Central Puget
Sound
Growth Management
Hearings Board
STATE
OF WASHINGTON
|
BREMERTON, et al.,
Petitioners, v. KITSAP COUNTY, Respondent. |
)
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Consolidated
Case No. 95-3-0039 FINAL DECISION AND ORDER (with underlining corrections) |
II.FINDINGS OF FACT..................................................................................................
III.GENERAL DISCUSSION.......................................................................................
A.SUMMARY
OF PRIOR BOARD HOLDINGS...........................................................
B.COMPACT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT VS. SPRAWL...............................................
1.Sprawl.......................................................................................................................
2.Compact
Urban Development within a Resource Land and Rural Landscape...............
C.DETERMINING
THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF UGAS.................................................
1.Rank
Order for Including Lands in UGAs and Market Factors....................................
2.Permitted
Uses in Urban Areas and Rural Areas..........................................................
D.SUMMARY.................................................................................................................
IV. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS...............
A.OFM
POPULATION PROJECTION ISSUES............................................................
CONCLUSION
NO. 1.................................................................................................
B.
URBAN GROWTH AREAS ISSUES............................................................................
Are
Kitsap’s UGAs Too Large?......................................................................................
Designated
UGAs............................................................................................................
Land
Capacity Analysis...................................................................................................
Market
Factor.................................................................................................................
CONCLUSION
NO. 2.................................................................................................
C.RURAL
LAND ISSUES...............................................................................................
Current
Land Use Inventory.............................................................................................
Future
Land Use..............................................................................................................
Does
the County Permit Urban Growth Outside the UGAs?.............................................
Do
the Rural Element’s Residential Classifications Constitute a Variety of
Rural Densities..
CONCLUSION
NO. 3.................................................................................................
D.CAPITAL
FACILITIES ISSUES..................................................................................
CONCLUSION
NO. 4.................................................................................................
E.SITING
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES...............................................................
CONCLUSION
NO. 5.................................................................................................
F.FOREST
LAND ISSUES..............................................................................................
CONCLUSION
NO. 6.................................................................................................
G.IMPLEMENTING
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS..............................................
CONCLUSION
NO. 7.................................................................................................
H.OTHER
LEGAL ISSUES.............................................................................................
V.DETERMINATION OF INVALIDITY....................................................................
A.PETITIONERS’
JOINT STATEMENT OF PROPOSED INVALIDITY FINDING....
B.COUNTY’S/RESPONDENT
INTERVENORS’ RESPONSE REGARDING INVALIDITY
C.STATUTORY
AUTHORITY.......................................................................................
D.FINDINGS
OF FACT, REASONS FOR INVALIDITY, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DETERMINATION
OF INVALIDITY.....................................................................................................................
Findings
of Fact...............................................................................................................
Reasons
for Invalidity.......................................................................................................
Conclusions
of Law.........................................................................................................
VI.ORDER.....................................................................................................................
A.FINDING
OF NONCOMPLIANCE...........................................................................
B.DETERMINATION
OF INVALIDITY........................................................................
APPENDIX A:GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................
On February 10, 1995, the Board issued a “Notice of Hearing” for Case No. 95-3-0010.On February 23, 1995, the Board issued an “Amended Notice of Hearing and Notice of Hearing on Motions for Expedited Review and Summary Disposition (by Petitioners Rural Residents and Kitsap Citizens)” for Case No. 95-3-0010.
On March 8, 1995, the Board received a petition for review from Leslie Banigan and Nyle Hartley (Banigan I), Case No. 95-3-0022.
On March 8, 1995, the Board issued an "Order of Consolidation, Notice of Hearing, Amended Notice of Hearing, and Notice of Hearing on Motions for Expedited Review and Summary Disposition" (the Order of Consolidation).The Order of Consolidation assigned Case No. 95-3-0022 to the consolidated matter including the four above-referenced petitions for review.
