03/08/2001 - Work Study - MinutesPort Orchard, Washington
March 8, 2001
Port Orchard City Council and Kitsap County Commissioner Jan Angel, called to order for a Joint Study Session
by Councilman John Clauson at 7:30PM at City Hall, 216 Prospect Street.
Council members present: Carolyn Powers, Warren VanZee, John Clauson and Tom Stansbery.
Staff present: City Engineer Curies, City Planner Wen man, and Deputy Clerk Merlino.
Councilman Clauson opened the meeting up for discussion and welcomed those present and stated the
purpose of this meeting is to hear a presentation of the "Anderson Hill/Berry Lake Community Survey Results-
Final Report'' by Cascadia Planning Service. The initial survey was conducted last fall for the purpose of
inviting public input from property owners and residents regarding future land use and development decisions
that are being considered in this area.
City Planner Wen man presented a map (Attachment "PI') depicting the South Kitsap Joint Planning Area relative to
the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area and outlined the project/survey objectives as follows:
• To better understand residents' perceptions about the areas character;
• To better understand residents' preferences for the future of the area;
• To identify and clarify key issues of neighborhood concerns;
• To determine residents' support for additional services or improvements;
• To better understand residents' attitudes toward growth and development in the area; and
• To identify the most effective means of communicating with residents about planning efforts.
City Planner also presented a listing of the South Kitsap Urban Joint Planning Area Chronology of Event starting
with the year 1977 and continuing through the year 2000. (Attachment "B")
Eric Toews and Dave Robison of Cascadia Community Planning Services presented the results and reviewed the
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake Community Survey. (Attachment "C")
At this time of the meeting, Councilman Clauson asked for audience comments.
Jerry Harless, 3931 Lieseke Lane SW, stated the majority of the residents would like the area to remain the same.
A Memorandum of Agreement is not necessary; the people of the community have spoken and want the area to
remain the same.
Steve Berg, 1364 SW Old Clifton Road, stated he enjoys the rural atmosphere of the area, does not want to be
part of the city, has a private well and water system and does not need city services.
Patricia Strewey, 1693 SW Hanson Road, stated the reason they picked this community was because it was
zoned rural. Ms. Strewey also questioned what will happen to her live stock and reconfirmed that she does not
want to be part of the city.
Debbie Sulkosky, 982 SW Berry Lake Road, expressed a concern about the expenses for hooking into the
water/sewer lines.
Helen Haven-Saunders, 3353 Anderson Hill Road SW, questioned why the city has focused population growth
from east Port Orchard to the Anderson Hill area; and suggested the city survey all of the potential growth areas
before the city focuses on one specific area.
Mach 8, 2001
Page 2 of 2
Nick Penovich, 2713 Anderson Hill Road SW, would like more information from the city, specifically regarding cost
of hooking up to city water and sewer services; can residents have live stock in the city.
City Engineer Curies, clarified some of the audience concerns regarding live stock and water/sewer hook up within
the city. Yes, citizens can have live stock in Port Orchard as long as you have a yard large enough to
accommodate them; and no, citizens do not have to hook-up into the city water/sewer service, unless your system
has failed or you need to expand your drain field. City Engineer Curies also stressed to the audience this issue is
not an annexation issue, it is a joint planning area between Kitsap County and the city and the two jurisdictions are
trying to help this community determine what is the best way to help with their future planning.
Lene' Price, 3427 SW Anderson Hill Road, expressed a concern with wells going dry. What happens when
developers bring in wells to serve multiple residents. Councilman Clauson advised the State requires major
studies prepared to determine how these wells will effect each other and streams in the area.
Larry Durfey, 1800 Durfey's Lane, spoke in opposition to any major growth in the area and would like the area to
remain the same.
Steve Inman, 346 Berry Lake Road, spoke in favor of urban growth and development in the area, would like to see
city utilities in the area.
Ardelle Mueller, 1861 SW Hansen Road, expressed a concern with the watershed area being destroyed by
development however, would like to see a public water system in the area.
At 9:20 PM Councilman Clauson thanked those present and adjourned meeting.
'~WJlg~, •c=
Mtchelle Merlino, Deputy Clerk lESLiE:WEATHERILL, MAYOR
'
BERRY LAKE/ ANDERSON IIILL STUDY .AREA
DISCUSSION
South Kitsap UJP A Chronology of Events
1977 -County Comprehensive Plan adopted .. The Plan establishes land use Plan
designations for Urban and Rural. Limits rural base density to one dwelling unit per 2.5
acres of land. A density of one dwelling unit per acre is permissible as a Rural PUD
under zoning provisions in place at that time; subject to provisions for retaining open
space and buffers.
(McCormick Woods is 011 example of a Rural PUD.)
1986-Kitsap County approves the development proposal of "McCormick Woods",
encompassing 1200 dwelling units, a golf course & clubhouse. Average density is one
dwelling unit per acre, with over 50% openspace provided.
(This property is now designated as 011 Urb011 Growth Boundary.)
1990 -The State Legislature passes the Growth Management Act, establishing guidelines
for managing growth.
1993 -Utility Local Improvement District No. 6 is approved, allowing extension of
sewer by the City of Port Orchard to McCormick Woods, and adjacent 620 acre parcel
to the west, and 448 acre parcel to the north.
(This sewer transmission line crosses through the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake UJPA.)
1994-Campus Station is approved as a Planned Unit Development, encompassing 448
dwelling units, a park-n-ride facility, and a 32 acre satellite college campus site.
Average density is one dwelling unit per acre with over 50% openspace. The site is
located north of McCormick Woods PUD.
(This property is now designated as a Urb011 Growth Area.)
1994 -Kitsap County adopts Revised Comprehensive Plan. Plan is appealed, and
declared "Invalid" by the State Growth Management Hearings Board.
1995 -City of Bremerton converts Anderson Hill parcel from municipal watershed to
Industrial/Residential/Openspace. Northwest Corporate Campus is allowed to be
considered as a development application. Encompassing 65 acres of Business Park, and
203 residential dwelling units. (This project is currently under construction.)
1995 -City of Port Orchard adopts revised Comprehensive Plan.
(The City Comprehensive Plan establishes growth projections out to the year 2014.)
1996 -Port Orchard Industrial Park approved
1996-Sidney/Sedgwick intersection area annexed into City of Port Orchard.
