.wa.us).
If you have any additional
questions,
please let rne know or visit
the MyKitsap.org
webpage.
Eric
Baker

Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council

Transcription

Similar documents

KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE

Shore Friendly Kitsap - West Sound Watersheds Council

WELCOME TO CAESARS PALACE

The Kingfisher - Kitsap Audubon Society

Come Learn With Us

CKSD CTE Newsletter 6-7-13 - WA-ACTE

Napoleon Container Terminal

Subcutaneous Port Catheter (Port, porta

04-20 Silverdale burglaries

January 17, 2011 - Village of Port Clements