On March 10, 1995, the Board received "Port Blakely’s Motion to Intervene” (Port Blakely).Also on March 10, 1995, the Board received 14 petitions for review from the following parties and assigned the following case numbers:Olalla Community Council and Beth Wilson (Olalla), Case No. 95-3-0023; Charlotte Garrido (Garrido) Case No. 95-3-0024; North Kitsap Coordinating Counsel [sic] (Council), Zane Thomas, Linda Cazin, Ray Bock, and Vivian Hiatt-Bock (Council I), Case No. 95-3-0025;Leslie Banigan and Charlie Burrow (Banigan II), Case No. 95-3-0026; Sandra M. Adams and Nobi Kawaski (Adams), Case No. 95-3-0027; City of Poulsbo (Poulsbo), Case No. 95-3-0028; 1000 Friends of Washington (1000 Friends), Case No. 95-3-0029; Kitsap Citizens for Rural Preservation, Zane Thomas, Tom Donnelly, and Beth Wilson (KCRP I), Case No. 95-3-0032; Zane Thomas, North Kitsap Coordinating Council, Nyle Hartley, Central Kitsap Coordinating Council (Thomas I), Case No. 95-3-0033; North Kitsap Coordinating Council, Zane Thomas, Leslie Banigan, Tom Donnelly, and Olalla Community Council (Council II), Case No. 95-3-0034; North Kitsap Coordinating Council, Rural Residents, Zane Thomas, Leslie Banigan, Moira Kane (Council III) Case No. 95-3-0035; Zane Thomas, North Kitsap Coordinating Council, Nyle Hartley, Central Kitsap Coordinating Council, Moira Kane, Rural Residents, Leslie Banigan, and Tom Donnelly (Thomas II), Case No. 95-3-0036; State of Washington by and through the Director of Community, Trade and Economic Development, on behalf of the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Director of the Department of Ecology and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (State), Case No. 95-3-0037; and Kitsap Citizens for Rural Preservation and Association of Rural Residents (KCRP II), Case No. 95-3-0038.
On March 13, 1995, the Board received a petition for review from Ronald R. Ross (Ross) and assigned it Case No. 95-3-0039.
On March 15, 1995, the Board issued its “Amended Order of Consolidation and Notice of Hearing, and Order Denying Motions for Expedited Review and Summary Disposition,” consolidating all the above-mentioned cases, including Consolidated Case No. 95-3-0022, assigning the consolidated matter Case No. 95-3-0039, and stating that the case would be referred to as Bremerton, et al., v. Kitsap County (Bremerton).No further consolidation occurred.
Between March 31, 1995, and April 13, 1995, the Board received motions to intervene from the following: Overton and Associates, Overton and Alpine Evergreen Co., Inc. (Overton); Harvey B. Hubert (Hubert); McCormick Land Company (McCormick); the Economic Development Council of Kitsap County (EDC); Manke Lumber Co. (Manke); Pope Resources (Pope); and Rainier Evergreen (Rainier).
On April 17 through 19, 1995, the Board held a prehearing conference at Fire Station No. 1 in Poulsbo, Washington.
On May 5, 1995, the Board issued a “Prehearing Order, Order Granting in Part Motions to Intervene, and Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing of Motions to Supplement the Record,” which granted intervention to the above listed parties; set forth a statement of issues; and set the final schedule for motions, briefing and hearing.
On June 5, 1995, the Board issued an “Order on the County’s Dispositive Motions” that dismissed several of the petitioners’ SEPA issues.
Between June 14 and 21, 1995, the Board received hearing briefs and attached exhibits from the Petitioners.
On June 19, 1995, the Board received the County’s amended submittal of core documents.The County’s ten “core documents” (CD) comprise key documents from the record below.References to those documents will utilize the CD prefix and page number(s).CD 1, the Kitsap County 1995 Comprehensive Plan, will be referred to as only “the Plan.”
Between July 20 and 25, 1995, the Board received reply briefs from Adams; 1000 Friends; Poulsbo; KCRP I; Thomas I; Thomas II; Banigan II; Banigan I; Council I; Ross; ARR & KCRP; State; Suquamish; Council II; Garrido; and Ross.
On July 26, 27 and 28, 1995, the Board held a hearing on the merits of the 19 consolidated petitions for review at Fire Station No. 1 in Poulsbo, Washington.Present were the three members of the Board:Chris Smith Towne, Joseph W. Tovar and M. Peter Philley, Presiding Officer.
Representing ARR & KCRP and KCRP II was David A. Bricklin.Representing Suquamish was Mary Linda Pearson.Representing Bremertonwas Ian R. Sievers.Representing Banigan I was Leslie Banigan.Representing Olalla was Beth Wilson.Representing Garrido was Charlotte Garrido.Representing Council I was Vivian Hiatt-Bock.Representing Banigan II was Charlie Burrow.Representing Adams was Nobi Kawaski.Representing Poulsbo was Phil A. Ohlbrechts.Representing 1000 Friends were Larry Smith and Tracy Burrows.Representing KCRP I, Council II, Council III and Thomas I was Zane Thomas.Representing Thomas II was Tom Donnelly.Representing the State was Tommy Prud’homme.Representing Ross was Tom C. O’Hare.Representing the County was Sue Tanner.Representing Intervenor Port Blakely were Thomas A. Goeltz and Katherine Kramer Laird.Representing Intervenor McCormick was Robert Johns.Representing Intervenors Pope Resources was Marvin L. Gray, Jr.Representing Intervenor Rainier was Eric Laschever.Representing Intervenor Manke was William T. Lynn.Representing Intervenors Overton and EDC was Elaine Spencer.Court reporting services were provided by Nancy A. Poppe, CSR, on July 26, 1995, and Cynthia LaRose, CSR on July 27 and 28, 1995, both of Robert H. Lewis & Associates.
