kitsap county department of community development documents/2018 cpa - 18...re: public comment for...
TRANSCRIPT
Kitsap C
ounty
Depart
ment
of C
om
munity D
evelo
pm
ent
1 o
f 4
8/1
7/2
018
201
8 C
om
pre
hen
sive
Pla
n A
men
dm
en
ts -
Pla
nn
ing
Co
mm
issi
on
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
- C
om
me
nt
Mat
rix
# N
ame
, Org
C
om
me
nt
Staf
f R
esp
on
se
AM
END
MEN
T: C
PA
18
-004
31 (
UEL
AN
D T
REE
FA
RM
LLC
)
19.
Ja
ck S
tan
fill,
C
hic
o C
ree
k Ta
sk F
orc
e
Sum
mar
y o
f O
ral T
esti
mo
ny
(7/1
7/20
18
& 7
/31/
20
18)
and
att
ach
ed
com
men
t:
•In
form
atio
n t
hat
has
ch
ange
d in
th
e la
st 3
yea
rs t
hat
aff
ects
th
e p
rop
osa
l•
The
wat
ersh
ed b
ou
nd
arie
s w
ere
wro
ngl
y lo
cate
d d
uri
ng
the
Go
rst
wat
ersh
ed a
nal
ysis
of
20
12-2
013
. 50
0 a
cres
no
t ca
lcu
late
d in
th
e st
orm
wat
er
run
off
an
alys
is a
nd
was
ad
ded
by
Eco
logy
to
Hin
es B
asin
via
P
aram
etri
cs.
Eco
logy
– p
erm
itte
d u
ses
mu
st p
rese
rve
fore
st c
ove
r an
d n
ot
resu
lt in
co
nve
rsio
n a
s p
art
of
the
re-a
sses
smen
t o
f th
e G
ors
t w
ater
shed
[E
xhib
its
pro
vid
ed].
•
Gre
en z
on
e, 2
5 p
age
spec
ific
stu
dy
that
incl
ud
ed 5
00 a
cre
s th
at w
asin
adve
rte
ntl
y le
ft o
ut
in 2
012
-201
3 G
ors
t w
ate
rsh
ed a
nal
ysis
. W
e go
t it
ch
ange
d s
ince
th
e re
po
rt w
as f
irst
issu
ed.
•I f
irst
wan
t to
ad
dre
ss t
he
com
pre
hen
sive
pla
n a
men
dm
ent
app
licat
ion
.U
elan
d h
as m
arke
d o
n t
he
lake
po
nd
res
ervo
ir, w
hic
h t
hey
say
is t
he
bea
ver
po
nd
lake
. Th
e re
al b
eave
r p
on
d h
as b
een
left
ou
t o
f th
e p
roce
ss s
ince
200
7.
•W
ants
to
ad
dre
ss t
he
trai
ls. I
t is
wri
tten
in t
he
staf
f re
po
rt t
hat
th
ere
are
pu
blic
tra
ils in
th
e tr
ee f
arm
. Th
ese
are
no
t p
ub
lic t
rails
, th
ey b
elo
ng
to
Uel
and
an
d h
e ca
n c
on
tro
l wh
o d
oes
an
d d
oes
n't
go
on
th
e tr
ails
. Sin
ce 2
011
, M
r. U
ela
nd
has
kep
t u
s o
ff t
he
trai
ls. I
f yo
u a
re a
mem
ber
of
Ch
ico
Cre
eek
task
fo
rce,
yo
u c
ann
ot
go o
n t
he
trai
ls.
Than
k yo
u f
or
this
co
mm
ent.
Th
e im
pac
ts a
sso
ciat
ed w
ith
th
e p
rop
ose
d q
uar
ry o
per
atio
ns
we
re e
valu
ate
d d
uri
ng
the
Stat
e En
viro
nem
tal P
olic
y A
ct (
SEP
A)
pro
cess
in 2
009
an
d
201
5 a
s p
art
of
the
con
dit
ion
al u
se p
erm
it p
roce
ss. T
he
resu
ltin
g e
nvi
ron
men
tal d
ocu
men
ts w
ere
chal
len
ged
an
d
det
erm
ined
to
be
adeq
uat
e b
y th
e co
urt
s. T
he
pro
po
sed
am
end
men
t d
oes
no
t m
od
ify
the
pre
vio
us
envi
ron
men
tal
do
cum
ents
an
d is
co
nsi
sten
t w
ith
th
e co
nd
itio
ns
of
app
rova
l an
d d
evel
op
men
t ag
reem
ent
bet
we
en t
he
app
lican
t an
d K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
.
The
‘gre
en’ o
r ‘p
rote
ctio
n z
on
e’ w
hic
h w
as o
utl
ined
du
rin
g th
e G
ors
t Su
bar
ea p
lan
nin
g p
roce
ss w
ith
th
e C
ity
of
Bre
mer
ton
was
a p
lan
nin
g to
ol a
nd
was
no
t gi
ven
an
y su
bse
qu
ent
legi
slat
ive,
reg
ula
tory
or
cod
e-b
ased
sta
nd
ing
by
any
agen
cy o
r ju
risd
icti
on
. In
ad
dit
ion
, th
e si
te w
ill n
eed
to
be
recl
aim
ed in
a m
ann
er t
hat
wo
uld
allo
w f
or
futu
re
dev
elo
pm
ent
on
th
e si
te c
on
sist
ent
wit
h t
he
lan
d u
ses
per
mit
ted
in t
he
Fore
st R
eso
urc
e La
nd
s zo
ne.
