>Misc Items&Realtor Letter Response – 11/21/08

>Whale Report Update. Some additional information on the whale sighting on Wednesday.

The Orca was in the shallow end of the Marina not far from Illahee Road. We pulled over as did another truck behind us. It was just ‘hanging out’ and so close you could HEAR the spout as well as see it. No mistaking it was an Orca and it was all by itself. We figured the rest of the pod was around somewhere.

Illahee Community Plan Public Meeting. We have added about 20 email addresses to our Update list and so we are repeating that the Illahee Community Plan will have a public hearing before the County Commissioners on Monday evening, 11/24/08. This is a regularly scheduled Commissioner meeting and there is a full agenda that includes several public hearings so the meeting room will probably be full and it may be good to get there before the 7 pm starting time. When the public testimony is opened, there will likely be those presenting for and against the Plan. Comments are limited to 3 minutes. We are hoping for a good turnout from the community. If people don’t want to speak, they can turn in written comments. The deadline for written comments is normally a week after the public meeting.

Decision Will Be Later. The Commissioners will not make a decision at this meeting, but at a later meeting in December.

Location of Commissioner Meeting. The Commissioners’ Chambers are in the new County Administration Building which is across the street from the old court house. The chambers are to the right as you enter the front door of the building. The address is in the following linked Kitsap Sun article regarding the meeting.

Realtor Letter Response. In October the Kitsap County Realtor Board sent a letter to the Commissioners with concerns they had with the Illahee Community Plan. We obtained their letter from the county and included it in an Update on 10/15/08. The community was waiting for the county to respond, but likely because of limited staff time, no response was issued, so the earlier co-chairs of the Citizens Advisory Group responded. We have had residents ask when the response would be available for them to see, so we have provided it at the end of this email. (Note that the Realtors had a number of concerns so the response, though succinct, is lengthy.)

Jim Aho

October 31, 2008

Board of County Commissioners
County Administration Building
614 Division Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366

Subject: Illahee Community Response to Realtor Board Letter of October 3, 2008

Dear Commissioners:

The following is a response to Kitsap County Association of Realtor’s Board letter dated October 3, 2008, from the co-chairs of the Illahee Community Plan efforts in 2006 and 2007. We have followed the letter’s numerical items with a brief restatement of their concern, followed by our response, and then a concluding comment.

Concern #1. “Need for this Sub-Area Plan.” The Realtor Board’s concern is that there are too many sub-area plans and extra rules and “there is no need for another sub-area plan with its own set of rules.”

Response. The GMA permits subarea plans and the county has endorsed subarea plans in the past. This is an issue that goes beyond the Illahee Community Plan, and to stop this Plan after three years of work is illogical. Such a decision would be tantamount to deciding to scrap a new house just before final inspection.

Conclusion. This is not the forum to discuss elimination of sub-area plans as a county-wide policy.

Concern #2. “Public Participation.” The concern was that there was limited opportunity for public participation.

Response. The Plan has been in the county wide news from its beginning with articles in the Kitsap Sun. It was discussed widely during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update as the community came before the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners with a draft Community Plan in July of 2006. An entire chapter (Chapter 17) of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update was devoted noting the Illahee Community including a map of its boundaries. In 2007 the Plan was part of a County Resolution for its completion as part of the Update in 2007, but was unable to complete because of the resignation of the County Planner and staff work load. The 2008 effort has had numerous articles of its progress published in the Kitsap Sun. Additionally, the Plan has been available on the Illahee community website since 2006. The Central Kitsap Community Council has been briefed in 2006 and 2007. The meetings have been open to all of the public and have included those outside the Illahee boundaries. As for opening up community plans to county-wide voting – this makes no sense. For instance, why would someone in Holly care about Illahee issues?

Conclusion. There were ample opportunities for public participation for nearly three years.

Concern #3. “Planning Area Boundary.” The concern appears to be “no rationale was presented to justify the planning area boundary …”

Response. The boundary discussion occurred early in 2006 and then again in 2008. As stated in the Plan, the CAG followed GMA and other guidelines, which were simple and listed in the writeup. We would agree that the explanation was brief and more rationale would likely have helped the Board better understand the establishment of the boundaries. The major guideline was to utilize any governmental or public jurisdiction boundaries, which explains the extension of the boundary to State Highway 303. The boundaries are essentially the boundaries of the Port of Illahee, with two “logical extensions” that again fit the guidelines that are to be followed.