On August 11, 1995, the Board received “Petitioners’ Joint Statement of Proposed Invalidity Finding.”It asked that the Board find invalid certain portions of the County Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Critical Areas Ordinance on the basis that they substantially frustrate achieving the goals of the Act.On August 14, 1995, the Board received the “State’s Joinder in Petitioners’ Joint Statement of Proposed Invalidity Finding.”
On August 14, 1995, the Board received “Petitioners’ Joint Statement of Proposed Invalidity Finding.”
On August 21, 1995, the Board received “Overton and Associates, Peter Overton and Alpine Evergreen’s Submission of Adjacent Counties’ Forest Land Designation.”
On August 22, 1995, the Board received the “Response of Intervenors Pope Resources and Port Blakely Tree Farms to Proposed Invalidity Finding,” and the “Response of Intervenor McCormick Land Company to Petitioners’ Joint Statement of Proposed Invalidity Finding.”
On August 24, 1995, the Board received “Kitsap County’s Response to Petitioner’s Proposed Finding of Invalidity,” the “Response of Harvey B. Hubert to Petitioners’ Joint Statement,” and “Comments of the Economic Development Council of Kitsap County, Overton & Associates, Peter E. Overton and Alpine Evergreen, Inc. Regarding the Consequences of the Proposed Invalidity of the Kitsap Comprehensive Plan”; and on August 29, 1995, the Board received “Supplemental Declaration of Service of Overton and Associates, Peter Overton and Alpine Evergreen’s Submission of Adjacent Counties’ Forest Land Designation.”
On September 1, 1995, the Board received “Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Invalidity Finding.”
On September 12, 1995, the Board received “Petitioner’s Submission of Forest Land Grade Designations Utilized by Other Counties.”
3.On June 3, 1994 the Board entered a Final Decision and Order in Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County (Rural Residents), CPSGMHB Case No. 93-3-0010, ruling that the County’s Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) did not comply with the GMA because it was not based on the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projection, did not show how its IUGA included land uses and densities sufficient to accommodate the 20 years of forecasted growth and did not include open space and greenbelt areas as required by the Act.The County was ordered to adopt an IUGA that met the requirements of the Act and the Board’s Order by October 3, 1994; the County did not do so.SeeRural Residents, Finding of Noncompliance.
4.On
December 29, 1994, the County enacted Ordinance No. 169-1994 which adopted
the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan), published on January 11, 1995.[1]The
Plan has three parts:Part I — population
and economic development; Part II — Natural
systems and lands, land use and open space, rural lands and UGAs; and
III — housing, utilities, transportation, parks and recreation and capital
facilities.The three parts are separately
bound into three volumes:Plan, Parts
I, II, III.
5.Also on December 29, 1994, the County enacted Ordinance 168-1994 which adopted an Interim Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance).CD 6.
6.On December 29, 1994, the County also enacted Ordinance No. 170-1994 which adopted an Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (ICAO), “... to implement the provisions of the [GMA] Comprehensive Plan, and RCW 36.70A.060....”A note on the document cover states that the ICAO:“Includes amendments as adopted February 27, 1995, by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners.”The ICAO repealed two documents:Strategies for Critical Areas Designations and Interim Development Regulations, December 1991, adopted January 27, 1992, and Strategies for Resource Lands Designations and Interim Development Regulations, adopted April 20, 1992.CD 7, at 1, 2.
7.The Washington State Senate and House of Representatives passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 5876 (ESHB 5876) on March 15, 1995, and April 13, 1995, respectively. This bill was approved by the Governor on April 27, 1995.
8.The Washington State Senate and House of Representatives passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724 (ESHB 1724) on April 11, 1995, and April 23, 1995, respectively.With the exception of Sections 103, 302, and 903, this bill was approved by the Governor on May 15, 1995.