The
app
lican
t h
as s
tate
d d
uri
ng
ora
l tes
tim
on
y o
n
7/3
1/20
18 t
hat
th
e tr
ails
are
op
en t
o t
he
pu
blic
as
lon
g as
th
ey a
re b
ein
g u
sed
fo
r re
crea
tio
nal
en
joym
ent.
20.
M
ark
Mau
ren
, U
elan
d T
ree
Farm
LLC
Sum
mar
y o
f O
ral T
esti
mo
ny
(7/1
7/20
18
):
•R
esp
on
se t
o e
arlie
r co
mm
ents
(re
gard
ing
the
Go
rst
wat
ersh
ed).
Eco
logy
stu
dy
was
a p
lan
nin
g d
ocu
men
t, n
ot
regu
lato
ry d
ocu
men
t, t
o p
oin
t o
ut
that
th
ese
are
thin
gs t
o c
on
sid
er w
hen
per
mit
tin
g a
pro
ject
.
•Th
e is
sue
is t
hat
th
e st
orm
wat
er
and
th
e st
ream
wer
e st
ud
ied
wh
en t
he
CU
P (
Co
nd
itio
nal
Use
Per
mit
) w
as a
pp
lied
fo
r an
d a
pp
rove
d in
20
07 w
hen
th
e m
ines
we
re p
ut
in p
lace
. Th
ese
dec
isio
ns
we
re c
hal
len
ged
an
d u
ph
eld
.
Than
k yo
u f
or
pro
vid
ing
add
itio
nal
info
rmat
ion
reg
ard
ing
the
en
viro
nm
enta
l do
cum
ents
an
d a
pp
rove
d C
on
dit
ion
al
Use
Per
mit
.
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
2 o
f 4
8/1
7/2
018
201
8 C
om
pre
hen
sive
Pla
n A
men
dm
en
ts -
Pla
nn
ing
Co
mm
issi
on
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
- C
om
me
nt
Mat
rix
# N
ame
, Org
C
om
me
nt
Staf
f R
esp
on
se
•It
cam
e u
p a
gain
in 2
015
an
d w
as u
ph
eld
aga
in, w
hen
th
e C
UP
was
rev
ise
dto
ch
ange
th
e lo
cati
on
fo
r h
aulin
g in
an
d o
ut
of
the
pro
per
ty, m
ovi
ng
it t
o
the
Sou
th E
nd
at
War
ner
, wh
ich
is In
du
stri
al, i
nst
ead
of
the
No
rth
Lak
e,
wh
ich
is r
esid
enti
al
•W
e d
id t
he
stu
die
s, o
n t
he
dra
inag
e an
d t
he
min
es t
o b
e su
re it
did
no
tex
acer
bat
e a
ny
sed
imen
t, s
torm
wat
er
or
wat
er f
low
issu
es.
21.
Ale
x Si
dle
s,
Bri
cklin
&
New
man
LLP
La
wye
rs
Wo
rkin
g fo
r th
e En
viro
nm
ent
Sum
mar
y o
f at
tach
ed le
tter
: •
The
amen
dm
ent
sho
uld
be
den
ied
. Th
e p
rop
ose
d a
men
dm
ent
is f
orb
idd
enb
y th
e G
row
th M
anag
emen
t A
ct’s
sp
ecia
l pro
tect
ion
fo
r fo
rest
lan
ds
of
lon
g-te
rm c
om
mer
cial
sig
nif
ican
ce a
nd
by
Kit
sap
Co
un
ty’s
reg
ula
tio
ns
for
fore
st
and
min
eral
res
ou
rce
lan
ds.
•
The
pro
po
sed
am
end
men
t vi
ola
tes
the
Gro
wth
Man
agem
ent
Act
(G
MA
).Th
e G
MA
has
sp
ecia
l pro
tect
ion
s fo
r fo
rest
lan
ds
of
lon
g-te
rm c
om
mer
cial
si
gnif
ican
ce, w
hic
h o
ur
stat
e n
eed
s to
su
pp
ort
th
e ai
ling
tim
ber
ind
ust
ry. B
y re
-des
ign
atin
g U
ela
nd
’s f
ore
st r
eso
urc
e la
nd
s as
min
eral
res
ou
rce
ove
rlay
la
nd
s, t
he
pro
po
sed
am
end
men
t u
nla
wfu
lly d
epri
ves
thes
e f
ore
stla
nd
s o
f th
eir
GM
A p
rote
ctio
n.
•K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
Co
de
do
es n
ot
allo
w m
inin
g o
n f
ore
st r
eso
urc
es la
nd
, exc
ept
un
der
lim
ited
cir
cum
stan
ces
in s
up
po
rt o
f fo
rest
ry. K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
has
d
eter
min
ed t
hat
min
ing
is in
com
pat
ible
on
fo
rest
re
sou
rces
lan
ds.
Th
e C
ou
nty
may
no
t re
-des
ign
ate
th
e fi
ve f
ore
st r
eso
urc
es la
nd
par
cel a
s m
inin
g re
sou
rces
lan
d. T
he
com
p p
lan
pro
mo
tes
fore
stry
ab
ove
min
ing
and
do
es n
ot
trea
t th
em a
s co
mp
atib
le. T
hes
e G
MA
ru
les
for
fore
st r
eso
urc
e la
nd
s am
end
men
ts a
re r
epea
ted
in s
ub
stan
tial
ly s
imila
r fo
rm in
th
e K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
C
od
e.
•U
nd
er t
he
Kit
sap
Co
un
ty C
od
e, a
ny
par
cels
in m
iner
al r
eso
urc
e la
nd
s m
ust
be
at le
ast
20
acr
es in
siz
e, u
nle
ss t
he
enti
re p
arce
l is
use
d o
nly
fo
r ex
trac
tio
n. T
he
par
cels
are
sm
alle
r th
an 2
0 a
cres
, an
d d
o n
ot
qu
alif
y fo
r th
e m
iner
al d
esig
nat
ion
. Uel
and
’s d
evel
op
men
t ag
reem
ent
wit
h t
he
Co
un
ty d
oes
n
ot
effe
ctu
ate
a r
ezo
ne.