Chronology of Events -Continued
Page2
1997-Kitsap County approves McCormick Woods Conference Center.
1998 -Kitsap County adopts revised Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is found to be "in-
compliance" with the requirements of the Growth Management Act by the State Growth
Hearings Board. McCormick Woods, aud Campus Station are designated as Urban
Growth Areas. McCormick West, aud the Berry Lake/Anderson Hill area are
established as au "Urban Reserve -within the South Kitsap Urban Joint Planning Area,
SKUJPA; pending the resolution of outstanding issues.
(A Joint Planning Area Overlay is placed on the area to facilitate and coordinate
planning for this area. Primary issues to be resolved through the joint planning process
include: population allocations/reallocations; planned urban densities and land uses;
provisions for protection for critical areas; adequacy of and plans for services and
capital facilities; and service agreements with affected special districts.)
1998 -City of Port Orchard adopts revised Zoning Ordinance aud Zoning Map, in
conformance with 1995 adopted Comprehensive Piau.
1999 -City of Port Orchard adopts Critical Area Ordinance, aud Stormwater Ordinance.
(Both of these ordinances are consistent with Kitsap County's CAO, and Stormwater
Ordinance.)
2000 -City of Bremerton approves Development Agreement Phase 1 & Phase 2 of
Northwest Corporate Campus, encompassing 65 acres of business park development.
Construction of roads aud extension of facilities expected immediately.
2000-Population within Port Orchard's City limits reaches approximately 7,300
residents. Average annualized growth rate is approximately 3.68 percent since 1990.
Current City of Port Orchard total population now exceeds the City 1995 Comprehensive
Plan projected year 2010 population of 7 ,348.
Summary Report:
Results of the
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
March 2001
Prepared by:
CASCADIA Community Planning Services for:
The City of Port Orchard, Washington
and Kitsap County, Washington
Introduction
In 1998, Kitsap County adopted its Comprehensive Plan, as required by the Washington State
Growth Management Act. The 1998 plan designated lands as either rural, resource or urban
areas to manage growth and development in Kitsap County through the year 2012. The
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake Area was designated urban reserve ( 1 unit per 1 0 acres) and identified
as an "Urban Joint Planning Area" (UJP A) overlay. A UJP A indicates that future planning is
necessary to address land use, capital facility and service issues.
I. Survey Purpose
To begin to address the unresolved issues of the UJP A designation the City of Port Orchard and
Kitsap County agreed to conduct a household survey to gauge residents' attitudes and preferences
about the future growth of the area. During the County's Comprehensive Plan process, a variety
of opinions were expressed from the residents of the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area. The survey
sought to identify resident's values and opinions about a variety of land use policy issues as they
affect the Anderson Hili!Berry Lake JP A. The results of the survey provide City and County
officials with baseline information useful in determining how to proceed with future planning for
the area.
The objectives of the survey included the following:
• To better understand residents' perceptions about the area's character;
• To better understand residents' preferences for the future of the area;
• To identify and clarify key issues of neighborhood concern;
• To determine residents' support for additional services or improvements;
• To better understand residents' attitudes toward growth and development in the area; and
• To identify the most effective means of communicating with residents about planning efforts.
II. Survey Methodology
Survey Design
CASCADIA Community Planning Services developed the survey with assistance from City of
Port Orchard and Kitsap County staff. City and County staff reviewed maps and planning data
with the consultant team and conducted a windshield inventory of the area in order to better
identify issues facing the community. A Community Workshop was held on July 31,2000 to
inform area residents of the nature, scope and objectives of the survey process and to solicit
resident's help in further identifying key issues of neighborhood concern. Approximately 40
residents participated in the Community Workshop. Based on the information and issues
identified by staff and workshop participants, the consultant team prepared a statistical survey to
be mailed to all landowners in the UJP A. The survey instrument was pre-tested by City staff and
refined. Prior to mailing of the survey, both County and City staff reviewed and approved the
survey format and questions. The survey was mailed on October 10, 2000 with a return deadline
ofNovember 1, 2000.
Anderson HiiVBerry Lake
Community Survey
I of I3 Swnmary Report
March 5, 200 I
Survey Sample
The survey target population is residents in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area. The survey was
mailed to 299 property owners in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake neighborhood, based on County
Tax Assessor's records. Two surveys were returned due to bad addresses, resulting in a sample
size of297 surveys. One hundred and five (1 05) surveys were returned, for a response rate of
35.35%. However, only 94 of the returned surveys had been received at the time the statistical
results were tabulated. Eleven (11) surveys were received after the tabulation of the responses.
As a result, the response percentages provided in this report are based upon the initial 94 surveys,
for a final response rate of31.65%. The eleven surveys received late have been tabulated and
are included in the preliminary results presented in Appendix A.
Data Processing
Data processing consisted of coding and entering quantitative and qualitative responses from the
returned surveys. Data processing, analysis and cross tabulations involved the use of Stata 6.0
(statistical software program). Descriptive statistics were generated from the survey responses in
the form of frequencies and percentages. Graphics and public presentation materials were
produced using Excel and Powerpoint software programs. Missing, incomplete data and those
who abstained or objected were taken into account. For this reason, percentages sometimes do
not add up to 100.
Margin of Error
There are typically four sources of error to be concerned about when conducting a household
mail survey.
1. Coverage error occurs when the survey does not reach at least a sample of all elements of
the study population. Coverage error should not be a concern in this survey because the
survey was mailed to all property owners in the JP A; however, because the survey was
mailed only to property owners, based on tax assessor records, the survey most likely
missed renters living in the area. In addition, it is possible that some property owners
may have been missed if they had purchased property in the area since the last tax
assessor update (typically every six months) or due to inaccurate tax assessor's mailing
addresses.
2. Sampling error occurs when only a sample of the population is sampled instead of
conducting a census. Sampling error should also not be a concern because the survey
was sent to every property owner in the area.
3. Measurement error occurs when a respondent's answer to a given question is inaccurate,
imprecise, or cannot be compared to other respondents' answers. Measurement error can
occur because of the questionnaire, the survey method, and the respondent. This type of
error was minimized within the survey by providing respondents with the option to
abstain from a question if they did not understand it or required more information to
respond. However, on Questions #6 and #7 some respondents had difficulty ranking each
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Commtmity Survey
2ofl3 Summary Report
March 5, 2001
of the characteristics or issues on a 1 to 5 scale. Question #18 also has reliability issues,
as the majority of respondents marked either "other," "not applicable" or "abstain."
