Category Archives: Manchester

Planning Consultant Undaunted by Spruce House Denial

The Kitsap County Hearing Examiner has denied a conditional use permit application for Spruce House, a proposed three-story development in Manchester. Planning consultant William Palmer says his client, John Park of BJP LLC, Gig Harbor, will likely appeal the decision.
Some of the town’s residents were unhappy with the scale of the building, plans for which received preliminary approval before the 2007 Manchester Plan limited building heights to two stories. But Hearing Examiner Kimberly A. Allen, in her ruling Nov. 11, said the project meets requirements of the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan and Kitsap County Code in effect at the time Park first applied.
Allen rejected the application on the basis of stormwater plans deemed inadequate by county staff, who testified at a public hearing Oct. 22.
Another problem stems from an easement dispute between Park and the owner of a neighboring property. The neighbor’s property encroaches on the Spruce House site, and the two parties are involved in a suit and countersuit.
Since the project is in legal limbo, Allen wrote, her hands are tied for ruling in favor of Park’s application.

Palmer, who typically withholds his opinion on land use rulings, weighed in on Manchester’s potential for development vis a vis the resistance of some residents to the size and scope of Spruce House and three other retail-residential projects grandfathered in at three stories.
“I still think Manchester is the place for the kind of development proposal that is represented in Colchester Commons, Spruce House and Frank Tweten’s Project,” said Palmer, adding The Anchors at Manchester to his thoughts. “ All four, if allowed to go forward, would make Manchester a really special place to be.
“Obviously there are some who like the run-down nature of the buildings in the area and would like to see it stay that way.”

Here’s a link to a story on the one three-story project that has been built in Manchester.

Three-Story Project in Manchester Comes Before Hearing Examiner

County development staff have withdrawn their support of the Spruce House project.
By Chris Henry
Manchester residents had their say Thursday on a three-story development project some claim is out of scale and character with the town. Critics of the project say plans to accommodate stormwater are inadequate and pose a danger of flooding from site run-off.
Spruce House, a 54,777 square-foot residential-retail complex, was the subject of a public hearing at the county administration building. The complex is proposed on a .53 acre site at the corner of Colchester Drive and Spruce Street in downtown Manchester.
Spruce House is one of four projects allowed at three stories before a revision of the Manchester Community Plan in 2007 limited building height in the downtown area to two stories. The Anchors at Manchester is the only one of the four that has been built.
Plans by Gig Harbor developer John Park of BJP LLC call for 11 condominium units on two stories above 7,455 square feet of retail-office space and 19 parking spaces on the ground floor. There’s also a 40-space underground parking garage.
Written testimony the county received in an earlier phase of permitting showed a number of residents displeased with the size and appearance of the building. An Oct. 12 report from the county’s Department of Community Development says Park has made adjustments to the design in response. But the report raises issues with stormwater treatment and landscaping in its recommendation against approval of the permit.
The DCD had earlier recommended approval of Park’s application, said Senior Planner Dennis Oost, but staff withdrew their support in November, 2008, when neighbors of the proposed project complained drainage from the site would be directed at their properties.
DCD contends Park’s current plans don’t meet the county’s requirement that 15 percent of the project area be covered in landscaping. And a neighbor, whose garage encroaches on the site said the design would block his access, Oost said.
Resident Carrilu Thompson testified that flooding is a problem in the town, which is at the bottom of a hillside.
Planning consultant William Palmer said his client has proposed several stormwater alternatives. The preferred design would be to collect run-off and direct it via underground pipes to a county-maintained manhole on Spruce Street. From there stormwater enters a pipe with direct discharge to Puget Sound.
The pipe passes through private property, and the owner will not give permission for its use, Palmer said. He argues that since the county once owned the property is has a historic right to use the pipe and so could grant Park permission to use it.
Project engineer Nels Rosendahl said the pipe would have enough capacity to handle the added run-off from the site, even in the event of a “hundred year storm.” But Douglas Frick, the county’s manager of development engineering, said his department has not yet verified the capacity of the pipe. Nor have possible problems created by additional flow at the pipe’s outfall been addressed, Frick said.
Palmer listed several other alternative plans, one of which would direct stormwater from the site to a nearby creek. Another alternative required Park to get permission from seven other property owners, which proved prohibitive, Palmer said.
On the issue of landscaping, Palmer argued the project more than satisfies the county’s 15 percent requirement. By including plantings on the building itself, the total landscaped area is 4,083 feet or about 17.7 percent of the total site area, he said.
The report submitted by Oost states landscaping on buildings should not be counted in the total. But Palmer said precent for doing so was set by the hearing examiner’s approval of another three-story project in Manchester. The Kitsap County Board of Commissioners overturned approval of Colchester Commons, but Park challenged that decision and prevailed on April 7 in Kitsap County Superior Court.
As for the easement issue, Park and his representatives are negotiating with the neighbor, who claims access to the site through historical use. They hope to come to a resolution, Palmer said. In the meantime, Park has filed suit to gain access. The neighbor has filed a counter suit.
The fourth three-story project, Manchester Place, at the corner of Spring and Main Street, is owned by Frank Tweten of Gig Harbor. He has until Oct. 6, 2011 to move forward before a preliminary permit on the project expires.