It p
rovi
des
th
at t
he
cou
nty
will
co
nsi
der
a p
oss
ible
re
zon
e. U
elan
d is
see
kin
g a
po
st h
oc
rezo
ne
ord
inan
ce. T
his
is a
vio
lati
on
of
Than
k yo
u f
or
this
co
mm
ent.
Th
e im
pac
ts a
sso
ciat
ed w
ith
th
e p
rop
ose
d q
uar
ry o
per
atio
ns
we
re e
valu
ate
d d
uri
ng
the
Stat
e En
viro
nem
tal P
olic
y A
ct (
SEP
A)
pro
cess
in 2
009
an
d
201
5 a
s p
art
of
the
con
dit
ion
al u
se p
erm
it p
roce
ss. T
he
resu
ltin
g e
nvi
ron
men
tal d
ocu
men
ts w
ere
chal
len
ged
an
d
det
erm
ined
to
be
adeq
uat
e b
y th
e co
urt
s. T
he
pro
po
sed
am
end
men
t d
oes
no
t m
od
ify
the
pre
vio
us
envi
ron
men
tal
do
cum
ents
an
d is
co
nsi
sten
t w
ith
th
e ap
pro
ved
co
nd
itio
nal
use
per
mit
an
d d
evel
op
men
t ag
reem
ent
bet
wee
n t
he
app
lican
t an
d K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
.
The
Min
eral
Res
ou
rce
Ove
rlay
zo
ne
do
es r
equ
ire
a m
inim
um
lot
size
of
20
acr
es u
nle
ss t
he
pro
per
ty is
use
d
for
extr
acti
on
(se
e K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
Co
de
Sect
ion
1
7.4
20.0
60
.A.3
0).
A b
asal
t q
uar
ry t
ota
ling
39.2
acr
es
was
ap
pro
ved
on
th
e si
te in
200
9 a
nd
20
15 v
ia a
co
nd
itio
nal
u
se p
erm
it. T
he
app
rove
d c
on
dit
ion
al u
se p
erm
it w
as
chal
len
ged
an
d d
eter
min
ed t
o b
e va
lid b
y th
e co
urt
s.
See
also
res
po
nse
#1
9.
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
3 o
f 4
8/1
7/2
018
201
8 C
om
pre
hen
sive
Pla
n A
men
dm
en
ts -
Pla
nn
ing
Co
mm
issi
on
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
- C
om
me
nt
Mat
rix
# N
ame
, Org
C
om
me
nt
Staf
f R
esp
on
se
the
Co
un
ty C
od
e’s
pro
ced
ure
s fo
r d
evel
op
men
t ag
reem
ents
. Re
zon
ing
fore
st
reso
urc
e la
nd
s is
no
t lik
e re
zon
ing
oth
er t
ypes
of
pro
per
ties
. •
Un
der
th
e G
MA
an
d t
he
Kit
sap
Co
un
ty C
od
e, f
ore
st r
eso
urc
e la
nd
s ar
ep
rese
rved
fo
r th
e lo
ng
term
. Th
ey c
ann
ot
be
rezo
ned
bec
ause
a m
ore
p
rofi
tab
le u
se p
rese
nts
itse
lf t
o t
he
lan
do
wn
er. U
ela
nd
an
d t
he
Co
un
ty h
ave
faile
d t
o m
ake
the
fin
din
gs r
equ
ired
un
der
th
e la
w t
o r
e-d
esig
nat
e t
hes
e fi
ve
par
cels
.
22.
Jack
Sta
nfi
ll,
Ch
ico
Cre
ek
Task
forc
e
Sum
mar
y o
f at
tach
ed c
om
men
t:
Will
yo
u p
leas
e ad
d K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
Sen
ior
Man
ager
, Sco
t D
ien
er's
Au
gust
23
, 2
017
em
ail (
bel
ow
) to
my
com
men
ts c
on
cern
ing
Pu
blic
Co
mm
ent
for
Uel
and
's S
ite-
Spec
ific
Co
mp
Pla
n A
men
dm
ent
18
-004
31?
Mr.
Die
ner
's s
tate
s, "
Ple
ase
no
te t
he
zon
ing
is n
ot
inco
rrec
t an
d h
as n
ot
bee
n r
evis
ite
d a
nyt
ime
rece
ntl
y, in
clu
din
g th
e 2
016
Co
mp
reh
ensi
ve P
lan
u
pd
ate.
Th
ere
is n
o e
rro
r in
th
e zo
nin
g, n
or
is t
her
e an
y p
lan
to
ch
ange
th
e zo
nin
g d
esig
nat
ion
(s).
"
Mr.
Die
ner
als
o w
rote
, "Fi
nal
ly, p
leas
e kn
ow
th
at t
he
Uel
and
Tre
e Fa
rm
min
ing
op
erat
ion
is v
este
d t
o t
he
cod
e u
nd
er w
hic
h it
was
su
bm
itte
d, s
o t
hat
ev
en a
dd
itio
nal
dev
elo
pm
ent
or
rest
rict
ion
s w
ere
pu
t in
pla
ce, t
hey
co
uld
n
ot
imp
act
wh
at h
as b
een
ap
pro
ved
."
The
Uel
and
pro
per
ty, t
hat
Mr.