However, band-written comments related to Question #16 generally indicated that the
respondent confusion was with which box to check (i.e., most respondents did not have
children or the children were in college or bad moved away). In addition, several
questions in the survey were open-ended, inviting a respondent to write more detailed
qualitative responses. These responses are analyzed and summarized in Appendix A.
Please note that the open-ended questions received much lower response rates than the
coded questions, and are therefore more difficuh to measure.
4. Non-response error occurs when a significant number of people do not respond to the
survey and are different from those who do in a way that is important to the study. When
reviewing the results it is important to consider whether non-respondents' answers would
be distributed in a similar fashion. For example, Table 7 (see page 11, below) shows
attitudes toward growth and development broken down by sub-area of the survey area.
The actual number of respondents for each sub-area is small and may not be
representative of the sub-area as a whole. In addition, as discussed earlier, because the
survey was mailed to property owners it is apparent there is an under representation of
renters.
It must be kept in mind that survey research cannot predict the future. The survey has some
statistical limitations because the survey was sent to every property owner in the UJP A, as
opposed to a selecting a random sample (or control group), so a margin of error is difficult to
estimate. Although the response rate was good for a mail survey, it must be emphasized that the
respondents were self-selected and not drawn from a random sample. There is also evidence
that several people filled out their surveys together, causing potential bias in some of the
responses. Six survey forms bad the exact answers and same comments suggesting that the
respondents' answers were probably not independent and could be biased toward a certain
outcome. Thus, these results should be interpreted only as representing the views of the
respondents at the time they were surveyed
III. Survey Report: Summary of Findings
The survey instrument was comprised of26 questions and is included as Appendix B. Appendix
A includes total percentage responses and summarized answers to the survey's open-ended
questions. The following summary of findings is taken from the tabulated resuhs of the mail
survey.
Who Responded?
Respondents were asked a series of demographic questions (Survey Questions # 18 -#23) in
order to obtain more information on residents' tenure, places of work and where their children
attend school Typical demographic information on age, gender, household size and income was
not asked in the survey.
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
3 of 13 Summary Report
March 5, 200 I
The majority of respondents (68%) identifY themselves as living in the Anderson Hill Road and
Berry Lake Road areas. The actual distribution of respondents' residences is shown in Table I.
Table 1: Where Respondents Live
Area Frequency Percent Cumulative
Anderson Hill Rd 33 35.11% 36.17%
Berry Lake Rd. 30 31.91% 68.09%
Old Clifton Rd. 15 15.96% 84.04%
Outside Anderson Hill/Berry Lake 12 12.77% 96.81%
Abstain 2 2.13% 98.94%
Object 1 2.12% 100%
Total 94 100%
As indicated above, twelve respondents (or 13%) live outside of the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
area and are assumed to be absentee property owners.
Chart I illustrates that the majority of the respondents have lived in the area for over 10 years,
with 38% of the total respondents having lived in the area for over 20 years.
Chart 1: Years lived In the Area
9% 1%
38%
E'1 Less than 1 year
•1-5 years
DS-10 years
011-20 years
•over 20 years
li!!IAbstain
Table 2 shows that the majority of respondents expect to remain in the area indefinitely.
Comments written on surveys and answers to open-ended questions give the impression that a
majority of the respondents are retired. Other findings from the demographic questions indicate
that most respondents do not have children living at home and that virtually all respondents
(except those who abstained) are property owners.
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
4 ofl3 Summary Report
March 5, 2001
Table 2: How Long Residents Expect to Remain
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Less than 3 years 9 9.57% 9.57%
3-10 years 16 17.02% 26.60%
Indefinitely 55 58.51% 85.11%
Abstain 13 13.83% 98.94%
Object 1 1.06% 100%
Total 94 100%
Reason for Moving In or Out of the Area
Respondents were asked three questions about what they thought attracted people to the
neighborhood as a place to live and why they thought people might move away. In terms of
what brought each respondent to the area, Chart 3 shows that over 25% of the residents were
either born or raised in the area. A significant portion (15%) of respondents came to the area
because of friends and/or family. Almost one-quarter (23%) were attracted to the area for
reasons of employment. Many respondents also cited the natural environment as a significant
factor attracting people to the neighborhood (18%).
Chart 2: Reasons Bringing Res.idents To Area
Buslness,job opportunity
Family, friends
Born here, raised II ere
Natural envlronm ent
Housing affor<lablllty
Respondents were also asked why people move into and out of the area. Results summarized in
Table 3 show that 38% of the respondents indicated the area's location, "close to shopping and
jobs, yet rural in character," was a primary reason for moving to the area. Rural lifestyle and the
cost of living are also important factors attracting people to the area. There is a significant
relationship between people moving to the area for a rural lifestyle and respondents' perception
that people move out of the area due to growth and change and a loss of the area's rural character
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
5 ofl3 Summary Report
March 5, 200 I
( 41% ). The lack of living wage jobs was also identified as an important reason for people
moving out of the area (28%).
Table 3: Reasons for Moving In or Out of the Area
Move To Area Leave Area
Cost of living 25.53% 4.26%
Location 38.30% 1.06%
Jobs/Lack of 2.13% 27.66%
Rural lifestyle/Loss of 25.53% 41.49%
Other 3.19% 14.89%
Abstain 5.32% 10.64%
Perceptions of Neighborhood Character
Respondents were asked several questions about their perceptions of the neighborhood, what
they like about living there, environmental concerns, and what they think is the most important
issue facing the community.
Results in Chart 3 illustrate that the majority of respondents characterize the area as rural, but
changing to suburban. Almost 30% feel that the area is rural in character.
Chart:S: Area Charactaril!:ation
lSI Rural
•Rural changing to suburban
CISuburban
Cl Urban
•Abstain
Respondents were then asked to rank the most important neighborhood characteristics. A
significant plurality of respondents (3 7%) feel that rural residential character, such as the ability
to keep farm animals is the most important neighborhood characteristic, followed by
convenience to highways (29%). On the other hand, over 27% of the respondents feel that
convenience to highways, such as highway 16 and 3 is least important as a neighborhood
characteristic.