9.The Washington State Senate and House of Representatives passed Engrossed House Bill 1305 (EHB 1305) on April 14, 1995, and April 20, 1995, respectively.With the exception of Section 5, this bill was approved by the Governor on May 16, 1995.
10.Having determined that the OFM population forecasts did not reflect past population trends and realistic population growth in the County, and that the County would continue to experience population growth comparable to that experienced in the past decade, and thus higher than the OFM forecast, the County chose to:
... formulate population forecasts which accurately reflected the historical population trends of Kitsap County, as well as considering the economic future.It was these population forecasts which Kitsap County and the cities planned for when developing their comprehensive plans.
Base data was provided by the 1990 U.S. Census and was an important tool in determining the projected future growth.Plan, Part I, at 10, 13.
11.The CPPs direct that two-thirds of the projected growth shall be accommodated within UGAs, including potential reserves for fully contained communities (FCCs).Plan, Part I, at 12.
12.A total UGA population of 63,575 was allocated to six UGAs:Bainbridge Island — 6,820; Kingston — 3,380; Poulsbo — 7,200; Central Kitsap — 17,625; Bremerton — 20,000; and Port Orchard — 8,550.Plan, Part I, Table PE-7, at 13.
13.Rainfall varies widely across the County, averaging 26 inches annually at the northern tip to 70 inches in the southwest, causing variations in aquifer recharge rates, stream flows and suitability for forestry and agriculture.Plan, Part II, at 4.
14.When non-native settlement began, about 150 years ago, most of the County was covered with old-growth forest, predominantly Douglas Fir.Plan, Part II, at 6.
15.Using U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classifications, seven soil types, accounting for 15,020 acres widely dispersed throughout the County, are prime agricultural soils.Plan, Part II, at 17, Figure NR-4 at 19.
16.There are few large commercial agricultural operations in the County today, which is attributed to poor soil conditions and recent land use conversions.A significant part of agricultural production occurs on non-commercial farms, and provides a secondary source of income.In 1992, 10,302 acres, 4.1 percent of the County’s land, was in farm use, with 366 farms ranging in size from one to more than 1000 acres, and averaging 28 acres.Plan, Part II, at 81-4.
17.The SCS identifies as prime timberland those soils not located in areas of urban or built-up land uses, and capable of producing wood fiber at a mean annual increment of 85 cubic feet per acre.Most soils in the county meet this national standard.Plan, Part II, at 20.
18.The County’s soils are rated for potential forestry productivity by the SCS, as well as by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), using a “50 site index,” the average height in feet that dominant species reach in 50 years in a given soil type.In western Washington, that species is the Douglas fir.Plan, Part II, at 20, 92.
19.The Forestry Soil Suitability Map shows the location and extent of four site index ranges, from 84 to 110, based on SCS data.The most productive soils lie in the northern and the least productive in the southwest parts of the County.Plan, Part II, at 20, 21.
20.Of
the County’s 251,520 acres of land, 76,818 acres are forest land.Of
that total, 27,804 acres are owned by DNR, the City of Bremerton, or are
part of the Port Madison and Port Gamble S’Klallam Indian Reservations;
49,014 acres are privately owned, and taxed as forest land (parcels 20
acres or larger) or open space timber (at
least five acres) by the County Assessor’s Office.[2]These
private lands are used for long-term commercial production, reforestation
or forest habitat.Plan, Part II,
at 87-89, 91.
21.Current Use Timberlands, Classified and Designated Forests, are shown on Figure LU-2, Inventory of Open Space and Timberlands.Plan, Part II, at 148.
22.These forest lands:
... are suitable for commercial production and cultivation of Douglas fir and Western hemlock.The forest industry provides lumber, firewood, Christmas trees and other forestry-related products for local use and export outside of the county.Forests also provide recreational opportunities and open space.
While only 495 people were employed in forestry, lumber and wood products in 1990, the forestry areas demand few services awhile generating substantial direct revenues to local governments.Plan, Part II, at 89-90.
23.All forest lands provide habitat benefits to fish and wildlife, and public forest lands afford recreational opportunities.Plan, Part II, at 92-3.
24.In the 18 month period prior to Plan adoption, over 2000 acres of forest land were converted to non-forest uses, primarily residential.Plan, Part II, at 92.
25.Most of the County’s hardrock, sand and gravel deposits are volcanic, glacial or erosional in origin.Mineral deposits other than sand, gravel and rock are believed to be insignificant.DNR has issued 29 surface mining permits, 26 for sand and gravel.Five of these are held by the County.While DNR has delineated potential deposits on state land, there has been no large-scale county-wide inventory of commercially viable mineral resource deposits.The Plan recommends that a geologic study to identify commercial deposits be completed within one year of Plan adoption.Plan, Part II, at 94-5, 159.