Die
ner
res
po
nd
ed t
o m
e ab
ou
t w
ith
his
em
ail
men
tio
ned
ab
ove
, is
NO
T zo
ned
wit
h a
min
eral
re
sou
rce
ove
rlay
.
Than
k yo
u f
or
this
co
mm
ent.
In
20
16, t
he
Co
un
ty r
ecei
ved
a
req
ues
t fr
om
Uel
and
Tre
e Fa
rm t
o c
han
ge t
he
lan
d u
se
des
ign
atio
n a
nd
zo
nin
g cl
assi
fica
tio
n o
f si
x p
arce
ls (
per
mit
1
5-0
0522
) fr
om
Urb
an R
eser
ve t
o R
ura
l In
du
stri
al w
ith
a
Min
eral
Res
ou
rce
Ove
rlay
. Th
e B
oar
d o
f C
ou
nty
C
om
mis
sio
ner
s d
enie
d t
he
req
ues
t an
d in
stea
d
red
esig
nat
ed
th
e fi
ve p
arce
ls a
s R
ura
l Pro
tect
ion
wit
h a
M
iner
al R
eso
urc
e O
verl
ay in
acc
ord
ance
wit
h t
he
app
rove
d C
on
dit
ion
al U
se P
erm
it.
The
imp
acts
ass
oci
ated
wit
h t
he
pro
po
sed
qu
arry
o
per
atio
ns
we
re e
valu
ated
du
rin
g th
e St
ate
Envi
ron
emta
l P
olic
y A
ct (
SEP
A)
pro
cess
in 2
009
and
20
15 a
s p
art
of
the
con
dit
ion
al u
se p
erm
it p
roce
ss. T
he
resu
ltin
g en
viro
nm
enta
l do
cum
ents
we
re c
hal
len
ged
an
d
det
erm
ined
to
be
adeq
uat
e b
y th
e co
urt
s. T
he
pro
po
sed
am
end
men
t d
oes
no
t m
od
ify
the
pre
vio
us
envi
ron
men
tal
do
cum
ents
an
d is
co
nsi
sten
t w
ith
th
e co
nd
itio
ns
of
app
rova
l an
d d
evel
op
men
t ag
reem
ent
bet
we
en t
he
app
lican
t an
d K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
.
23.
Mar
k M
aure
n,
Uel
and
Tre
e Fa
rm L
LC
Sum
mar
y o
f O
ral T
esti
mo
ny
(7/1
7/20
18 a
nd
7/3
1/2
018
):
In r
esp
on
se t
o p
revi
ou
s co
mm
ents
•Th
e w
etla
nd
th
at J
ack
Stan
fill
men
tio
ned
ear
lier,
an
d t
he
bea
ver
dam
nar
e o
ne
in t
he
sam
e.
Than
k yo
u f
or
pro
vid
ing
add
itio
nal
info
rmat
ion
reg
ard
ing
the
en
viro
nm
enta
l do
cum
ents
an
d a
pp
rove
d C
on
dit
ion
al
Use
Per
mit
.
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
4 o
f 4
8/1
7/2
018
201
8 C
om
pre
hen
sive
Pla
n A
men
dm
en
ts -
Pla
nn
ing
Co
mm
issi
on
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
- C
om
me
nt
Mat
rix
# N
ame
, Org
C
om
me
nt
Staf
f R
esp
on
se
•Tr
ails
are
op
en t
o p
ub
lic a
s lo
ng
as t
hey
are
use
d f
or
recr
eati
on
alen
joym
ent
and
we
are
wo
rkin
g w
ith
th
e co
un
ty t
o g
et t
hat
fo
rmed
thro
ugh
an
eas
emen
t p
roce
ss.
•W
ent
thro
ugh
a C
on
dit
ion
al U
se P
erm
it p
roce
ss f
or
the
tw
o q
uar
ries
,an
d t
hey
we
re p
erm
itte
d. T
his
is a
dev
elo
pm
ent
agre
emen
t th
at w
en
tth
rou
gh a
hea
rin
g an
d p
roce
sse
s.
•D
isco
vere
d in
Co
nd
itio
nal
Use
Per
mit
pro
cess
th
at w
e w
eren
't a
ble
to
min
e u
nd
er f
ore
st r
eso
urc
e la
nd
. Rea
pp
lied
an
d it
was
su
gges
ted
to
do
am
iner
al r
eso
urc
e o
verl
ay.
•N
ot
exp
and
ing
the
site
s. L
egit
imiz
ing
wh
at h
as b
een
ap
pro
ved
. Wan
t a
min
eral
res
ou
rce
ove
rlay
wh
ich
is a
llow
ed
by
the
Gro
wth
man
agem
ent
act
and
co
un
ty c
om
pre
hen
sive
pla
n. T
ryin
g to
fo
llow
wh
at t
he
cou
nty
rule
s an
d r
egu
lati
on
s al
low
us
to d
o.
24.
Ber
nie
JM
W
Flem
ing,
P
riva
te
Lan
do
wn
er o
n
Dic
kers
on
C
reek
I am
co
nce
rned
ab
ou
t d
isru
pti
on
to
th
e gr
ou
nd
ab
ou
t th
e h
ead
wat
ers
of
Dic
kers
on
Cre
ek. I
no
te t
hat
th
e co
rner
of
the
up
per
mo
st lo
t ac
tual
ly t
ou
ches
th
ese
frag
ile w
etla
nd
s. A
nyt
hin
g d
on
e to
th
is c
reek
as
sho
wn
will
flo
w a
ll th
e w
ay d
ow
n t
o C
hic
o, w
her
e th
e co
un
ty h
as in
vest
ed h
eavi
ly in
res
tora
tio
n.
Than
k yo
u f
or
this
co
mm
ent.