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
6ofl3 Summary Report
March 5, 2001
Table 4: Importance of Neighborhood Characteristics
Rural Residential Character
Sense of community
Affordability
Open space and wildlife habitat
convenience to highways
Most Important Least Important
37.23% 19.15%
2.13% 21.28%
7.45%
22.34%
28.72%
7.45%
9.57%
27.66%
Another way to interpret the results to this question (Question #6 in the survey) is to total the top
two rankings (rank 1: most important and rank 2: important) for a total percentage. The results
of simply adding the top two rankings (most important and important) are as follows:
Important Neighborhood Characteristics:
• Open space and habitat area 55%
• Rural residential character 50%
• Convenience to transportation 40%
• Affordability 30%
• Sense of community 9%
Respondents were then asked to rank, on a scale of 1 to 5 (most important to least important) to
identify the environmental issues that may jeopardize the quality of life in the area. Forty-two
percent (42 %) ofthe respondents identified traffic as the most significant environmental issue.
When the total percentage of the top 2 rankings is added together (most important and
important) the percentage totals are as follows:
Significant Environmental Issues:
• Traffic 53%
• Water quality 47%
• Habitat loss 45%
• Landslides & erosion 15%
• Flooding and stormwater 9%
Weak relationships exist between the important neighborhood characteristics, the most
significant environmental issue facing the area and what "special places" should be protected.
An open-ended question asked respondents to identify the "special places" in the neighborhood
that should be preserved. While only a little over half of the respondents (55 comments or 58%)
answered the question, 31 respondents favored preserving water features such as Anderson, Ross
and Black Jack creeks. Twenty-two (22) comments identified open spaces and forested areas as
special places. However, it should be noted that several (5) respondents thought there were no
special places left to preserve.
In terms of the most important issue facing the neighborhood, the largest percentage of
respondents (29%) feel that encroaching development is the most important issue facing their
neighborhood.
Anderson HilUBerry Lake
Community Survey
7 ofl3 Summary Report
March 5, 200 l
Chart 4: Most Important Issues Facing the Neighborhood
Lack Gf government services
Loss ofruralatmospllere
Environmental degradation
Other
Abstain
" " " 25 " Percent
Rate of Growth
Respondents are somewhat divided about the rate of growth. Over 41% of the respondents
thought that the growth rate was just right, while 37% of the respondents thought that growth
was occu.."l'ing too fust. Approximately 11% thin.lc growth is occurring too slowly. It is unclear
whether respondents answered the question thinking about growth within the Anderson
Hill/Berry Lake neighborhood or were responding to growth in the larger area, including lands
adjacent to the neighborhood. ·
ChartS: Feeling• About tire Rate of Growth ,.
raroo Fast
•Too Slow
0Just Right
;;~~~tain
Table 5 on the following page shows the cross-tabulated results of the questions pertaining to
the most important issue facing the neighborhood and perceptions about the rate of growth in the
neighborhood.
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
8 ofl3 Summary Report
March 5, 2001
Table 5: Feelings About Growth and Issues Facing
Neighborhoods
Most Important Issue Too Fast Too Slow Just Riaht
Increased Traffic 28.57% 10.00% 17.95%
Encroaching development 42.86% 10.00% 25.64%
Lack of government services 0.00% 70.00% 17.95%
Loss of rural atmosphere 14.29% 0.00% 10.26%
Environmental degradation 5.71% 0.00% 10.26%
Other 5.71% 10.00% 15.38%
Abstain 2.86% 0.00% 2.56%
Total# of respondents 37.23% 10.64% 41.49%
Forty-three percent ( 43%) of the respondents who think that growth is occurring too fast believe
that encroaching development is the most important issue facing the neighborhood. Similarly,
the respondents who see the rate of growth as "just right" also identified encroaching
development as the most important issue facing the neighborhood. However, of the respondents
who think that growth is occurring "too slowly," 70% believe that lack of adequate government
services and facilities is the most important issue facing the neighborhood. It is important to
note that only about 11% of the total respondents believe that the growth rate is too slow.
Neighborhood Facilities and Services
At the July 31, 2000 Community Open House, some participants voiced a desire for additional
public improvements in the neighborhood. A number of desired neighborhood facilities and
. services were identified at the meeting. Survey respondents were asked if the potential
improvement projects are very important, somewhat important, or not very important,
recognizing that taxes or fees might need to increase to pay for such projects.
Table 6: Importance of Neighborhood Facility and Service Projects
Improvement Projects Very Somewhat Not Very Abstain Object
Important Important Important
Installing neighborhood traffic 18.09% 37.23% 39.36% 4.26% 1.06%
Providing transit and school bus stops 13.83% 35.11% 43.62% 7.44% 0.00%
Adding sidewalks 10.64% 12.77% 65.96% 4.25% 6.38%
Developing pathways/trails 12.77% ·23.40% 54.26% 5.31% 4.26%
Developing neighborhood park 14.89% 25.53% 48.94% 5.32% 5.32%
Purch<;~sing land as open space 30.85% 26.60% ··-·30.85% 6.38% 4.26%
Providing public water service 25.53% 23.40% 36.17% 5.32% 8.51%
Providing public sewer service 18.09% 30.85% 38.30% 4.26% 7.45%
Providing stormwaterlflood control 15.96% 19.15% 53.19% 6.38% 3.19%
Table 6 reflects attitudes regarding the importance of specific neighborhood facility and service
projects. The statistically significant results include:
Anderson HiiVBerry Lake
CommWiity Survey
9 of13 Summary Report
March 5, 200 I
• Over 30% of respondents believe that purchasing land to leave as permanent open space is
very important.
• Over 25% of respondents believe that providing public water service is very important.
• A significant number of respondents identified neighborhood traffic controls, transit and
school bus stops, and providing public water and sewer service as very important or
important neighborhood facility and service projects.
• Adding sidewalks, providing stormwater/flood contro~ and developing pathways and trails
was not considered very important.
• Most of those who believe that purchasing land to leave as permanent open space is very
important live in the Anderson Hill Road area.
• Most of those who believe that adding sidewalks is not very important live in the Anderson
Hill Road area.
• Most of those who believe that providing stormwater and flood control is not very important
live in the Berry Lake Road area.
Attitudes Toward Growth and Development
To measure respondents' attitudes when faced with the inherenttrade-offs involved in growth
management decisions, the survey presented a series of five paired statements, generally
representing the polar opposites of an issue. Respondents were asked to select which of the pair
they agreed with most. In terms of total results (see total column in Table 7 on the following
page), majorities or large pluralities of the respondents favored maintaining existing rural
densities, remaining on well and septic, and remaining in unincorporated Kitsap County.