26.The type of soil available for installation of an on-site sewage system is critical to its successful operation over time.Using the SCS rating system for soil suitability, most soils in the county are rated severe for conventionally designed disposal fields.With that rating, special design, significant increases in constructions costs and potentially increased maintenance costs are required.Plan, Part II, at 24.
27.The Strategies Document, at the Foreword, sets forth the three-step process for designating resource lands in WAC 365-190:classification by value of each type of resource lands, agricultural, forest and mineral; designation, formally establishing the classification scheme for and location of resource lands, and applying the classification scheme to each resource and conducting an inventory; and adoption of interim development regulations for protecting resource lands.The County used a fourth step, by establishing a group, the Rural Policy Roundtable, charged with reaching consensus on rural land use issues.CD 8, at ii-iii.
28.Section Six of the Strategies Document is entitled “Recommendations to Designate Forest Resource Lands and Implement Policies.”The preface notes that:
In determining the criteria for the designation of forest resource land, the rural Policy Roundtable recognizes that the following lands will likely remain in long-term forestry:
Bremerton Watershed — 4,000 acres
Tribal Lands — 3,200 acres
Bangor — 4,700 acres
Pope Resources and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources have committed to identify and set aside at least 15,200 acres of their lands in the Green Mountain Area for designation as forest resource lands under the Growth Management Act for the interim period pending adoption of the county-wide comprehensive plan.When finalized this designation shall last not less than twenty (20) years.CD 10, at B17.
29.The Strategies Document sets forth a list of criteria for forest land designation.If each criterion is met, a parcel will be designated “as Growth Management Act (GMA) [forest] resource lands for at least twenty years”:
1.A Douglas Fir fifty (50) year site index of 110 or greater for a predominant portion of the parcel;
2.A nominal 80 acres or more of single ownership;
3.Property tax classification:Property is enrolled, as of January 1, 199l, in the Open Space Timber or Designated Forest or classified Forest property tax classification program pursuant to Chapter 84.33 or 84.34 RCW, or is owned by a state or local governmental body with long-term forest management as its primary use; and
4.In designating forest lands, the effects of proximity to population areas and the possibly [sic] of more intense uses of the land as indicated by the following shall also be considered (WAC 365-190-060 Forest Resource Lands):
1.The
availability of public services and facilities conducive to the conversion
of forest land — Not within a special purpose sewer or local (not countywide)
water district;
2.The proximity of forest land to urban and suburban areas and rural settlements — forest lands of long-term commercial significance are located outside the urban and suburban areas or rural settlements;
3.The size of the parcels — forest lands consist of predominately large parcels;
4.The compatibility and intensity of adjacent and nearby land use settlement patterns with forest lands of long-term commercial significance — greater than fifty percent (50%) of the linear frontage, as of March 1, 1992, of the perimeter of any parcel meeting the above criteria shall abut parcels that are greater than five (5) acres in size;
5.Property tax classification — Property is assessed as open space of forest land pursuant to chapter 84.33 or 84.34 RCW;
6.Local economic conditions which affect the ability to manage timberlands for long-term commercial production — economic conditions should be conducive to long-term commercial forestry management; and
7.History of land development permits issued nearby — would allow for compatibility with forestry activities.
...
Lands within the federally recognized external boundaries of the Port Madison Indian reservation, under the Forestry Management Plan of the Suquamish Tribe, are recognized as forest resource lands.CD 10, at B17-20.
30.Under the caption “Interim Development Regulations,” the Strategies Document sets forth 13 policies in order to:
... fulfill the interim development regulations requirement of the Growth Management Act for forest resource lands.These policies should be considered in determining appropriate mitigation to minimize the impact of adjacent land uses on forest resource lands.
Those interim regulatory policies:allow mining, agricultural, and other uses on forest lands if compatible with forest management; encourage continuation of forest tax classifications and retention of large parcel sizes; direct that impacts on forest lands from other land uses be mitigated, and that notice of forest resource use be attached to plats and building permits near forest resource lands; recognize forestry as the preferred use of forest lands; encourage use of a range of techniques to conserve forest lands; direct preparation of an inventory of forest lands; direct use of best management practices and compliance with the State Forest Practices Act; place restrictions on residences within forest lands; and direct that forest land conversion be consistent with adopted land use policies and compatible with adjacent uses.Following those policies, the Strategy Document recommends that the County:Amend agency SEPA procedures required by Chapter 197-11 WAC and Chapter 43.21C RCW to classify designated forest resource lands as environmentally sensitive until development regulations, as required by RCW 36.70A.120, are adopted.CD 10, at B20-21.