Th
e im
pac
ts a
sso
ciat
ed w
ith
th
e p
rop
ose
d q
uar
ry o
per
atio
ns
we
re e
valu
ate
d d
uri
ng
the
Stat
e En
viro
nem
tal P
olic
y A
ct (
SEP
A)
pro
cess
in 2
009
an
d
201
5 a
s p
art
of
the
con
dit
ion
al u
se p
erm
it p
roce
ss. T
he
resu
ltin
g e
nvi
ron
men
tal d
ocu
men
ts w
ere
chal
len
ged
an
d
det
erm
ined
to
be
adeq
uat
e b
y th
e co
urt
s. T
he
pro
po
sed
am
end
men
t d
oes
no
t m
od
ify
the
pre
vio
us
envi
ron
men
tal
do
cum
ents
an
d is
co
nsi
sten
t w
ith
th
e co
nd
itio
ns
of
app
rova
l an
d d
evel
op
men
t ag
reem
ent
bet
we
en t
he
app
lican
t an
d K
itsa
p C
ou
nty
.
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Comment #19
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Comment #19
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Comment #19
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Comment #19
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Comment #19
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Comment #19
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Comment #19
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Comment #19
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101 ● 25 West Main, Suite 234, Spokane, WA 99201
(206) 264-8600 ● (877) 264-7220 ● www.bricklinnewman.com
Reply to: Seattle Office
July 30, 2018
VIA E-MAIL TO
Department of Community Development
614 Division St. – MS36
Port Orchard, WA 98366
RE: Public Comment for Site-specific Comp Plan Amendment 18-00431 (Ueland)
Dear DCD and Planning Commission:
On behalf our client, the Chico Creek Task Force, we submit the following public comment
regarding the proposed site-specific comprehensive plan amendment no. 18-00431 for Ueland
Tree Farm LLC.
The proposed site-specific comprehensive plan amendment should be denied. The proposed
amendment is forbidden by the Growth Management Act’s special protections for forest lands of
long-term commercial significance and by Kitsap County’s regulations for forest and mineral
resource lands.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ueland Tree Farm (“Ueland”) asks the County to amend its comprehensive plan map to change
the current designation of five tax parcels owned by Ueland. Currently, all five of these tax parcels
are designated “Forest Resource Land” in the comp plan. Ueland seeks to have the parcels re-
designated “Mineral Resource Overlay.”
According to Ueland’s comp plan amendment application, the five parcels, totaling 96.57 acres,
will eventually host a 39.2-acre basalt quarry. This basalt quarry, designated Quarry C, is one part
of a larger, multi-quarry project on the 1,646-acre Ueland Tree Farm.
Ueland has a conditional use permit and a development agreement with the County that allow
Ueland to have the multi-quarry project. However, neither of these documents creates a rezone or
change to the comp plan. The development agreement specifically says that the County agrees to
“consider” (not promise) an amendment to the comp plan to rezone or overlay any forest resource
land—but the County is not required to grant any such rezone or overlay.
Comment #21
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Public Comment of Chico Creek Task Force
Site-specific Comp Plan Amendment 18-00431
Page 2
Perhaps in an effort to conceal the true impact of its project, Ueland’s comp plan amendment
application misleadingly claims that “aggregate extractions sites” (such as basalt mining) are
permitted uses on both forest resource and mineral resource lands. In reality, aggregate extraction
sites are allowed on forest resource land only when the aggregate extraction site is “no greater than
two acres for the purpose of construction and maintenance of a timber management road system,
provided the total parcel is at least twenty acres.” KCC 17.410.050.A.4. In other words, forest
resource lands are not intended to be mined or graded, unless such mining or grading is necessary
for the practice of forestry. So, despite its misleading application, Ueland cannot have a basalt
mine on forest resource lands without an amendment to the comp plan that re-designates the
parcels as mineral resource overlay.
Ueland claims, in its application materials, that the 2016 update to the comp plan was intended to
re-designate these parcels mineral resource overlay. The only reason the 2016 update did not re-
designate the parcels, according to Ueland, was because the parcels were “accidentally dropped at
the last minute” from the comp plan update process due to staff change.
Ueland’s application offers no evidence that the five forest resource parcels were ever intended to
be re-designated as mineral resource overlay. Nor does Ueland offer any evidence that the re-
designation, if it ever existed, was “accidentally dropped at the last minute” from the comp plan
update process. Nor does Ueland offer any proof that staff change has any bearing on the parcels’
re-designation. These are all unsupported assertions.
Despite the lack of evidence for Ueland’s assertions, the County’s staff report accepted Ueland’s
narrative of the accidental drop. The County staff finds no violation of the comp plan, the comp
plan amendment process, or the land use code, and accordingly recommends approval of the
amendment.
II. VIOLATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: INITIAL
DESIGNATION OF FOREST RESOURCES LAND
The proposed amendment violates the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA has special
protections for forestlands of long-term commercial significance, which our state needs to support
the ailing timber industry. By re-designating Ueland’s forest resource lands as mineral resource
overlay lands, the proposed amendment unlawfully deprives these forestlands of their GMA
protection.
Under the GMA, “forest land” means land primarily devoted to growing trees for long-term
commercial timber production on land that can be economically and practically managed for such
production and that has long-term commercial significance. These lands are referred to in the GMA
as forest resource lands to distinguish between formally designated lands, and other lands used for
forestry purposes. WAC 365-190-030.