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
10 ofl3 Summary Report
March 5, 200 1
T I 7 G abe : rowt hT d ffi b t I ra eo s: >y_to a d t resl!_on en s an db :IY su b-area responses
Outside
Total Anderson Hill Berry Lake Old Clifton Anderson
Rd. Rd. Rd. HiiUBerry
Lake
(35%of (32%of (16%of (13%of
respondents) respondents respondents) respondents)
Pair1
Subdivision Densities
Higher densities 26.60% 32.00% 36.00% 8.00% 20.00%
Existing densities 48.94% 36.96% 26.09% 23.91% 10.87%
Pair2
Connection to Public Services
Hooking up to water and sewer 41.49% 25.64% 43.59% 7.69% 23.08%
Remain on individual well/septic 46.81% 38.64% 27.27% 25.00% 4.55%
Pair3
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Clustering 27.66% 26.92% 42.31% 3.85% 26.92%
Maintain rural densities 51.06% 39.58% 27.08% 22.92% 6.25%
Pair4
Commercial Develo~ment
Remain primarily residential 74.47% 38.57% 32.86% 17.14% 10.00%
More mixed use and commercial 13.83% 30.77% 23.08% 15.38% 30.77%
Pair5
Future Governance
Support annexation 28.72% 18.52% 48.15% 11.11% 22.22%
Remain unincorporated 63.83% 45.00% 26.67% 18.33% 8.33%
Table 7 also breaks down the differences in growth tradeoffs by sub-area responses. To identify
differences between specific sub-areas and the views of the respondents in general, you can
compare the column percentage for each sub-area with the Total column percentage. For
example, in pair I, while the 48.94% of all respondents favor maintaining existing rural
densities, a significant percentage of the respondents in the Berry Lake column favor higher
densities. Further analysis of Table 7 suggests the following:
• About one-half of respondents ( 49%) prefer to maintain existing densities. Most of these
respondents live in the Anderson Hill Road area
• Nearly one-half of the respondents (47%) prefer to remain on individuai wells and septic
systems. Most of these respondents live in the Anderson Hill Road area.
• A slight majority (51%) of respondents prefer to maintain rural densities to protect
environmentally sensitive areas.
• A super majority (7 5%) of respondents prefer to remain primarily a residential neighborhood.
Most of these respondents live in the Anderson Hill and Berry Lake areas.
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
ll of 13 Summary Report
March 5, 2001
• Respondents from the Berry Lake area appear to be comparatively more supportive of higher
densities, urban services and possible annexation to the City of Port Orchard.
• Likewise, respondents who live outside the Anderson HilliBerry Lake area (i.e. absentee
property owners) also appear to view higher densities, urban services and possible
annexation to the City of Port Orchard more favorably.
• The majority (64%) of respondents prefer to remain-unincorporated in K.itsap County in the
future.
Looking Ahead Five Years
The survey included three open-ended questions designed to invite respondents to provide
written comments about the future. Specifically, respondents were asked what two things they
would most like to see happen in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake neighborhood as well as in the
larger South K.itsap area in the next five years.
Sixty-two (62) written comments were received for the Anderson Hi!IJBerry Lake area, which
resulted in a response rate of66%. Many of the comments reflected concerns with continued
growth and development. The majority of the comments indicated a desire to see the area
remain rural; however, six of the responses specifically identified one unit per acre densities as
the preferred method for maintaining rural character (ie., one unit per acre is neither an urban
nor a rural density). There were also a number of responses that appeared to support
"thoughtful" growth and provision of services. Six respondents identified the need for another
high school.
Only 54 comments contained responses to the question pertaining to the South K.itsap area as a
whole. The comments reveal that residents generally want the same things for South K.itsap as
they want for the Anderson Hi!IIBerry Lake area. Maintaining rural character was mentioned the
most frequently. However respondents appear to be more accepting of growth in South K.itsap as
a whole than the Anderson HillJBerry Lake area Several responses indicated a desire to control
commercial growth in a way that minimizes sprawl. There also appears to be support for
attracting better paying jobs to this area.
Vision for the Future
Fifty-seven (57) comments responded to a two-part, open-ended question designed to prompt
respondents to think about the future growth of the area. Specifically, the question asked
respondents to imagine what they thought they would see in the Anderson HilliBerry Lake area
twenty years from now, if they awoke after a sleeping the years away, as in the legend of Rip
Van Winkle. The second part of the question asked, "If you had control, would you change this
vision?"
The comments revealed that most respondents feel that "sprawl" will take over their
neighborhood, and most comments indicated that this was a negative development. In terms of
how this vision or future could be changed, the majority of respondents to this question would
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Commtmity Survey
12 of 13 Summary Report
March 5, 200 I
try to maintain the rural character of the area; that is, leave it alone. There were a number of
comments that supported growth as long as it is well planned and controlled.
V. Conclusions
• The majority of respondents are primarily older homeowners from the Anderson Hill Road or
Berry Lake Road areas with no children living at home. The nature of the responses strongly
reflects the opinions of this group of people.
• Maintaining a rural lifestyle is an important neighborhood characteristic for many residents.
Many feel that encroaching development is threatening their neighborhood character and
rural way oflife.
• Protecting open space and maintaining rural densities is a priority for many of those living in
the area. A majority of respondents prefer to remain in unincorporated Kitsap County in the
future.
• Respondents residing or owning property in the Berry Lake Road area appear to be
comparatively more supportive of higher densities, urban services and possible annexation to
the city.
• The vast majority (82%) of respondents believe the use of a survey is a good communication
tool and method to encourage citizen participation.
VI. Appendices
Appendix A:
AppendixB:
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
Preliminary Results: Anderson Hill/Berry Lake Community Survey,
November 21, 2000.
Survey Instrument: Anderson Hill/Berry Lake Community Survey, October
10, 2000.
13 ofl3 Summary Report
March 5, 200 l
APPENDIX A:
Preliminary Results: Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey, November 1, 2000.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
ANDERSON HILL/BERRY LAKE
COMMUNITY SURVEY
The survey was mailed to 297 property owners in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area,
based on tax assessor's records. One hundred and five (1 05) surveys were returned, for a
response rate of35.35%. However, only 94 of the returned surveys had been received at
the time the statistical results were tabulated. Eleven (11) surveys were received after the
tabulation of responses. As a result the response percentages provided below are based
upon the initial 94 surveys, with the actual numbers of responses from the remaining 11
surveys shown in parentheses.