Conclusion. The boundary rationale was presented and approved by the CAG in both 2006 and again in 2008, and represents the most logical and appropriate boundary delineation possible as provided for by GMA guidelines.

Concern #4. “Compliance with County-Wide Planning Policies.” The concerns center around the fact that the Plan does not mention the “County-wide Planning Policies adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 403-2007 on November 19, 2007.” The specific concerns are discussed below.

General Response. The first draft of the Illahee Community Plan was completed in July 2006, nearly a year and a half before the Ordinance was adopted. Nevertheless, the Illahee Community Plan meets the requirements of Kitsap County Ordinance 403-2007, and specifically the Realtor Board items noted below.

Concern #4A. Subsection B.4.d discusses transfer of governance of areas to associated Urban Growth Areas through Urban Growth Area Management Agreements (UGAMAs) and the question is whether there is an agreement with Bremerton regarding the Illahee area.

Response. There is not an UGAMA between the County and the City of Bremerton regarding the Illahee area. In 2007 the County planner, with the City of Bremerton planner in attendance, coordinated and ran the Illahee Community Plan meetings, until such time as the County planner resigned. Throughout the entire process Bremerton city officials have been kept informed by the community and the County regarding all aspects of the Illahee Community Plan. The Community Plan concept aligns with Bremerton’s concept of community centers.

Conclusion. An UGAMA agreement has not been established for the Illahee community.

Concern #4B. The concern raised was there was no discussion regarding “Contiguous and Orderly Development.” Though not stated in their concern writeup, this element is to ensure the coordination of development regulations and standards between the county and cities and also regionally.

Response. The Illahee Community provides the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, and the Suquamish Tribe email notices and updates on Illahee issues. Furthermore, the Illahee Community Plan’s matching the zoning and plans of the Wheaton Way corridor area with the City of Bremerton is a prime example of working for development that is orderly and contiguous. Additionally, besides monitoring local city and county issues, the Illahee Community is on the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) mailing list and monitors inter-jurisdictional planning efforts regionally. To discuss and explain items such as “contiguous and orderly development” in a community plan is beyond what a community plan should contain.

Conclusion. The Illahee Community Plan’s Wheaton Way corridor zoning is an example inter-jurisdictional planning that documents the application of contiguous and orderly development, without trying to explain it.

Concern #4C. The concern appears to be that “Affordable Housing” was ignored and the Plan should have a “more substantive analysis.”

Response. Affordable housing, or below market rate housing, was discussed at great length during 2006 as the CAG looked at trying to balance zoning designations with the numbers of people being allocated to specific areas. The solution was to increase zoning densities in areas where the infrastructure and services were available. Higher density zoning was proposed along Trenton Avenue and Almira, with senior and low income high rise buildings proposed along Almira. Those decisions were affirmed again in 2008.

Conclusion. Below market rate housing was properly and adequately considered.

Concern #5. “Property Rights.” The concerns are with the wording of the private property rights statement and the “Community Tree Protection Standards.”

Response. The property rights statement used in the Plan was adopted early on from the 2002 Manchester Community Plan in order to use a statement that has gone through previous scrutiny. In retrospect, with the addition of view protection overlay in 2008, an additional sentence from the Manchester Plan could have been added to address the new overlay regulations, which read as follows: “New regulations included in the Plan allow the sensible development of land without inappropriate financial impacts.”

As for the tree protection section, there were some very strong feelings expressed on both sides during discussions in 2006 and 2007. The final decision was that this should be a voluntary decision by land owners whether they wanted to participate or not. A further inspection by the Realtor Board of the Plan will note the voluntary aspect of the program.

Conclusion. Illahee is comprised of many private property rights residents and the statement in this section is sufficient to ensure property rights are respected and protected.

Concern #6. “Natural Systems.” The concern is that too much space in the Plan is devoted to the natural features in light of the Critical Areas Ordinance that already covers these features. There is a concern that the Goals and Policies are redundant and not necessary. There is a concern that some policies are not policy and should therefore be in the text.

Response. This is one area where the community plan is doing what it is supposed to do, which is highlight the features of the community and the area. There are some unique features that deserve coverage over and above simply stating there are critical areas throughout much of Illahee. Illahee has many natural systems, resource lands, and critical areas that limit development and these areas need to be described in a community plan.