Comment #21
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Public Comment of Chico Creek Task Force
Site-specific Comp Plan Amendment 18-00431
Page 3
Counties planning under the GMA are required to formally designate forest resource lands when
they create their comp plans. WAC 365-190-040(2). Kitsap County began the process of
designating forest lands in 1992, with its “Strategies for Resource Lands Designations and Interim
Development Regulations” document. See Bremerton v. Kitsap County, GMHB No. 95-3-0039
(Final Decision and Order, Oct. 6, 1995). The process of designating forest resource lands in Kitsap
County was enormously contentious and resulted in multiple trips to the Growth Management
Hearings Board and the state courts. See generally, Manke Lumber Co. v. Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Hearings Bd., 113 Wn. App. 615, 53 P.3d 1011 (2002).
The five parcels at issue in this case were originally designated interim rural forest lands in the
1998 comp plan. But the 1998 comp plan was invalidated by the GMHB for failure to designate
any forest resource lands, as required by the GMA. In 1999, the County passed ordinance 229-
1999, designating forest resource lands within the county. See Screen v. Kitsap County, GMHB
No. 98-3-0032c (Order on Compliance, Oct. 11, 1999).
The five parcels were designated forest resource lands in Ord. No. 229-1999. In other words, these
five parcels have always been forest resource lands for as long as that category has existed in
Kitsap County.
Ueland now seeks to upset this carefully crafted, much-litigated designation by re-designating the
five parcels mineral resources overlay. However, the GMA makes clear that such a re-designation
would be unlawful.
When counties classify lands as forest resource lands, they “must approach the effort as a county-
wide or regional process…Counties and cities should not review forest resource lands designations
solely on a parcel-by-parcel basis.” WAC 365-190-060(1). Yet a parcel-by-parcel review of these
five forest resource lands parcels is exactly what Ueland asks the County to do.
The only way a county can amend a forest resource lands designation is if there has been one or
more of the following:
(i) A change in circumstances pertaining to the comprehensive plan
or public policy related to designation criteria in WAC 365-190-
050(3), 365-190-060(2), and 365-190-070(3);
(ii) A change in circumstances to the subject property, which is
beyond the control of the landowner and is related to designation
criteria in WAC 365-190-050(3), 365-190-060(2), and 365-190-
070(3);
(iii) An error in designation or failure to designate;
(iv) New information on natural resource land or critical area status
related to the designation criteria in WAC 365-190-050(3), 365-
190-060(2), and 365-190-070(3); or
Comment #21
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Public Comment of Chico Creek Task Force
Site-specific Comp Plan Amendment 18-00431
Page 4
(v) A change in population growth rates, or consumption rates,
especially of mineral resources.
WAC 365-190-040(10)(b).
These GMA rules for forest resource lands amendments are repeated in substantially similar form
in the Kitsap County Code. KCC 21.08.070.D.4.b. The Kitsap County Code adds the additional
requirement that “any proposed change to land designated as natural resource land shall recognize
that natural resource designations are intended to be long-term designations.”
Ueland has invoked the rules’ third exception, claiming that the “initial designation” was in error.
The County’s staff report also relies on a supposed “initial designation” error. In both cases, the
claimed error is the County’s supposed last-minute, accidental dropping of the five parcels from
the 2016 comp plan update process. As described above, there is no evidence that any such error
actually occurred.
More importantly, as a matter of law, even if there had been an accidental dropping of the five
parcels, that still would not constitute an error in “initial designation.” These five parcels were not
designated forest resource lands in 2016 during the comp plan update. They were designated forest
resource lands in 1999, in accordance with the GMHB’s orders. If Ueland and the County want to
claim an error in the parcel’s initial designation as forest resource lands, that is the moment they
must point to. By 2016, the parcels had already carried this initial designation for 17 years.1
The GMHB has ruled that landowners wishing to claim mistaken designation of forest resource
lands must do so at the time the “mistaken” designation occurs—especially if, as here, the
landowner first logs the forest land and then turns around and claims that the forest land’s
designation as forest land was a mistake. Forster Woods Homeowners’ Ass’n. v. King County,
GMHB No. 01-3-0008c, n. 5 (Final Decision and Order, Nov. 6, 2001) (“To advance such an
argument at this time is ironic, if not disingenuous.”). It is far too late for Ueland to claim there
has been any error in initial designation of these five parcels. The comp plans and planning
documents of the 1990s were litigated ad nauseam. Ueland should have brought his claim of error
during that litigation, or if he came to the land after the 1990s, he should have performed due
diligence on the zoning of the land prior to his purchase.
Because Ueland and the County do not claim any other basis for re-designating these five parcels
besides the factually and legally erroneous claim that there was a mistake in the parcels’ initial
designation, the proposed comp plan amendment must be denied.
1 In fact, Ueland itself harvested these parcels in 2016, replanted Douglas-fir on the parcels, and indicated to DNR at
that time that Ueland was not planning to convert the parcels to non-forest use within the next three years. See DNR,
Forest Practices Application No. 2418465, dated Feb. 29, 2016. In other words, Ueland itself has treated these parcels
as forest resource lands, just as the comp plan says they are.
Comment #21
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Public Comment of Chico Creek Task Force
Site-specific Comp Plan Amendment 18-00431
Page 5
III. VIOLATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: MINING
IS AN INCOMPATIBLE USE OF FOREST RESOURCES LAND
When counties are designating natural resource lands, it is possible that a forest resource land may
also be a mineral resource land. Under such circumstances, the County must decide if the two uses
are incompatible. If they are incompatible, the County must decide which of the competing uses
is more important and assign the land to that use. WAC 365-190-040(7)(b). See Weyerhauser v.
Thurston County, GMHB No. 10-2-0020c (Compliance Order, July 17, 2012).