31.Lands devoted to mines and quarries, a total of 670 acres, are included within the industrial land use category.Plan, Part II, at 141.
32.Groundwater, constituting 80 percent of the County’s water supply, is withdrawn primarily by means of major production wells in principal aquifers, located from 100 feet above to 800 feet below sea level.Almost all of the surface area of the County contributes to groundwater recharge.Plan, Part II, at 27-8; Figure NR-7, at 29.
33.Shallow aquifers (defined as less than 100 feet below surface elevation) are especially susceptible to surface contamination.Shallow wells located near the saltwater shoreline have experienced saltwater intrusion.Plan, Part II, at 125.
34.The aquifers’ water quality is generally good, although saltwater intrusion, high concentrations of metals, and chemical contamination have been identified, specifically in four North Kitsap aquifers.Water quantity is expected to be adequate for projected demand until 2010.Plan, Part II, at 28.
35.The County and Kitsap Public Utility District are preparing a Groundwater Management Plan for the County, including a more complete inventory and designation of aquifer recharge areas.Information and data resulting from the planning process will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.Plan, Part II, at 27.
36.The Planuses two categories to classify aquifers for purposes of the Plan and subsequent regulations:Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, and Aquifer Recharge Areas of Concern, shown on Figure NR-13.One Critical Area, Hansville, is shown; general areas of concern are illustrated, and will be delineated more specifically after evaluation of surface soil types, depth to aquifer, areas needed for wellhead protection, and clusters of small wells.In the policy section, the County commits to implementation of the future recommendations of the Groundwater Management Plan.Plan, Part II, at 103-7.
37.The Plan recognizes that stream habitat and water quality are degraded by development and increased runoff, reducing the value and functions of a stream system, and cites the [Washington State] Department of Fish and Wildlife estimate that the hydraulic properties of a stream are affected when 12 percent of a watershed is developed.Plan, Part II, at 37.
38.The ICAO defines Critical Areas as including:wetlands, areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas, and includes sections on each of these areas.CD 7.
39.The ICAO’s definition of “aquifer recharge” and “aquifer recharge area” notes that “In Kitsap County, most areas are aquifer recharge areas.”“Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water,” a part of the GMA’s definition of “Critical areas” (RCW 36.70A.030(5)), are not defined or discussed.CD 7 at 9.
40.The Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas section of the ICAO, at Section 610, notes that:“Although an accurate, highly detailed map of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas does not yet exist, the following designations have been mapped from information that is currently available:”The section then lists high recharge potential areas, in three categories:(1) Hansville Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, as mapped on a Kitsap County Public Utility District No. 1 Aquifer Recharge Areas map in the Comprehensive Plan; (2) Recharge Areas of Concern, delineated on the same map; and (3) Aquifers with Contamination Potential (Hansville and Poulsbo), shown on Exhibit II-8 of the Draft Kitsap County Groundwater Management Plan (Groundwater Plan), April, 1991, Part I.CD 7, at 64-5.
41.The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides a map showing the locations of the County’s principal aquifers, with the notation that the boundaries are shown “very approximately.”CD 8, at III-27.
42.The Final EIS provides a map showing the locations of principal aquifers, indicating above sea-level and below sea-level aquifers.CD 9, Figure 8, Corrections and Changes, opposite II-8.
43.The ICAO, at section 615, provides standards for development in High Aquifer Recharge Areas:
A hydrogeologist report may be required on sites that have been identified as having soil types with high infiltration rates, or having high aquifer recharge or infiltration potential for land uses identified in exhibit titled “Operations with Potential Threat to Ground water” (See Appendix F).... The report will address the impact the proposed land use will have on both the quality and quantity of the water transmitted to the aquifer.The report will recommend mitigation for impacts that have the potential to decrease quantity or quality of water transmitted to the aquifer....
Appendix F is a list of 32 “Operations with Potential Threat to Ground Water,” e.g., auto repair/body shops, laundromats, research laboratories, machine shops and metal platers, subdivisions using private wastewater disposal, single-family septic systems, and heating oil storage.CD 7, following 76.
44.The County began development of the Plan’s Land Use Element with an inventory of existing land use (development, density, and acreage) and ownership.The inventory used records of the County Assessor, validated with, and adjusted as necessary after, a field survey.Plan, Part II, at 119.