Deciding what specific policies should or should not be included is the decision of the CAG. Not everyone agrees with every aspect of a document of this size and we could discuss these items and, depending on who is in attendance, writeups could change. This is a case where it would have been helpful to have this input during the meetings, rather than afterward.

Conclusion. The abundance of natural features of Illahee are what make this area unique and worthy of special attention, which includes coverage in the Illahee Community Plan. Policy statement write-ups were prepared by the CAG and if problematic can be corrected during future updates.

Concern #7. “Transportation.” The concern is with duplication of Goal and Policy items that are in the County-wide Plan and that they should be removed.

Response. Not everyone in the Illahee community is familiar with County-wide Plans. As such there are duplications for the community. That is what the CAG wanted included in the Plan.

Conclusion. Duplication of Goals and Policies is appropriate in a community plan.

Concern #8. “Public Infrastructure.” The concern is that there is no discussion about capital improvement financing for infrastructure and how much will be spent by Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton.

Response. The future infrastructure plans for Illahee, specifically for sewers, are referenced. This issue has been a concern of some for years and has been discussed at various meetings. The community was told that there is generally insufficient density in the Illahee area for the county, or the city of Bremerton, which would be responsible for the areas to the south, for there to be a push for sewers in the near future unless new housing developments came on line. Community members met with both city and county engineers in 2006. County personnel worked with the CAG in 2008 to rework the chapter to suit current thinking and plans.

Conclusion. The discussion of capital improvement financing was not considered appropriate by the CAG or the County for inclusion into the Illahee Community Plan.

Final Comment. The Realtor Board had every opportunity to be involved with the Illahee Community Plan from the beginning in 2006 until fall of 2008, a nearly three year time frame. They had a chance to bring their concerns before a very interested and involved Planning Commission, but did not do so. The questions and concerns raised by the Realtor Board have logical and reasoned explanations and answers, which have been provided.

We, therefore, respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners approve the Illahee Community Plan.

Dennis Sheeran & Jim Aho

>Whale Report&Misc Items – 11/20/08

>

Whale Report #1. Yesterday morning, while some of us were at a county meeting, a single whale came through Illahee. According to Don Deitch, the whale came through around 11:30, surfacing about every quarter mile, and was heading north toward Brownsville. Don said he didn’t see any white on it as it was out a ways in the channel, which would have identified it as an orca, so he just called it was a smaller sized whale.

Whale Report #2. The second whale report came via an email and is quoted below:

We spotted a single Orca at 11:48 AM today, 11/19 just outside the entrance to the Brownsville Marina. It was spouting.

Chris Dunagan Email. We passed on whale report #2 to Chris Dunagan and he had an interesting response which is also quoted below. (We hadn’t yet talked with Don Deitch, so we didn’t pass Don’s sighting information.)

Can you give me a description of exactly what she saw or maybe a phone number. I’m always interested and willing to make a phone call or more, but I’ve heard too many reports about single orcas to assume that’s what we have here.

STILL, I ALWAYS LISTEN TO REPORTS AND CHECK THINGS OUT, BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO MISS SOMETHING. chris.

Report on Ron Ross’s CKCC Presentation. Ron Ross had asked the Central Kitsap Community Counsel (CKCC) for time to discuss the Illahee Community Plan. There were a good number of people there from Illahee who attended. Ron did not like the boundaries that had been established. He lived in Illahee as a young person, and developed a number of the Illahee areas, including University Point and Illahee North. He felt the community should have followed the CK School District boundaries. He thought the southern boundary should have stopped at Illahee State Park. And he didn’t think the western boundary should have been Highway 303. He had made copies of the existing zoning map that showed the boundaries and distributed them to all in attendance. He also made copies of the view protection section and distributed them to the CKCC board, but not to the rest of us. He didn’t expand on what he didn’t like about the view protection section. Ron said he was going to present this information to the County Commissioners at the Public Hearing on Monday (11/24/08) evening.

Response to Ron’s Comments. Jim Aho was added to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting in case he wanted to respond to Ron’s comments. Jim did respond and said the process began in early 2006, continued into 2007, and was taken over by the county in 2008, and information on the Plan has been in the news and available to everyone. He said the goal of the facilitators was to let the community decide what it wanted and the community established the boundaries. He went on to say the boundaries were discussed and established early on using primarily the Port of Illahee’s boundaries. In the nearly three years of deliberations the boundaries have not since been an issue, except in 2008 when several residents wanted to include some more Illahee Creek watershed areas, which would have been an expansion of the boundaries, which was subsequently voted down.