Heads Up Manchester: Hearing Set for Oct. 22 on Three-Story Project

Correction: The date of the is meeting was incorrectly listed. It is next Thursday, Oct. 22.

The Kitsap County Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing on a conditional use permit application submitted by Tri Hutch for the proposed Spruce House project in Manchester. The hearing will be at 10 a.m. Thursday Oct. 22 in the Port Blakely Room of the county administration building, 619 Division St., Port Orchard.
The owners seek to build a three-story, retail-residential structure within the Manchester Village Commercial Zone. Spruce House is one of four three-story projects approved by Kitsap County before revision of the Manchester Community Plan in 2007. Previously, county code allowed buildings up to 35 feet or three stories in downtown Manchester. Although the revised plan limits buildings in the downtown core to 28 feet or two stories, the four projects were allowed at 35 feet.
Spruce House includes below ground parking, with 7,455 square feet of retail and office space on the ground floor, and two stories above consisting of nine condominiums. The total square footage is 54,777. The .53-acre site is located at the corner of Colchester Drive and Spruce Street.

Manchester Talked, Port Listened

Port of Manchester Commissioners were united Monday in their decision not to impose a tax on port property owners through the industrial development district mechanism.

The law allows a tax increase of up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value without a vote of the public. It’s a law that applies only to port dsitricts, with the stated purpose being acquisition of “marginal” land to spur economic development.

In Manchester’s case, the land they wanted to acquire was neither marginal not targeted for industrial development. The idea was to buy one of the commercial properties for sale in the town to preserve it for future community use. Port commissioners, in accordance with their parks & recreation plan, would have relied on public guidance and participation in future development of the property, possibly as a community center.

The idea of acquiring land is not off the table, but the port is not reconsidering their original idea of seeking a levy lid lift, among other options. They also need to pay off debt related to parking improvements now under way. Sooner or later, commissioners say, they’ll need to raise cash for that and meet the rising cost of maintaining the facilities they have, including the marina and waterfront park.

Although two of the commissioners, Steve Pedersen and Daniel Fallstrom, said loud and clear that they favor buying property soon to preserve it for future generations while real estate prices are low, they opted not to go the IDD route, which would have allowed them to act quickly. Although earlier discussions with community groups, including the port’s advisory committee, showed many people in favor of the land purchase, those who were opposed to the no-vote tax showed up in force at the port’s August meeting.

The commissioners pushed the matter off for a month to gather more public comment. Commissioner Jim Strode said he heard from many people on both sides of the issue. Although he didn’t break it down scientifically, he said the split in community opinion showed the port needed to do a better job of bringing everyone into the discussion. Fallstrom said those he’s heard from are about 50/50 pro and con. Pedersen said those against the proposal seem to outweigh those for it by a small margin.

Here on this blog, we took an unscientific poll listing three reasons people might favor the IDD and three reasons they might be opposed. We allowed people to vote up to three times. Since only 22 people (out of more than 3,000 voters) participated, the results can hardly be considered representative. We also did not screen to make sure all participants were actually Manchester residents. But for what it’s worth:

Should the Port of Manchester form a temporary taxing district to buy land for a future community center?