As described earlier, the Kitsap County Code does not allow mining on forest resources land,
except under limited circumstances in support of forestry. Thus, Kitsap County has determined
that mining is incompatible on forest resources lands. In fact, the 2016 comp plan specifically
allows forestry to occur on mineral resource lands, but does not provide for mining to occur on
forest resource lands. Compare Land Use Policy No. 83 (forestry allowed in mineral lands) with
Land Use Goal No. 15 (saying nothing about allowing mining in forestry lands).
Because Kitsap County has determined that forestry and mining are incompatible, and that forestry
is the higher use, the County may not re-designate the five forest resources land parcel as mining
resources land.
Nor may the County rely on Ueland’s promise to restore the land after basalt mining is complete.
First, it is far from clear that land that has been mined for basalt even can be restored to commercial
forest production. Second, Ueland’s 2009 FEIS states that Quarry C will operate for at least 22
years (2037-2059). Following that, there will be a one-year reclamation period. See FEIS at 1-12.
Even assuming there will be perfect reforestation following reclamation, an assumption for which
there is no evidence, forestry operations would be disrupted for 23 years at the very least—and the
disruption would actually be much longer, since Douglas-fir typically takes around 40 years after
planting to reach merchantable size. Re-designating the five parcels means the end of timber
production for the rest of our lifetimes, assuming timber can ever return to land that has been
quarried for basalt.
These parcels are forests of long-term commercial significance. Under the GMA regulations, long-
term commercial significance means maintaining forestry on these parcels for the next 20 years.
WAC 365-190-030(11). Yet instead of maintaining forestry for decades, Ueland proposes to
displace forestry for decades—and possibly permanently, if reforestation does not succeed, which
there is no evidence that it will.
IV. VIOLATION OF THE KITSAP COUNTY CODE: COMP PLAN
COMPATIBILITY
One of the criteria for granting a site-specific comp plan amendment is that the proposed
amendment must be “consistent with the balance of the goals, policies and objectives of the Kitsap
County Comprehensive Plan and reflects the local circumstances of the county.” KCC
21.08.070.D.1.b.
Comment #21
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Public Comment of Chico Creek Task Force
Site-specific Comp Plan Amendment 18-00431
Page 6
As described above, the comp plan promotes forestry above mining and does not treat them as
compatible.
The County’s staff report considers only language in the comp plan promoting mining in general
under Land Use Goal 15 and its associated policies. The staff report does not once consider the
very next section of the comp plan, Land Use Goal 16, which shows that forestry is a more
preferred use than mining.
The County’s failure to balance (or even consider) forestry against mining is a violation of KCC
21.08.070.D.1.b. A proper balancing analysis would reveal that forest resource lands must stay in
forestry production, not be converted to mining.
V. VIOLATION OF THE KITSAP COUNTY CODE: PARCEL SIZES
Under the Kitsap County Code, any parcels in mineral resource lands must be at least 20 acres in
size, unless the entire parcel is used only for extraction. KCC 17.420.060.A.30.
The staff report claims that four of the five parcels each have an area of 20 acres. This is incorrect.
The true acreages, according to County property records, are as follows:
242401-4-005-1008: 19.61 acres.
242401-4-006-1007: 19.63 acres.
242401-4-007-1006: 19.64 acres.
242401-4-008-1005: 19.66 acres.
192401-3-005-2005: 16.27 acres.
Total: 94.81 acres.
Thus, the parcels are smaller than 20 acres, and do not qualify for the mineral designation.
According to Ueland’s application, the total mining area across the five parcels will be 39.2 acres.
But this demonstrates that the entirety of the parcels will not be used for extraction. It is a violation
of the County Code to designate parcels smaller than 20 acres for mineral resource overlay, if
portions of the parcels have no mining purpose.
VI. VIOLATION OF THE KITSAP COUNTY CODE: CONCURRENT
REZONE
As described earlier, Ueland’s development agreement with the County does not effectuate a
rezone. It merely provides that the county will consider a possible rezone. Yet the County Code
on development agreements says that “If the proposal requires a zoning map change, the zoning
change shall be adopted by ordinance concurrently with the resolution approving the development
agreement.” KCC 21.04.220.E.
Comment #21
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
Public Comment of Chico Creek Task Force
Site-specific Comp Plan Amendment 18-00431
Page 7
Here, there was never any concurrent rezone ordinance. Instead, Ueland is seeking a post hoc
rezone ordinance. This is a violation of the County Code’s procedures for development
agreements. Ueland should have sought this rezone at the time the agreement was signed. The
County has no obligation—and would in fact be violating the County Code on development
agreements—to grant it now.
VII. CONCLUSION
Rezoning forest resource lands is not like rezoning other types of properties. Under the GMA and
the Kitsap County Code, forest resource lands are preserved for the long term. They cannot be
rezoned merely because some other, more profitable use presents itself to the landowner. Ueland
and the County have failed to make the findings required under the law to re-designate these five
parcels. The Planning Commission should reject the proposed comp plan amendment.
Very truly yours,
BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP
Alex Sidles
Attorney for Chico Creek Task Force
cc: Client
Comment #21
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
This page intentionally left blank.
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
8/8/2018 FW: Zoning Incorrect?
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/4
Hi Rhea,Will you please add the items referenced below to the public comment submi�ed by Mr. Stanfill. Please let me knowif you have ques�ons on what to include.Thanks,Liz
From: Liz Williams Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 5:16 PM To: Louisa Garbo <[email protected]>; Jack Stanfill <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Sco� Diener <[email protected]>; alison<[email protected]>; Peggy Cahill <[email protected]>; Bob Buck <[email protected]>; Tim Li�le<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dianne Iverson <[email protected]>; [email protected];david nelson <[email protected]>; Sco� Diener <[email protected]>; Dave Ward<[email protected]> Subject: RE: Zoning Incorrect?
Hi Jack,
This message is to verify that we will add the informa�on referenced below to your public comment regardingproposed amendment 18-00431.