Other Comments. At the end of the meeting public comments were taken, and Tom Brittell talked about how this country was founded on communities and communities are the building blocks of society, and that there should be more community plans, not less. He essentially said the Plan has been a very positive thing for the Illahee community. Also, Jim Sommerhauser commented on other positive aspects of the Plan.

Response To Realtor Letter? We have been asked if there was a response to the Realtor’s letter that questioned aspects of the Illahee Plan. The community was waiting for the county to respond, since the letter was addressed to the County Commissioners and DCD. When it looked like the county was not going to respond, a response was prepared, which was sent to the Commissioners on Monday. We will see if we can send it out on Friday.

Important Monday Evening Meeting. Remember the County Commissioner’s meeting on Monday (11/24/08) evening at 7pm, where there will be public testimony on the Illahee Community Plan. It should prove to be enlightening and entertaining with the Illahee Plan on the agenda, and some other public meetings on issues from Kingston and Manchester.

Wildlife Information. We are constantly reminded that it is the wildlife information that people enjoy most about these updates, so thank you to those who gave us the whale information, and keep passing information on.

CKCC Members. Since Illahee is within the Central Kitsap Community Council’s geographical boundary we have added the members to community’s email list. If you would like to be removed or are receiving duplicate copies, please send us an email.

Jim Aho

>Kitsap Sun Article&Blog – 10/22/08

>

Kitsap Sun Article. The Kitsap Sun has just published an article entitled “Property, Realtors Groups Question Illahee Plan.” We know that some of you are out of the area and some don’t received the Kitsap Sun newspaper, so we wanted to provide you with the link ot the article that was published today Wednesday, 10/22/08. http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/oct/21/property-realtors-groups-oppose-illahee-plan/

Kitsap Sun Blog. We found more information about the controversy regarding the Community Plan on Brynn Grimley’s blogsite. http://pugetsoundblogs.com/ckbeat/2008/10/21/illahee-plan-opposition-personal-vendetta-or-professional-concern/

Community Letters. We have had three community members provide us copies of their letters of support for the Community Plan. We are considering providing portions of some of them in an upcoming update to show that at least the community supports the Plan even if outside groups may not.

Please Keep Us Informed. Thanks to all who keep us informed on the happenings in Illahee. Please continue to send us information.

Jim Aho

>Responses and Questions – 10/17/08

>

Response to Realtor Letter? We have been asked if there will be a response to the Realtor letter that was included as part of the Update on 10/15, or the KAPO letter that was attached to the 10/16 Update. So far we have heard of several individuals who are working on responses to the Realtor letter and when they found out they weren’t the only ones responding they said they would like to meet Sunday afternoon or early evening to either coordinate their responses or agree to write their own. If anyone would like to help with the responses, please answer this email as we will pass on the meeting place and time, when it is decided.

KAPO Letter Response. We have had a number of people who want to know more about the Mullenix situation and why the KAPO people are blaming the Illahee community for the Mullenix’s problems. A nearby neighbor to the Mullenix property is preparing a response that will likely contain pertinent facts to the situation and controversy. We should be able to get permission to send it out in an Update when the letter is completed.

Illahee Road Opening at Gilberton Creek. Some thought the date of the opening ceremony (Oct 23rd) would be the date the road opened. Actually we did too, until we saw the progress, which was evident from the photos send out earlier this week. The road is now open as shown in the front page headlines in Friday’s Kitsap Sun. What a pleasure to not have to drive around anymore.

Other Responses to the Community Plan Attacks? We have been asked what community members can do to show their support for the Illahee Community Plan. The Realtors and KAPO sent their email and letters to the three County Commissioners, with copies to the County Administrator and the Department of Community Development Director. Community members should do likewise. They should also plan on attending the the Commissioner’s meeting when the Illahee Plan comes up for a public hearing.

More Ideas Later. We expect there will be more information and other options available and we will pass the information on as it becomes available to us.

Jim Aho

>KAPO Targets Illahee Community Plan – 10/16/08

>

Second Opposition Letter. We just received the second opposition letter that came from the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO), which is provided as an attachment. The letter is signed by Vivian Henderson, who is the Executive Director and one who spoke at both the Commissioners’ meeting and the Planning Commission meeting, reportedly asking that the Illahee Community Plan not be adopted.