* No, they shouldn’t raise property taxes without a vote of the people. (55.0%, 12 Votes)
* Yes, the port should act now before property prices go up. (18.0%, 4 Votes)
* No, now is not the time to raise people’s taxes. (18.0%, 4 Votes)
* Yes, Manchester needs an expanded community center. (14.0%, 3 Votes)
* Yes, the port should secure the property against commercial development. (9.0%, 2 Votes)
* No, the port should look at other priorities. (9.0%, 2 Votes)

Total Voters: 22

Port of Manchester IDD: Take the Poll

Should the Port of Manchester form an industrial development district to buy land for a future community center? Read the post, then take the poll on the homepage of this blog.

Port of Manchester to Revisit IDD Tax Monday
When: 6 p.m.
Where: Manchester Library

Revenue would be used for land acquisition and debt service.
By Chris Henry
Port of Manchester Commissioners will vote Monday on whether to form an industrial development district, a taxing district affecting property owners within port boundaries. Revenue from the IDD would fund the purchase of a downtown Manchester property that could some day be developed as a community center.
The IDD, which does not require a public vote, would allow the port to move quickly on the purchase while property prices remain low, said Alan Fletcher, contract administrator for the port.
Strong resistance to the new taxing district at the port’s Aug. 10 meeting led the board to defer the vote and leave the record open for a month. Some who testified supported the IDD, but opponents loudly protested the tax increase and called for at least an advisory vote on the matter.
Under the IDD the port could collect up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value in addition to the current levy (just more than 14 cents per $1,000 for 2009) for up to six years. Port commissioners estimate they would need to collect 20 to 25 cents per $1,000 to purchase the land.
Fletcher calculates the proposed tax would cost the owner of a $250,000 home about $57.50 per year. The IDD tax is temporary and would expire at the end of the six years.
The proposed community center on the site eyed for purchase is part of the port’s parks and recreation plan, developed with community input. The center would be developed in the future in partnership with civic groups and would likely include an expanded library with space for community activities.
A portion of the IDD revenue would go to retire debt related to expanded parking at the port’s marina.
Port commissioners Steve Pedersen and Daniel Fallstrom, who were elected in 2008, expressed disapproval during their campaigns for the Port of Bremerton’s IDD, formed in 2006 to pay for the new Bremerton Marina. That IDD, which was not well publicized, became a political albatross for the Port of Bremerton.
Fallstrom in 2008 said Port of Bremerton residents should have had a say about the new tax that was set at the full amount allowed by law and in many cases more than doubled individual property owners’ payments to the port. Asked why he did not support an advisory vote for the Port of Manchester’s IDD, Fallstrom said, “It’s too late to do that this year, and cost for a special election would be $15,000, which the port can’t afford.”
Fallstrom added that Manchester’s IDD would not be as costly to property owners.
Residents who favor the community center have told the board they want to secure land for future generations rather than seeing it lost to development, Fallstrom said.
“What we’re trying to do is we have a great opportunity here to get things for the future generations at a great price,” he said.
Fallstrom would not say how he will vote on Monday.
“This is one of these hard decisions elected officials need to make. We’ll just wait ’til Monday and see what the three of us decide,” he said.
Pedersen said the board made extra efforts to seek residents’ opinions on the port’s future in part because of Bremerton’s debacle. He was a proponent of the recently formed port advisory committee whose input led the board to float the IDD. Responses from residents during and after the public hearing have given him pause.
“It’s really made me step back and take a good hard look at the authority and power to tax people, and I take that very seriously,” said Pedersen. “Just because an IDD is a tool, it doesn’t mean you take it out of the tool box and use it.”
Long-time commissioner Jim Strode, who is running unopposed in the upcoming November election, said at the meeting in August, “If I go down in flames for any decision we have to make, I’m OK with that.”

Here’s a map of the Port of Manchester:

Heads Up Manchester: Port Considering New Tax

Correction 8/10: This blog post incorrectly said the port’s levy collection rate per $1,000 of assessed property value has remained the same throughout its history. The port has never in its decades-long history sought a lid lift beyond annual increases allowed by law. But the collection rate has changed as the total value of assessed property has changed. The rate for 2009 is 14 cents per $1,000.