Thanks,
Liz WilliamsPlannerPlanning and Environmental ProgramsKitsap County Department of Community Development(360)337-5777 ext. [email protected]
From: Louisa Garbo Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 8:17 AM To: Jack Stanfill <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Sco� Diener <[email protected]>; alison<[email protected]>; Peggy Cahill <[email protected]>; Bob Buck <[email protected]>; Tim Li�le<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dianne Iverson <[email protected]>; [email protected];david nelson <[email protected]>; Sco� Diener <[email protected]>; Liz Williams<[email protected]>; Dave Ward <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Zoning Incorrect?
FW: Zoning Incorrect?
Reply all |
COMP Plan Public Comments
LW Liz Williams Yesterday, 8:52 AM
Rhea Canas
Reply all | Delete Junk |
Comment #22
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
8/8/2018 FW: Zoning Incorrect?
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/projection.aspx 2/4
Thank you for your comment. I will have Liz Williams, the case planner to provide you with clarity.Sincerely,Louisa
From: Jack Stanfill <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2018 10:30 PM To: Louisa Garbo <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Sco� Diener <[email protected]>; alison<[email protected]>; Peggy Cahill <[email protected]>; Bob Buck <[email protected]>; Tim Li�le<[email protected]>; Jack Stanfill <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dianne Iverson<[email protected]>; [email protected]; david nelson <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Zoning Incorrect?
Dear Director Garbo,
Will you please add Kitsap County Senior Manager, Scot Diener's August 23, 2017 email (below) tomy comments concerning Public Comment for Ueland's Site-Specific Comp Plan Amendment 18-00431?
Mr. Diener's states, "Please note the zoning is not incorrect and has not been revisited anytimerecently, including the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update. There is no error in the zoning, nor isthere any plan to change the zoning designation(s)."
Mr. Diener also wrote, "Finally, please know that the Ueland Tree Farm mining opera�on is vested to thecode under which it was submi�ed, so that even addi�onal development or restric�ons were put inplace, they could not impact what has been approved."
The Ueland property, that Mr. Diener responded to me about with his email men�oned above, is NOTzoned with a mineral resource overlay.
Thank you for your help with this, and I hope someone at DCD will respond that these comments have beenadded to the comments for Ueland's 18-00431.
Best Regards,
Jack Stanfill, President - Registered AgentChico Creek Task Force
2461 Northlake Way NWBremerton WA 98312
From: Sco� Diener <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:50 AM To: Jack Stanfill ([email protected])
Reply all | Delete Junk |
Comment #22
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
8/8/2018 FW: Zoning Incorrect?
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/projection.aspx 3/4
Cc: Edward E. Wolfe; Charlo�e Garrido; Robert Gelder; Louisa Garbo; Jim Bolger; Eric Baker; 'Mark Mauren'; JoshFarley; [email protected]; [email protected]; Christopher Dunagan Subject: FW: Zoning Incorrect?
Jack:
Kitsap County has considered your email of July 21, 2017. The County certainly understands your desire to remainvigilant about natural systems in your area. To help you understand more we have prepared addi�onal informa�on. Please note this response does not address any of the area that is under the City of Bremerton’s jurisdic�on.
Please note the zoning is not incorrect and has not been revisited any�me recently including during the 2016Comprehensive Plan update. There is no error in the zoning, nor is there any plan to change the zoningdesigna�on(s).
As to the ‘green’ or ‘protec�on zone’ which was outlined during the collabora�ve Gorst Subarea planning processwith the City of Bremerton, please be aware that the ‘planning tool designa�on’ was a recommenda�on and was notgiven any subsequent legisla�ve, regulatory or code-based standing by any agency or jurisdic�on. There are no plansat this �me to revisit the Gorst Subarea Plan or its findings. However, if you wish to gain momentum with yourrequest for future considera�on, you may wish to consult with the landowner (requests to impose developmentrestric�ons on another’s land are o�en easier to support if the landowner agrees).
Finally, please know that the Ueland Tree Farm mining opera�on is vested to the code under which it was submi�ed,so that even if addi�onal development regula�ons or restric�ons were put into place, they could not impact what hasbeen approved.
We hope that this email informs you more of the circumstances of the area and the nonbinding recommenda�ons ofthe Gorst Subarea Plan. Please feel free to contact me if you have further ques�ons.
Regards,
Sco� Diener
Manager, Development Services and Engineering SEPA Responsible Official
Dept of Community Development
Kitsap County
614 Division St, MS-36
Port Orchard, WA 98366
t: 360-337-5777
f: 360-337-4415
//kitsapgov.com/DCD
Please note: All incoming and outgoing email messages are public records subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW.
From: Jack Stanfill <[email protected]> Date: July 21, 2017 at 10:37:46 AM PDT To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Reply all | Delete Junk |
Comment #22
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2
8/8/2018 FW: Zoning Incorrect?
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/projection.aspx 4/4
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, Bob Buck <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, Christopher Dunagan <[email protected]> Subject: Zoning Incorrect?
Dear Commissioners,
We are concerned with the current zoning of the Heins Basin that includes all of theUTF Quarry B, and about half of Quarry C. Since the original FEIS in 2009, theWashington Department of Ecology has designated that portion of the Heins Basin as a"Green Zone".
Kitsap County has it zoned for urban development with a mineral overlay. Thisappears to be in conflict with the allowed uses of the uphill property. We seek toensure this area is protected per WDOE regulations. What do we need to do to starta progressive action with the County to make this happen?
Thank you,
Jack Stanfill
Reply all | Delete Junk |
Comment #22
CPA 18-00431 Ueland Tree Farm LLC Attachment C2