Endorsement of Realtor Letter. The KAPO letter is an endorsement of the Realtor letter sent that was sent out in an earlier Update, but goes on to present other concerns.

Their Concerns? It appears they are concerned that only “a few voices” (paragraph 2) are speaking for the community and they question whether the plan represents the voice of the community. “KAPO fears the county is giving community organized groups a political voice not enjoyed by other members of the community.” (paragraph 5). We are not sure what community organized group KAPO is referring to since we are not aware of any Illahee group being represented on the Citizens Advisory Group.

A Personal Vendetta? In trying to understand where KAPO is coming from it appears they are most concerned that several members on the Citizens Advisory Group were involved in a land use issue a few years ago (paragraphs 8-10) that KAPO took an active interest in. They seem to imply that the Illahee Community Plan was written by those members based on KAPO’s statement “Should government empower citizens who use such bullying tactics against their neighbors?” (paragraph 10) This makes it seem more like a personal vendetta against those individuals, who happen to be members of the CAG, than on the Illahee Community Plan itself.

Your Comments Are Solicited. That was our interpretation of the KAPO letter based on what we read. We are anxious to hear your thoughts.

Jim Aho

>Realtors Email To Reject Community Plan – 10/15/08

>

Attachments. Attached find the response we received in our request to obtain the Kitsap County Realtors email and the email letter that basically recommends the Commissioners reject the Illahee Community Plan.

The Battle Has Begun. We heard this group spoke in opposition to the Plan at the County Commissioners’ meeting on Monday evening, and again at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday evening.

A Second Letter. We also heard there was a second letter received from them that we will try to obtain and pass on.

More Information Coming. We are trying to get more information and will pass it on as it comes in.

One Last Comment. We have been told by some who are aware of this group of people, that once they target something or someone, that the targeted person or group is in for a big fight.

Illahee Has Been Targeted!!! They went on to say that based on what they heard at Monday and Tuesday’s meetings that Illahee is apparently their target and the community better get ready for a fight if they want to have a community plan for Illahee.

Jim Aho

Attachment #1

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Katrina Knutson

Hi Jim:

You made a public disclosure request for the email. As a government employee, I am required to give you information I have, as it is a public document.

Attachment #2

October 3, 2008

Board of County Commissioners
County Administration Building
619 Division Street
Port Orchard, Washington 98366

RE: Illahee Community Plan

Dear Commissioners:

Several issues have surfaced in our review of the Illahee Community Plan that would appear to require more work before the plan is adopted. Before we address our concerns, we wish to complement the people of the Illahee community area for their hard work and commitment spanning two years to formulate the plan. We also praise the Department of Community Development staff planners for their efforts as well because it is indeed a time consuming task to prepare a comprehensive plan for public review and final approval.

Although a lot of time, commitment, and work have been expended in the development of the plan, there are some oversights that need to be addressed before the proposal is ready for adoption. Our concerns are as follows:

Need for this Sub-Area Plan. The Growth Management Act (GMA) provides for the option of Sub-Area Comprehensive Plans, but we question whether the County has given any pre-thought to how many Sub-Area Comprehensive Plans may be generated? Already there is the Kingston Plan, the Port Blakely Plan, the Keyport Plan, and the McCormick Woods / ULID No. 6 Plan. Besides these sub-area plans, there are the LAMRIDs for Manchester, George’s Corner, Suquamish, and Indianola. With each plan comes an individual set of zoning rules to govern land use in these individual areas of the County.

In a period of sixteen years, we have gone from a county with one set of rules governing land use in a Zoning Ordinance with about 78 pages to our present code which has quadrupled in size. Our new present zoning ordinance is difficult to comprehend and has complicated our permit approval process. Those complications and added regulations have increased the need for staff to administer it. So the real question is whether the County afford to keep setting up sub-area plans for each small community within the County? We conclude there is no need for another sub-area plan with its own set of rules.

Public Participation. One of the problems with sub-area plans is the limited opportunity for public participation. There are typically months and months of work on the part of a small group of people and a substantial commitment of DCD staff time, yet people across the County have a vested interest in what happens in each sub-area. The county-wide citizenry does not get a chance to review any of the work in progress until it is packaged for public hearing consideration. Then it is almost too late for substantive questions and challenges to the plan.