, .. ·:
1. What brought you to the area?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Business, job opportunity, job transfer
Family, friends
Born here, raised here
Natural environment/quality oflife
Housing affordability
Other (specified below):
• Bought property from in-laws
• The area had the most amenities, which included the
rural area
Abstain
Object
23.40% (2)
14.89% (4)
25.53% (3)
18.09%
9.57%
5.32% (2)
2.13%
1.06%
2. Why do you think people move to the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area?
0 Cost oflivinglhousing affordability 25.53% (1)
0 Location-close to shopping/jobs, but rural in character 38.30% (3)
0 Jobs-employment opportunities 2.13%
0 Rural lifestyle-quiet, less crowded, good family place 25.53% (7)
0 Other (please specified below): 3.19%
• No comments were given that were not reflective of a previous answer
choice.
0 Abstain 5.32%
0 Object
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
0%
1 November 21, 2000
3. Why do you think people leave the area?
4.
0 Lack of living wage jobs 27.66% (3)
0 Cost ofliving!housing affordability 4.26%
o Growth and change -loss of rural character 41.49% (4)
0 Location-too far from shopping/jobs 1.06%
0 Other (specified below): 14.89% (2)
• The top three comments given for the "Other" answer choice are: I)
change of job location, 2) lack of City services and utilities, and 3) the
resident retired and moved to another location.
0 Abstain 10.64% (2)
0 Object 0%
How would you characterize the Anderson HillJBerry Lake area?
0 Rural
0 Rural changing to suburban
0 Suburban
0 Urban
0
0
Abstain
Object
29.79% (3)
55.32% (8)
8.51%
1.06%
5.32%
0%
5. . What are the "special places" in your neighborhood that you think should be
preserved?
• There were 55 comments, which account for 58.51% of the responses for this
question. Thirty-one (31) comments favored preserving water features (e.g.,
Anderson, Ross, Black Jack creeks) and open spaces/forested areas; however,
several respondents indicated that there water nothing specia11eft to preserve.
0 ~ain 39.3~~
0 Object 2.13%
6. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being most important and 5 being least important, how
would you rank the importance of the following neighborhood characteristics?
Please use each number (1,2,3,4, or 5) only once.
0 Rural residential character/ability to keep farm animals/agricultural uses
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Co=unity Survey
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
no response
Percentage
37.23% (4)
12.77% (1)
13.83%
8.51% (2)
19.15% (2)
8.51% (1)
2 November 21, 2000
0
0
Sense of community
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
no response
Affordability
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
no response
Percentage
2.13% (1)
6.38% (2)
22.34% (5)
34.04%
21.28% (2)
13.83% (1)
Percentage
7.45% (1)
23.40% (3)
32.98% (2)
17.02% (3)
7.45% (1)
I1.70% (I)
D Open space and wildlife habitat areas
Rank
I
2
3
4
5
no response
Percentage
22.34% (I)
32.98% (4)
5.32% (I)
I8.09% (I)
9.57% (2)
I1.70% (I)
D Convenience to Highway I6, 3, ferries, Silverdale, Tacoma, Bremerton
Rank
I
2
3
4
5
no response
0
0
Abstain
Object
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
Percentage
28.72%
11.70%
12.77%
8.5I%
27.66%
I0.64%
5.32% of the respondents abstained (I)
1.06% of the respondents objected
3 November 21, 2000
7. On a scale of I to 5, with 1 being most significant and 5 being least significant,
how would you rank the following environmental issues that may jeopardize the
quality oflife in your area? Please use each number (1,2,3,4, or 5) only once.
0 Water quality of streams, creeks and ponds
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
no response
Percentage
21.28%
25.53% (3)
22.34% (2)
7.45% (1)
5.32% (2)
18.09% (2)
0 Plant/animal habitat loss
Rank Percentage
1 14.89%
2 30.85% (1)
3 20.21% (3)
4 8.51% (4)
5 7.45%
no response 18.09% (2)
0 Landslides and erosion
Rank Percentage
1 7.45% (2)
2 7.45%
3 15.96% (2)
4 30.85% (2)
5 .19.15% (2)
no response 19.15% (2)
0 Seasonal flooding/stormwater runoff
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Co=unity Survey
Rank Percentage
1 1.06% (1)
2 7.45% (1)
3 9.57%
4 26.60% (2)
5 35.11% (4)
no response 20.21% (2)
4 November 21, 2000
0
0
0
Traffic
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
no response
Abstain
Object
Percentage
42.55% (5)
10.64% (2)
14.89% (3)
5.32%
13.83%
12.77%
10.64% of the respondents abstained (1)
2.13% of the respondents objected
8. What do you think is the most important issue facing your neighborhood?
0 Increased traffic 21.28% (5)
0 Change-encroaching development 28.72% (1)
0 Lack of adequate government services and facilities 17.02% (1)
0 Loss of rural atmosphere 10.64% (4)
0 Environmental degradation 6.38%
0 Other (specified below): 11.70%
• The comments given for the "Other" answer choice indicate that crime
control and road improvements are important issues for some
residents.
0 Abstain 4.26%
0 Object 0%
9. During a community workshop meeting on July 31, 2000, some residents
indicated a desire for the following additional public improvements in the
neighborhood. Recognizing that taxes or fees might have to increase to pay for
some improvements in facilities or services, how important are the following
potential projects to you? Are they very important, somewhat important, or not
very important?