Port of Manchester to Hold Hearing on Proposed Taxing District

Public opinion sought, although matter is not subject to a vote.
By Chris Henry
The Port of Manchester will hold a public hearing on Monday on a proposal to create a taxing district, called an Industrial Development District, within the Manchester Village Commercial Zone that would apply to all residents within port district boundaries. The meeting is at 6 p.m. at the Manchester Library.
The port would use revenue from the IDD to purchase property and retire debt.
Port commissioners had been considering a ballot measure for a levy lid lift. The current levy rate of just over 14 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value has never been adjusted since it was established decades ago, The port has never in its decades-long history sought a lid lift beyond annual increases allowed by law, said Alan Fletcher, port administrator.
Instead of the levy lid lift, the port’s board of commissioners chose to pursue an IDD, which would allow them to raise the levy rate up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed value for a period of up to six years. Forming an IDD does not require a vote.
Port commissioners estimate the amount they would need to collect from property owners for the proposed land purchase would be between 20 to 25 cents per $1,000 of assessed value above the current levy rate for a period of six years. Collection would start in 2010.
The port will use money from the IDD to promote its goal of furthering recreational opportunities and economic development in Manchester. One potential use for the land to be purchased is to expand the library and add facilities that could be used for recreation and meeting space.
Although a vote is not needed to form an IDD, port commissioners want to hear from the public about the proposal, said Fletcher. The port wants to avoid the debacle incurred by the Port of Bremerton, when that port’s board of commissioners formed a six-year IDD for taxes collected beginning in 2007 to rebuild and expand its marina. The action was not well publicized in advance and came as a surprise to many who ended up paying the tax.
IDD’s are powerful, said Fletcher, but they are temporary and limited in that the money cannot be used for ongoing maintenance.
Besides purchasing land, the port will use a portion of IDD revenue to retire its share of debt on property it recently purchased to expand parking at the marina. The total cost, $650,000, was 75 percent funded through a grant from the state’s Recreation Conservation Office. The port must provide 25 percent in matching funds or in-kind services such as volunteer labor. Revenue from the IDD special levy would allow the port to pay off the 25 percent match.
Written testimony on the proposed IDD can be delivered before the hearing to Contract Administrator Alan Fletcher, Port of Manchester, Box 304, Manchester, WA 98353; (360) 871-0500.

Kitsap Commissioners to Consider Sewers & “the Laughter of Children”

Two public hearings of note on Monday’s agenda for the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners.

1. The board will hear an appeal by the Farmhouse Montessori School in South Kitsap of the county hearing examiner’s denial for a special permit that would allow the school/day care to operate in a rural neighborhood.

2. The Board of Commissioners also will take up the issue of whether to form a Local Improvement District to extend a sewer line along Colchester Drive in Manchester.

Farmhouse Montessori

Kitsap County planners recommended approval of the school’s permit request, but when the project reached the Hearing Examiner Ted Hunter, several nearby residents said they weren’t too keen on the proposal, especially considering the extra traffic, noise and potential damage to the environment.
Hunter denied the permit, saying the use would be detrimental to the surrounding property owners.

“Educating children is an admirable profession and laudable goal,” Hunter wrote in his findings. “Montessori schools offer a unique perspective on the educational process and can provide a valuable service to the community. (But) noise generated by laughter and screaming of young children during outdoor playtime and by up to 84 vehicle trips to and from the property would be materially detrimental to single-family residential properties in the immediate vicinity.”

Manchester Sewer LID 9

The Board of commissioners deferred a decision on the matter, after testy testimony from area residents, who questioned the accuracy of the costs and the process by which LID boundaries were drawn.

Ron Rada, chairman of the Manchester Community Council’s sewer committee, is spearheading the LID process. After the previous meeting in June, he submitted to the board a detailed response to questions raised during the hearing.

Among other questions, Rada addresses a concern about LID boundaries raised by Kitsap County Assessor Jim Avery, a Manchester resident. Avery asked why some properties between the previously formed LID 8 and the proposed LID 9 were not required to be part of either district. Avery said it was unfair to other residents that these folks weren’t obliged to pay their share of the cost.

Rada, in his letter, explained that some property owners joined LID 8 as latecomers, a move approved by the board. The latecomers and those who didn’t want to hook up to the sewer form a patchwork of properties between LID 8 and 9, some with sewer service, some without.

The committee couldn’t legally require the unsewered properties to be part of LID 9, Rada explained, because the sewer line had already been extended to accommodate the latecomers in LID 8. The law permits LID boundaries to include only properties without current access to sewer. When and if the septic on the properties in LID no-man’s-land fail, they will be required to either fix them or hook up to the sewer, Rada said.

