All the pieces are nearly in place for Kitsap County residents
and planners to begin examining the ecosystem at the edge of the
waters encircling the Kitsap Peninsula.
Beyond beauty, shoreline
environments contain vital ecosystems. (Click to enlarge)
Kitsap Sun photo
Oh, yes, lakes and a few streams are part of the picture.
Kitsap County commissioners last night appointed a 20-member
citizen task force to take a central role in the planning effort.
For the first time in county history, regulations will be based on
ecosystem values. See the story I wrote for
today’s Kitsap Sun listing the members.
Similar planning efforts are under way in Kitsap’s cities as
well as various communities throughout the Puget Sound region. I
wrote a story for the
Kitsap Sun Feb. 27 regarding the effort for our cities.
In the past, shoreline regulations were based on existing land
uses. Buffers — including the current 100-foot buffer for rural
areas — were uniform throughout the entire county. Previous rules
never took into consideration the particular types of shoreline or
their ecological values. For example, an estuary with a highly
productive marsh and a stream running through it was treated
exactly the same as a rocky outcropping pounded by waves. Continue reading →
Hood Canal and the Olympic
Mountains from a home on Kitsap County's shoreline.
Photo courtesy of Dr. Dale Ireland
Planning the future of Puget Sound’s shorelines is under way or
soon will be under way among most local governments in Puget
Sound.
Some counties have completed the work because of early funding
by the Legislature (King
and
Pierce) and some because they pushed ahead on their own
(Whatcom).
Some counties started early but have faced delays (Snohomish
and
Jefferson).
Kitsap County planners started early but focused their efforts
on an “inventory” of existing conditions along the entire
shoreline. That inventory, which includes prospects for habitat
restoration, could be a major tool in the update of Kitsap’s
Shoreline Master Program.
Do I need to remind anyone how contentious this issue is likely
to become in counties with substantial shorelines?
In Kitsap County, both property rights advocates and
environmental groups have already announced that they are getting
ready for a fight.
Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners came out recently with guns
ablazing: “Kitsap County is getting ready to update its shorelines
master program,” KAPO President Tim Matthes says in a postcard to
shoreline owners. “You will find very little in the news informing
property owners of changes.”
That’s an interesting comment, considering that I have already
written two stories before the process even starts. I can tell you
now that there will be plenty to write about when this issue begins
to boil.
The card also states, “County staff wants to treat every inch of
shoreline as ‘critical area.’ They want to prohibit bulkheads, ban
docks, force you to replace your gardens with ‘native’ plantings
and control what kind of trees you plant, trim or remove.”
I’ll let others respond to those specifics if they wish, but
clearly this message is designed to lead the charge into
battle.
KAPO is not the only side getting ready for a fight, however.
Beth Wilson of Kitsap Conservation Voters recently informed the
county commissioners rather forcefully during a recent “Meet the
Commissioners” forum that shoreline planning could be the most
important issue of the year among the local environmental
community.
While Kitsap County planners prepare for two years of work on
the Shoreline Master Program, cities in Kitsap County are getting
ready for updates as well. There was talk at one time of strong
collaboration between the county and the cities, but it appears
that jurisdictions are starting to drift apart. It remains unclear
whether any kind of coordination will take place.
Kitsap County Planning Commission was briefed on the upcoming
planning effort a couple of weeks ago (see
Kitsap Sun story, May 20). The county commissioners discussed
the same information today.
I attended a meeting this week of residents concerned about a
gravel and rock mining operation west of Kitsap Lake. Many of the
folks lived along Northlake Way and Lebers Lane, the two roads that
would be most affected by the increased truck traffic coming from
the Ueland gravel mine.
In my story in
Thursday’s Kitsap Sun, I did not write detailed quotes from
those commenting, because I plan to cover the public hearing. As
“Sassy” noted in a comment on the story, it was mostly a reminder
to submit letters on the project to the county by Monday.
I will have more to say about this issue later, but two things
stand out for me beyond the project itself, and they are things the
county needs to address.
The first is a realization that Northlake Way, a residential
area, is taking massive amounts of traffic. If the roadway is not
already beyond it’s design capacity, it will be. (Someone who has
analyzed the traffic study may wish to comment here.)