a. Installing neighborhood traffic controls:
0 Very important 18.09% (4)
0 Somewhat important 37.23% (3)
0 Not very important 39.36% (4)
0 Abstain 4.26%
o Object 1.06%
Anderson HilVBerry Lake
Co=unity Survey 5 November 21, 2000
b. Providing transit and school bus stops:
0 Very important 13.83% (4)
0 Somewhatimportant 35.11% (4)
0 Not very important 43.62% (3)
0 Abstain 7.45%
0 Object 0%
c. Adding sidewalks:
0 Very important 10.64% (3)
0 Somewhat important 12.77% (3)
0 Not very important 65.96% (5)
0 Abstain 4.26%
0 Object 6.38%
d. Developing pathways and trails:
0 Very important 12.77%
0 Somewhat important 23.40% (5)
0 Not very important 54.26% (4)
0 Abstain 5.32% (I)
0 Object 4.26% (1)
e. Developing a neighborhood park:
0 Very important 14.89%
0 Somewhat important 25.53% (5)
0 Not very important 48.94% (4)
0 Abstain 5.32% (I)
0 Object 5.32% (1)
f. Purchasing land to leave as permanent open space:
0 Very important 30.85% (3)
0 Somewhat important 26.60% (3)
0 Not very important 30.85% (4)
0 Abstain 6.38%
0 Object 4.26% (I)
0 No response 1.06%
g. Providing public water service:
0 Very important 25.53% (4)
0 Somewhat important 23.40% (1)
0 Not very important 36.17% (4)
0 Abstain 5.32% (1)
0 Object 8.51% (I)
0 No response 1.06%
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 6 November 21, 2000
h. Providing public sewer service:
0 Very important 18.09% (4)
0 Somewhat important 30.85% (1)
0 Not very important 38.30% (4)
0 Abstain 4.26% (1)
0 Object 7.45% (1)
0 No response 1.06%
i. Providing stormwater and flood control facilities:
0 Very important 15.96% (2)
0 Somewhat important 19.15% (4)
0 Not very important 53.19% (4)
0 Abstain 6.38%
0 Object 3.19% (1)
0 No response 2.13%
10. Are there any other facilities or improvements not listed above that you believe
should be a high priority for the neighborhood? If the answer is yes, please list
the desired improvements below:
11.
• There were 42 comments given, which make up 44.68% of the responses.
The comments show that the main requested improvements are a natural gas
line that all residents can share and the general provision of more
governmental services and utilities (schools, roads improvements, police,
recreation areas).
0 Abstain 52.13% (9)
0 Object 3.19% (1)
Do you feel your neighborhood is growing:
0 Too fast? 37.23% (3)
0 Too slow? 10.64% (2)
0 Just right? 41.49% (5)
0 Abstain 8.51% (2)
0 Object 1.06%
0 No response 1.06%
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 7 November 21, 2000
12. Neighborhood residents have a number of different ideas regarding the future of
the area. Sometimes these different ideas conflict with one another and require
residents to make tradeoffs. The following pairs of statements represent such
tradeoffs. For each pair, please pick the one statement that you agree with more,
or as with the other questions, you can mark abstain or object.
a. Subdivision densities:
0 We should be allowed to subdivide our property in
the future at higher densities, such as 4-9 units
per acre.
0 We should assure that future development
maintains our existing rural densities, such as 1
unit to 5 or 10 acres.
0 Abstain
0 Object
0 No response
b. Connection to J2Ublic water and sewer services:
0 I would consider hooking up to the City of Port
Orchard's water and sewer service if it became
available.
0 I want to remain on a well and septic system.
0 Abstain
0 Object
0 No response
c. Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
0
0
0
0
0
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey
I think clustering new development will best
protect environmentally sensitive areas.
Maintaining our rural densities (i.e., 1 unit per
10 acres) will best protect environmentally
sensitive areas.
Abstain
Object
No response
8
26.60% (6)
48.94% (4)
12.77% (1)
10.64%
1.06%
41.49% (5)
46.81% (5)
9.57% (1)
1.06%
1.06%
27.66% (4)
51.06% (5)
19.15% (1)
1.06% (1)
1.06%
November 21, 2000
d. Commercial development:
0 I would like the Anderson Hill!Berry Lake
neighborhood to remain primarily a residential
neighborhood with limited commercial
development. 74.47% (6)
0 I would like to see more mixed use and commercial
developments in this neighborhood. 13.83% (4)
0 Abstain 7.45%
0 Object 3.19% (1)
0 No response
e. Future governance:
0 I would support being annexed to the City of Port
0
0
0
0
Orchard in order to receive better facilities and
services such as water, sewer and parks.
I live here because I value the rura11ifesty1e and
want to remain in unincorporated Kitsap County
in the future.
Abstain
Object
No response
1.06%
28.72% (5)
63.83% (5)
5.32
0% (I)
2.03%
13. What two things would you most like to see happen in the Anderson Hill!Berry
Lake neighborhood in the next five (5) years? What about in the South K.itsap
area as a whole?1
Anderson Hill!Berrv Lake: Sixty-two (62) comments were given, which makes
65.96% of the surveys returned. Many of the comments reflect concerns with
continued growth and development, with a majority indicating a desire to see the
area remain rural; however, other responses appear to support growth and
provision of city services.
• Answers involving development patterns:
• Maintain rural character/no growth (9)
• Thoughtful growth is fine (7)
• Control both the residential and commercial growth (residential at 1/1
or 1du/2.5ac) (12)
• More commercial growth ( 4)
• Concentrate urban development/services around transportation centers
(2)
• Have higher density subdivisions closer to town
• Separate uses -keep residential away from commercial and industrial
• Better growth plan needed {2)
1 In this question # 13, parenthetical numbers in the sections summarizing comments refer to the number of responses ~llied from the
94 surveys returned at the time statistical results were tabulated, and do not include responses from the 11 surveys rcce1ved thereafter.
Refer to the introductory paragraph on page l for additional explanation.
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Co=unity Survey 9 November 21, 2000
• Answers involving the provision of City services, utilities, infrastructure:
• More road infrastructure (4)
• Plan traffic
• Build another high school (6)
• Better public schools (3)
• More activities for teens
• Better law enforcement
• A County govenunent that is more business friendly
• Take care of power outages
• Answers involving the provision of open space, wildlife habitat, recreation
space:
• Have/save open space and parks ( 4)
• Actually build the promised trail along Beech Drive
• Miscellaneous answers:
• Attract more jobs (4)
• No more payoffs (2)
• Have the levy pass for SKSD
• Better conununity spirit and respect
• Clear the area up so that it doesn't have such a "hillbilly" appearance
• Notification of proposed land uses
South Kitsap, generally: Fifty-four (54) comments were given, which makes
57.45% of the surveys returned. The comments reveal that residents generally
want the same things for South Kitsap as a whole as they want for the Anderson
Hill/Berry Lake area; however, residents appear to be more accepting of growth
in South Kitsap as a whole than in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area in
particular. There appears to be a desire for additional city services and utilities,
and more good-paying jobs.