Rada also sent me an article by John Carpita, a public works consultant, explaining how local utility districts are formed . The title of the article, “Are We Having Fun Yet?” hints at the complexity of the process, but Carpita spells it out in his introduction, saying, “LIDs are more fun than root canals without novocaine, a three-month visit from your in-laws, balancing city budgets… (with) a reputation as difficult to administer, time consuming and a public relations disaster waiting to happen (my emphasis added).”

The article addresses the issue of proportionality of assessments. “Statutes specify that the assessment per parcel must not exceed the special benefit, which is defined as the fair market value of the property before and after the local improvement project,” Carpita writes.

Resident Tom Warren questioned whether residents were proportionately represented. The petition approval was determined by area of property, giving those with larger properties more weight in the vote, yet the amount assessed per property is the same, he observed. Carpita’s article confirms that the LID petition “needs to be signed by owners of 51 percent of area within the LID.” (The LID 9 petition just barely met this threshold.) Clearly, Rada & company followed the statutes. However, the question the commissioners need to answer (and one that perhaps Avery himself could address) is whether having access to the sewer line conveys equal value to each property regardless of its size.

I’m going on vacation next week, so will pass this off into other capable hands. But I’ll be watching to see how the commissioners rule and invite your comments of enlightenment before or after the meeting. Cheers.

Manchester Defined

If you read my last post, you’ll see that we’re looking to geographically define South Kitsap (and other Kitsap) communities so that readers can search for news of their little corner of the world using Google Maps.

Thanks to Wanda Larsen, our unofficial Manchester correspondent, Manchester is way ahead of the game. Wanda, responding to a debate over whether Manchester and Colchester were one and the same, sent me maps from the county, water district and port respectively, that show Manchester boundaries. All the maps are just slightly different, but it’s a start.




Just got an e-mail from Manchester resident Johanna Baxter, who also weighs in on the topic on her blog.

Two Notable Lives & a Manchester Connection

Ruby Pauline Andrews
Ruby Pauline Andrews

Ruby Pauline Andrews, who was killed April 5 at her Manchester home, had a rich and varied life. Born a Nebraska farm girl, Ruby attended Kearney State College and the University of California at Berkeley. During WW II, she worked for the Air Transport Command in Washington, D.C., and New York City and for the Army Transportation Command in San Francisco. While in New York, she was a Barbizon model.
Ruby Andrews
Ruby Andrews

In Albuquerque, N.M., she enjoyed pilot training. She married her husband Earl in 1944. In September, they would have celebrated 65 years of marriage. In lieu of a formal funeral, Ruby’s ashes will be interred in the Andrews’ family mausoleum at Garfield Cemetery in Columbus, Indiana.
John Bailey
John Bailey

John Neil Bailey of Bremerton died April 3 while while enjoying a walk in Manchester State Park with his loyal canine companion Bob. Bailey, whose death the Kitsap County Coroner ruled the result of “natural causes,” regularly walked the trails of the park, and was well known by the ranger and volunteers, according to Kitsap County Sheriff’s spokesman Scott Wilson. A 1963 graduate of West High in Bremerton, John completed the PSNS Electrician Apprenticeship then attended the University of Washington, graduating in 1971 with a degree in Electrical Engineering. He retired from PSNS as a Nuclear Engineer in 2003 after 38 years of service. A Celebration of John’s Life will be held at 2 p.m. Saturday, April 18th in the old torpedo warehouse building at Manchester State Park.

Colchester, Manchester What’s the Difference?

Our story Sunday on the murder of Ruby Andrews threw some Kitsap Sun readers for a loop about the location listed for the crime. The dateline, taken from the Kitsap County Sheriff’s report, was “Colchester.” The location of Andrews’ home, where the homicide occurred, is Puget Drive, a loop off Colchester Drive.

View Colchester WA in a larger map
We heard from people commenting on the story and from a couple who live on Puget Drive that “there is no such thing as Colchester.”

Members of the Manchester Crime Prevention & Public Safety Group who met Tuesday with Kitsap County Sheriff’s officials also questioned the Colchester label, saying people in the area consider themselves Manchester residents, period … end of story.