45.The County’s 1977 Comprehensive Plan (1977 Plan), a pre-GMA enactment,allowed residential densities of two units per acre for waterfront property in rural areas, and semi-rural densities which exceed rural (one to three units per acre) in certain areas not planned for future urban use, served by public water systems and not served by public sewer facilities. Semi-urban densities (three to six units per acre, with 30 units possible through use of a planned unit development process) were allowed on or near the waterfront.Plan, Part II, at 122-3.The 1977 Plan was repealed by Ordinance No. 169-1994 when the Plan was adopted.
46.In a final EIS response to a letter commenting on the Draft EIS, the County noted that:
In general, rural is land that is not designated urban, or resource lands.Generally, suburban is characterized by land adjacent to urban areas that have public water exists [sic] and may transition to higher densities if a demonstrated need for additional urban lands exists.CD 9, Response to Letter No. 10.
47.The Plan describes “vacant land” as including:
... Open, wooded and undeveloped land in parcels less than ten acres in size that do not contain a dwelling unit at this time.These lands have apparently been segregated into parcels of various sizes, all less than ten acres in size, to be used or sold as building sites.Some parcels are simply left vacant for economic reasons.On the other hand, vacant lands are usually the easiest to develop because of no active use and the size of the parcel.Land in this category accounts for 19.8 percent of the land.Plan, Part II, at 129.
48.Land uses prior to adoption of the Plan are shown on Figure LU-1.Forty-eight and one-half percent (102,256 acres) were in the wooded and open land category; 19.8 percent in vacant land (parcels less than ten acres, without a dwelling unit [du]); 24 percent in residential use; 1.4 percent commercial and industrial uses; 3.1 percent public land; and 3.2 percent military. The discussion notes that vacant lands “have apparently been segregated into parcels of various sizes, all less than ten acres in size, to be used or sold as building sites.”Plan, Part II, at 127-8, 130.
49.The Plan notes that:
In Kitsap
County there are three distinct types of residential development patterns
besides urban and rural, and the plan has identified these three patterns
as suburban, waterfront and Village Residential.These
designations reflect the existing trends and/or historical development
patterns.Plan, Part II, at 152.
50.Gross residential density is described as “the total number of dwelling units divided by the total land area of the site including land used for public purposes such as roads, parks and utilities.”Plan, Part II, at 131.
51.Suburban lots, or one to 2.5 dwelling units (du) per acre, are characterized as “the most difficult to divide into smaller parcels.At this density septic tanks and wells on the same lot can be a problem and further development is constrained by the location of existing structures.”Plan, Part II, at 131-2.
52.“Urban Low” lots, 12,500 square feet (s.f.) to one acre per dwelling unit, are described as suitable for sewer and water services, although existing development at this density may not have those services, with the caution that without those services, septic systems and wells are often a problem due to site constraints.Plan, Part II, at 132.
The total number of residential dwelling units at the time of Plan adoption was 47,805, with 3.4 percent on lots of five acres or more; 23.7 percent on lots of one to five acres; 33.8 percent at densities of one to 3.5 per acre; and 39.1 percent at densities above 3.5 per acre.Plan, Part II, Table LU-3 at 134.
53.The Plan notes that the Land Use Element classifies forest, agricultural and mineral resource lands as resource lands, to help keep those lands available for resource production.However:
... in the case of agriculture and forest lands, the element recognizes that in Kitsap County long-term commercially significant resource lands have been lost to competing demands, i.e., residential development or poor forest production compared to other areas.The element does include a forest designation, labeled as Rural Wooded, and agriculture is encouraged throughout the rural areas of the county.
...
The plan does not propose lands for designation as prime agricultural lands since there does not appear to be a significant amount of commercial farming in the county at this time.This issue may be revisited should additional data indicate that it would be appropriate.Farming is encouraged and permitted in the rural areas of the county.Plan, Part II, at 155-6, 161.
54.The County, through its Rural Policy Roundtable and subarea planning efforts, sought to reach a consensus definition of “rural character.”While that goal was not reached, a list of rural characteristics was developed:
Two-lane roads with gravel shoulders; driveways disappearing into the forest with no house visible; trees as a backdrop to open fields and meadows; mountain or water vistas; agricultural lands including rolling pastures and meadows; farm buildings including original farmhouses; clusters of housing at the water’s edge; sense of community; quietness; stream corridors, wetlands and floodplains; and forested areas.Plan, Part II, at 190.