Northlake Way is the only real access to Bremerton from the
entire west side of Kitsap County, including Holly, Seabeck, Lake
Symington, Lake Tahuyeh and everything in between. I hope the
county is looking to the future with plans for dealing with growing
traffic, whether or not the gravel-mining operation goes in.
The second issue involves the need for gravel. Mark Mauren, who
is involved in the Ueland project, said gravel is running out in
Kitsap County. Someone else involved in the construction business
commented that materials are often trucked in from Pierce County
already.
Although Fred Hill Materials’ pit-to-pier project on Hood Canal
in Jefferson County is highly controversial, Jefferson County
government at least went through a planning process to identify
where gravel resources are located and where mining might be
allowed.
As far as I know, Kitsap County has never undertaken a similar
planning process, yet the potential for conflicts between resource
extraction and residential uses is far greater here. I believe
Kitsap’s rural areas are still the most densely populated in the
state.
There’s much need for long-term planning in Kitsap County. This
year, legacy lots and “rural wooded” incentives are likely to
dominate the time of a dwindling number of planners. But there are
consequences to haphazard development, and these issues will not go
away.
Thousands of tiny lots platted in rural areas of Kitsap County
are like time bombs hidden in the landscape.
This week, the Kitsap County commissioners authorized their
planning staff to study a list of options for dealing with tiny
rural lots platted before 1937. That’s the year the state’s first
platting requirements went into effect. Before that, anybody could
create lots anywhere without restriction.
These little lots may seem innocuous at first. Generally too
small for a house, owners tend to cluster them together to get
enough room for a septic tank and drainfield. More lots are needed
if a community water system is not available.
The rural area around Manchester has more of these lots than any
other area. Someone once estimated there were 2,400 lots in a 1909
plat called Manchester Heights. Some of them are now in the more
urban Manchester area governed by the Manchester Community Plan,
but others lie in a “rural” zone where the goal is one home on five
acres.
Indianola also has a bunch of these lots, as do other shoreline
areas such as Hansville and Southworth. Many lakes also have a
conglomeration of these lots.
Indianola: Assessor’s map (top) and all lots
(bottom)
Yellow=single family;
orange=mobile home; red=shed or garage; magenta=cabin; green=vacant
landYellow=single family;
orange=mobile home; red=shed or garage; magenta=cabin; green=vacant
land
Nobody wants to contemplate what would happen if all these lots
were developed. In fact, environmental constraints substantially
reduce the potential for development.
But Manchester residents got a wake-up call of what could happen
when Woods View — a cluster of 78 homes on 12 acres — was approved.
The Kitsap County hearing examiner and the county commissioners
were powerless to stop it, even though the commissioners kind of
held their nose as they voted.
I first outlined the problem in the
Kitsap Sun on Aug. 15, 2006. Since then, the county has imposed
two different kinds of building moratoria to block this kind of
large-scale cluster development. If not extended, the latest
moratorium will run out this summer.
Meanwhile, county planner Katrina Knutson has been studying how
other counties are dealing with what have become known as “legacy
lots.” Requiring the owners to put two or more lots together is one
option, and she will be discussing other options in the coming
months.
The secret to high-density development in these areas is
realizing that, under current Kitsap County practices, the owner
has a vested right to build on every one of these lots. The only
restrictions are the overall health and environmental rules, as
well as current building codes.
Another secret is that what you see on the ground today does not
restrict future use. If you drive through Indianola, for example,
it’s hard to imagine that this laid-back community could ever
become a high-density project with houses crammed side-by-side.
It might not happen because of topography, but it would be
possible for a developer to buy an old mobile home or house built
on 10 or 20 of these lots and erect a whole new development. If a
septic system were needed, it might take two or three lots for each
new house. You might get between six and 20 homes where one stood
before.
The Kitsap County commissioners were taken aback this week when
they saw the complete plat of Indianola. The top view, to the
right, is what you would see if you went to the county’s Web site
where the county assessor’s map is displayed. As you can see,
property owners have consolidated many of the lots together for tax
purposes, but few have given up their legal rights to build on the
individual lots.
The bottom map shows all the individual lots, revealing a vast
potential for construction if health and environmental rules can be
met.