Planning Area Boundary. Other than discussion about two adjustments to the planning area boundary, no rationale was presented to justify the planning area boundary shown in Figure 2.1. The descriptions of the history of the Illahee area and the “Visions for the Illahee Community” paint the picture that Illahee is focused around the State Park, Illahee Creek, the Illahee Preserve, and three miles of “pristine waterfront.” There is nothing in either of these two discussions to indicate why the western boundary goes all the way west to State Highway 303 (Wheaton Way). Also, the boundary splits two neighborhood areas in the vicinity of Aegean / Sunset Avenues and University point.

Where is the rationale for the inclusion of these areas? Particularly of concern is the commercial area along Wheaton Way. How does this area relate more to Illahee than to Bremerton – especially since the commercial area is not even in the Illahee Creek watershed?

Compliance with County-wide Planning Policies. Section 2.7 and 2.8 of the Illahee Sub Area Plan address the 13 Goals of GMA and the plan’s compliance with those goals. Chapter 3 of the plan deals with the history of plan development. However, there is not one mention in the plan of the County-wide Planning Policies adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 403-2007 on November 19, 2007. This is no small oversight. Element B.4 is particularly relevant as it addresses “Coordinated Growth Management in Urban Growth Areas.” Why is there no discussion in the Illahee Sub-Area Plan regarding annexation to the City of Bremerton (see sub paragraph a.). Also important is sub paragraph b. “To maximize the efficient use of urban lands, subdivisions in Urban Growth Areas shall be consistent with the associated jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan and underlying zoning densities.” This requirement has not been addressed in the plan. While it is evident the Illahee area is not adjacent to the City of Bremerton it does abut the City along Riddell Road and it is adjacent to the City’s UGA north of Riddell Road.

Subsection B.4.d states “The County and Cities shall establish procedures to facilitate the smooth transfer of governance for associated Urban Growth Area(s) through the adoption of Urban Growth Area Management Agreements (UGAMAs), as per Appendix C: Urban growth area Management Agreements.” What is the status of this agreement with Bremerton as it pertains to the Illahee area? Why is this information not disclosed in the plan?

Element F – Contiguous and Orderly Development – There is no discussion in the plan regarding these set of policies.

Element I – Affordable Housing – the Illahee Sub-Area Comprehensive Plan has only two statements in it to address this subject matter. Thus for all intents and purposes the subject matter has been ignored. One would think that Housing Affordability would be addressed in Section 3.10 of the plan pertaining to Goals and Policies and yet there is no mention of this goal or how it might be implemented. The County-wide Planning Policies clearly call for more substantive analysis.

Property Rights. Section 2.8 of the plan addresses the compliance of the plan with the 13 Goals of GMA. Regarding property rights there is only this statement in the plan found on page 21. “The Plan balances new regulations with private property rights through the provisions of the Kitsap County Code.” What new regulations?” How does the reader of the plan know whether the Plan is in balance with the Kitsap County Code with or without “new regulations? A one sentence response might be acceptable in an executive summary, but not in a plan where significant changes are being made to land uses and zoning patterns. Also, aspects of the plan definitely affect the constitutional rights given to property owners to use their land. The so-called “Community Tree Protection Standards” found on page 60 represents one such abridgement of a property owner’s right to use his or her property. There is no discussion in the plan regarding this issue. There are other provisions that similarly take away or diminish rights of property owners to use their land.

Natural Systems. Where is the discussion to indicate why the 2006 adopted update to the County’s 1998 Plan was not adequate to address either the land use or natural system conditions in the Illahee planning area? This question is especially significant in light of the fact that the 2006 plan update changed the zoning from Urban Low to Urban Restricted in much of the planning area due to environmental constraints. Why 25 pages of text devoted to Natural Systems when the County-wide Plan already makes provisions for Natural Systems and in light of the fact there is a Critical Areas Ordinance to implement the County-wide Plan?

The text of this plan is disturbing because there is no clear distinction between what is new in the Sub-Area Plan and what already exists in the County-wide Plan. This concern is particularly evident when the Goals and Policies found in Section 4.10 are considered. How many of these Goals and Policies are redundant? How many are not even necessary in light of other existing plans and regulations? Policies 4.4-1, 4.5-1, 4.5-3 (these already exist in the CAO), 4.6-1and 4.9 should be eliminated. They are unnecessary as they are addressed in the County-wide Plan or in the County’s Critical Areas Ordinance.