55.The Plan notes that:
It is the intent of the plan to designate certain forest lands which are most suitable for forest production in a manner which encourages the use of land for tree growing while keeping future options open.The Rural Wooded designations should be reviewed no later than the five year anniversary of the plan to determine whether the lands should be designated for alternative uses or designated as long-term commercial forest lands as provided for by the Growth Management Act.
...
The county has designated land as Rural Wooded as an alternative to long-term commercial forest land based upon the “bottom-up” feature of the Growth Management Act.It is the county’s position that the density provisions and development guidelines of the Rural Wooded designation are appropriate for protection of the land as a resource as well as being appropriate given the local setting and existing development patterns.
...
The plan encourages the practice of forestry as an important element of rural character and designates many areas as Rural Wooded even though the currently wooded areas are not designated forest lands of long-term commercial significance.
...
... [L]and designated as Rural Wooded will generally be characterized by:good forest soils and/or natural limitations for development, large open parcels, possibly in tree production.In addition, these areas are generally not needed for non-resource use at this time.
Minimum lot size is 2.5 acres per dwelling.As an alternative, cluster development may be approved.Maximum cluster development density is one dwelling per one acre.Lot sizes in cluster developments should range from 1/4 to 1-1/2 acres with a minimum project size of 20 acres.Plan, Part II, at 157-8.
The Rural Low Density Residential designation is applied to areas with a development pattern of five-to ten-acre parcels. The intended minimum lot size is 2.5 acres, except that with clustering, on sites of at least ten acres, the density may be increased to one unit per acre, with lot sizes of 1/2 to 1-1/2 acres.Plan, Part II, at 161-2.
The Rural Medium Density Residential designation is applied to areas with a development pattern of 2.5- to five-acre parcels, and with few development limitations.The permitted density is 2.5 acres, except that clustering, on parcels of at least ten acres, will allow densities of one unit per acre with lot sizes from 1/2 to 1-1/2 acres.Plan, Part II, at 162.
The Rural High Density Residential designation is intended for areas with similar current zoning to provide additional areas for suburban development near or adjacent to urban growth areas.The areas may have public water supplies, but are usually not sewered.Plan, Part II, at 163.
56.There are 54 sites zoned for manufacturing and light manufacturing uses in unincorporated portions of the County.The sites are generally small-scale and widely dispersed.The majority of developed sites are used for storage and warehousing; other sites have low intensity uses not requiring industrial zoning.The South Kitsap subarea has 17 sites with 2,250 acres; Central has 19 sites totaling 62 acres; and North has five sites from 30 to 60 acres in size.Most sites are outside urban areas and lack urban services.Twelve hundred acres are unimproved and available for new development.Two large sites in the Central subarea, operated by the Port of Bremerton, are improved, serviced and have transportation access.The Plan concludes that:
... there appears to be more than adequate land zoned for manufacturing and light manufacturing uses that require larger sites.It may be that more of this land needs to be improved in order to accommodate or attract businesses that need or want land that is ready to be built on.Another consideration is to determine if there are other general locations with appropriate site criteria in Kitsap County that could meet a need that is not being served by existing sites.It could be that new sites that can provide better access and urban type services need to be identified.Plan, Part II, at 138-40.
57.The Plan recognizes that:
Since there are already significant industrial lands in the rural areas of the county, the hope is to recognize these lands and encourage and support the retention and expansion of these lands where appropriate.Plan, Part II, at 175.
58.The Plan identifies areas for industrial use, due to topography, highway access and existing land use.Current access to public water, sewer and utilities was not a selection criterion.Industrial development on such sites would require a rezoning action, but not a Plan amendment.Plan, Part II, at 176.
59.The Plan policies for industrial lands specify that:“[I]ndustrial development may be allowed when sewers are not required for the protection of natural systems, in particular the protection of the quality and quantity of both surface and ground water.”Plan, Part II, at 177.
60.Residential land uses are permitted on Mineral Resource sites, with 2.5-acre minimum lot sizes, unless a cluster development is used; then, the lots in a development of at least 20 acres may range from 1/4 to 1-1/2 acres.Plan, Part II, at 159.
In the Plan, the County withdrew a portion of the 20 year population projection previously allocated to urban growth areas, 3,500 people, for allocation to fully contained communities, and stated that such population reservation cannot be made more often than every five years.The Plan Map identifies areas with potential for development of fully contained communities, depicted with the FCC symbol.Development of such a site would require only a master plan and rezoning action, with no change to the Plan Map.Plan, Part II, at 184-6.
61.The Plan is based a population increase of 90,260 from 1994 through 2014, reflecting the Kitsap Regional Planning Council 2014 Population Forecast and Subarea Allocation.