There is, however, historic precedent for the dateline given in a press release by Deputy Scott Wilson, the Sheriff’s Office public information. According to Undersheriff Dennis Bonneville, speaking to the safety group, Wilson referred to county maps to determine the location of the crime. The Kitsap Sun referred to Wilson’s dateline.

The existence of Colchester was further substantiated by Kitsap Sun Web editor Angela Dice, who had to enter information on all of Kitsap’s micro-neighborhoods for the Kitsap Sun’s Real Estate Web page. Her reference was the Tacoma Public Library’s database of Washington place names, according to which, “Colchester is located between Colby and Manchester in Kitsap County. The name is a coined composite of ‘Col’ from Colby and ‘chester’ from Manchester. (Phillips, p. 29).”

Just think, folks, you could’ve been living in Manby.

Comments about the Colchester dateline precipitated a spirited discussion here in the newsroom. Should we strive for literal accuracy, or a dateline that accurately depicts the Manchester mindset – Colchester is a just road not an actual burg. In the end, we decided to take it on a story by story basis … in other words, punt.

In my story about the victim, I used (and the editors left) Manchester as the dateline. It seemed the right thing to do. Although the crime occurred in Colchester, Ruby was a member of the wider Manchester community. In the story on the suspect’s arraignment, reporter Josh Farley used Port Orchard as the dateline, because it took place at the Kitsap County Courthouse, within Port Orchard’s city limits.

In late 2006 and early 2007, the Kitsap Sun hosted a blog, “How Kitsap Got Its Names”. The blog, which also confirms the Colby-Manchester meld theory, is a source of wonderful little nuggets of Kitsap nomenclature trivia.

Colby, in South Kitsap, for example, is “actually a butchered pronunciation of ‘Coal Bay’ (try speaking like a grizzled prospector),” according to then-Kitsap Sun Reporter Chad Lewis, who is now working for the Washington State Department of Corrections (go figger).

According to reporter Chris Dunagan, writing in the blog, Port Orchard was such a popular name it was used in several places before becoming the official name of that present day fair city.

The Web site, lists 155 locations within Kitsap County by latitude and longitude. Many of them — like Waterman, Enetai and Fletcher Bay — are remnants of a time when Kitsap residents got around by water on small vessels so numerous they were dubbed the Mosquito Fleet. Kitsap County would like to build a county-wide trail hitting all the little ports from the north end of the county to the south. Other Kitsap names have Native American roots. Yet others are a nod to Kitsap’s timber heritage. Most I’ve heard of but can somebody tell me where in the name of all that is Kitsap are Hintzville, Pearson and Trikkala?

If you consider yourself an expert on Kitsap place names, you can take the quiz on the How Kitsap Got its Names blog. The item is dated Jan. 1, 2007.

From * Agate Point * Annapolis * Bainbridge *Bainbridge Grange * Bangor * Banner * Battle Point * Belfair * Bethel * Breidablick * Bremerton * Bremerton Junction * Brownsville * Burley * Central Valley * Charleston * Chico * Colby * Colchester * Creosote * Crosby * Crystal Springs * Eagledale * East Bremerton * East Port Orchard * Eastwood * Eglon * Eldorado Hills * Enetai * Erlands Point * Fairview * Ferncliff * Fernwood * Fletcher Bay * Fort Ward * Four Corners * Fragaria * Gilberton * Glenwood * Gorst * Hansville * Harper * Hawley * Hintzville * Hite Center * Holly * Illahee * Indianola * Johansons Corner * Keyport * Kingston * Kitsap Lake * Lawters Beach * Lemolo * Lincoln * Little Boston * Lofall * Lynwood Center * Madrona Heights * Manchester * Manitou Beach * Manzanita * Marine Drive * Meadowdale * Naval Depot Junction * Navy Yard City * Olalla * Olympic View * Orchard Heights * Parkwood * Pearson * Point White * Port Blakely * Port Gamble * Port Madison * Port Orchard * Poulsbo * Retsil * Rocky Point * Rollingbay * Rose Point * Scandia * Seabeck * Seabold * Sheridan * Sheridan Park * Sherman Heights * Silverdale * South Beach * South Colby * Southworth * Striebels Corner * Sunnyslope * Sunset Farm * Suquamish * Tolo * Tracyton * Treemont * Trikkala * Twin Spits * Venice