There are policy statements that really are not policy and provide no real guidance in the land use decision-making process. Included in this category are Policies 4.2-2, 4.3-3, 4.4-3, 4.5-2, 4.6-1, 4.6-2, 4.6-3, 4.6-4 and 4.8. The subject matter addressed in these so-called policies is better handled in discussion text. Kitsap County’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan had many such policies and now 10 years later none of those “non-policies” were ever implemented because they were meaningless as directives for action.

The questions and comments recorded about this section of the plan really do need to be answered and the policies section amended to delete the aforementioned policies.

Transportation. The Goals and Policies of this section of the plan have the same kind of problems found in the Natural Systems section. They need to be re-examined, taking out ones that are duplicative in the County-wide Plan and those that provide no real guidance in decision making.

Public Infrastructure. In September 2007, Kitsap County’s 2006 Comprehensive Plan update was overturned in part by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. A central issue in their order of “invalidation” related to the capital facilities element of the Plan and the lack of a showing how utilities – particularly sewer – would be extended into the expanded UGAs to serve development. In light of the County’s experience in the aftermath of the 2006 Update, is it not more than just a little ironic that the Illahee Sub-Area Plan contains no discussion about capital improvement financing? While there is a reference to the adoption of the Central Kitsap Wastewater GMA Compliance Plan. However, it is a disservice to the plan reviewer that there is no summary of the provisions of that “compliance plan” as it is pertinent to the Illahee Sub-Area. For example, how much money is going to be allocated to future utility upgrades or new service extensions in the Illahee Sub-Area? Also important is how much will be spent by Kitsap County versus the City of Bremerton or North Perry Water District.

We do not believe the County has justified the need for this Sub-Area Comprehensive Plan. Also, we are concerned that there is no process for citizens of this County to voice their opinion as to whether or not plans should be drafted for particular neighborhoods of the County. Therefore, the Kitsap County Association of REALTORS® hereby request that the Illahee Sub-Area Comprehensive Plan not be adopted until at least the problems identified in this letter are rectified.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard A. Brown

Government Affairs Chairperson
Kitsap County Association of REALTORS®

>Miscellaneous Items – 10/11/08

>

Dock Smelt Fishing. We visited the Illahee community dock on Friday evening and were surprised to find one of the squid fisherman catching smelt on his squid jig. See the photo.

Gilberton Creek Culvert Ceremony. We heard there will be a ceremony on October 23rd at 10 am to celebrate the completion of the Gilberton Creek culvert and paving work on Illahee Road. There will likely be more information on this later that we will pass on as we receive it.

Realtors Reject the Illahee Community Plan. We heard the Kitsap County Association of Realtors sent a letter to the county commissioners and county officials asking them to reject the Illahee Community Plan for a number of reasons including one that evidently states there are enough county subarea plans and they don’t want another one. This might be a good opportunity for Illahee residents to contact their realtor friends to find out who this group is and how representative they are of individual realtors. If someone can get a copy of the letter, which we assume is a public letter, we will put it out in an update.

Sewer Public Notices. A number of people who live along the Timbers Edge proposed stormwater and sewer lines did not receive the county notice dated September 18th, that was actually received by the community members beginning on September 26th, with one property owner in Everett receiving his notice on October 1st, one day before the written request deadline of October 2, 2008.

Written Request for Hearing? We heard that in spite of the late notification, several residents sent in written requests for a stormwater and sewer hearing.

November Hearing Date? We additionally heard that a November hearing date was being contemplated by the Hearing Examiner, but only for a sewer hearing, not a stormwater hearing.

Notice Problem. We think the problem with the notice was the map, which was used to determine the notice recipients.

Sewer & Stormwater Lines Not Shown. The sewer and stormwater lines were not shown on the map and therefore many of the recipients who live along the route were not notified.

What Next? We know the county is aware of the problem with the notices not being delivered in a timely manner. We also know the county is aware that the notice did not go to all the affected residents. We are unsure what the county is planning on doing to rectify the situation.

Community Thoughts. (1) Proper and timely notice of the proposed stormwater and sewer line plans need to be given to all the affected residents. (2) The Illahee community needs to ask for a public meeting for the county to explain the sewer issues and the sewer infrastructure plans for the Illahee community. (3) A hearing should be held so the community can respond to the proposed Timbers Edge stormwater and sewer plans being planned for Illahee.

Jim Aho