0
0
Abstain
Object
Anderson HiJIIBerry Lake
Community Survey
42.55% (3)
0%
10 November 21,2000
14. If, like the legend of Rip Van Winkle, you fell asleep for twenty (20) years, what
do you think you would see in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area when you woke
up? If you had control, would you change this vision? If yes, in what way, and
why?2 · .
Fifty-seven (57) comments were given, which makes up 60.64% of the surveys
returned. The comments show that most residents feel that "sprawl" will take
over their rural community, and most residents feel that this is a negative
development. Most residents would like their community to remain rural;
however, there are significant numbers of residents that would like to see more
growth as long as it is well-planned and controlled.
o Abstain 36.17% (4)
o Object 3.19%
• Summary of comments:
• Still forested, but Anderson Hill/Berry Lake would be a part of Port
Orchard
• Sprawl in general (19)
• Subdivisions with 1 or 1/2 acre lots; all new housing (7)
• Will be a part of Port Orchard with higher density and better City
services (3)
• Increased residential development with some small commercial uses
(2)
• Too much commercial/industrial growth (3)
• Will become a ghetto (2)
• Will be the same (2)
• Would change it to:
• Leave it alone-no sprawl/growth (19)
• Would revert back to conditions at the tum of the century (2)
• Slow down traffic
• The ideal suburb (5)
• Slowed growth, no mixed-uses (3)
• Controlled mixed-use growth (3)
• More growth
• Exclude the area from the UGAs and keep the cities at bay
• Set aside natural areas & park (3)
• More high tech companies (2)
• Incorporated into Port Orchard
• Would not change the future view of more residential and commercial
(5)
2 As in question #13, parenthetical numbers in the sections summarizing co~nts refer to the number of responses ta~lied from the
94 surveys returned at the time statistical results were tabulated, and do not mclude responses from the 11 surveys recetved thereafter.
Refer to the introductory paragraph on page 1 for additional explanation.
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 11 November 21,2000
18.
19.
If you have children, where do they attend school?
o Port Orchard
o Bremerton
o Sunnyslope
o Home school
o Other (please specify):
o Abstain
o Object
o Not applicable
13.83% (6)
0%
7.45%
1.06% (2)
15.96%
38.30% (1)
1.06%
22.34% (2)
The residents that marked "other" and gave a comment generally because the
question did not apply to them or their children are in college. Four ( 4) other
schools that were not answer choices were mentioned.
Where do you live?
0 Anderson Hill Road area 35.11% (3)
0 Berry Lake Road area 31.91% (3)
0 Old Clifton Road area 15.96% (2)
0 Outside the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area 12.77% (3)
0 Abstain 2.13%
0 Object 1.06%
0 No response 1.06%
20. How long have you lived in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake neighborhood?
o Less than one year 1.06%
o 1-5 years 20.21% (2)
o 6-10 years 17.02% (1)
o 11-20 years 14.89% (1)
o Over 20 years 38.30% ( 4)
o Abstain 8.51% (3)
o Object 0%
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 12 November 21,2000
21. How long do you expect to remain in the neighborhood?
0 Less than 3 years 9.57% (1)
0 3-10 years 17.02% (1)
0 Indefinitely 58.51% (6)
0 Abstain 13.83% (3)
0 Object 1.06%
22. Where do you work?
0 Port Orchard 20.21% (4)
0 Bremerton 19.15% (1)
0 Silverdale 0% (2)
0 Navy support personnel 4.26%
0 Pierce County 2.13%
0 King County 8.51%
0 Other (please specify): 39.36% (1)
0 Abstain 5.32% (2)
0 Object 1.06%
When a respondent marked "other" as their answer choice, it was usually because
the person is retired, self-employed or works in multiple locations.
23. Do you own or rent your residence?
o Own
o Rent
o Abstain
o Object
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 13
95.74% (11)
0%
4.26%
0%
November 21, 2000
~24;---Is~thinurvey-a~goo~d-way ro-encourage·cititen-part:icipatiori-and improve
communications with elected officials at the County and City of Port Orchard?
o Yes 81.91% (10)
o No 10.64%
o Abstain 7.45% (1)
o Object 0%
25. Which of the following means of communication is best for keeping you informed
about future planning efforts involving your neighborhood?
o Newspaper articles 22.34% (1)
o Word of mouth from friends and neighbors 0%
o Letter in mail 54.26% (9)
o Website 1.06%
o County or City newsletter 20.21% (1)
o Abstain 2.13%
o Object 0%
26. Do you have suggestions for other ways to involve neighborhood residents in
decisions about the future of the area? If yes, please list them below:
Twenty-nine (29) comments were given, which makes up 30.85% of the surveys
returned. The comments were constructive suggestions listed more public
meetings, newsletters, and more surveys as ways to involve residents.
o Abstain 68.09% (7)
o Object 1.06%
• Sununary of comments:
• Make sure that when citizen input is asked for that it be used ( 4)
• Work with the property owners (2)
• Form neighborhood committees (2)
• Make long range plans available (2)
• Newsletters (2)
• Meetings without cameras
• Web site with chat room/promote the website so more people know
about it (2)
• More surveys (3)
• More neighborhood meetings
• Don't drag the process out, make it more efficient
• You've already heard community preferences, now it's time for the
local gov't to fix it
• Post notices in newspapers
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 14 November 21, 2000
• Well-planned meetings with announced dates
• Post notices of proposed land uses/hold public hearings
• Night meetings so working folk can go
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 15 November 21, tooo
APPENDIXB:
Survey Instrument: Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey, October 10, 2000.
City
of Port
Orchard
October 6, 2000
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake Neighborhood Residents and Property Owners:
Dear Neighbors,
Have you ever said, "I wish our local elected officials would ask what I think, I'd tell them?" Well, this
is your opportunity.
The City of Port Orchard and Kitsap County have sent you the enclosed survey because we want to
know your opinions concerning the future of your neighborhood. We seek to learn what you think
about quality of life issues such as growth, development, and local governmental services in your
neighborhood. We will use the survey results to guide our planning efforts and to learn from you what
residents want local elected officials to do about certain pressing issues facing our community.
This survey will go to every household or property owner in your neighborhood. To provide us with
an accurate, collective vision, we encourage you to participate and to urge neighbors to do so as well.
Be assured that all of your responses will be kept in complete confidence. Please return the survey
in the enclosed postage-paid envelope by November 1'1
•
We invite you to discuss the survey results with your Anderson Hill/Berry Lake neighbors and
County/City representatives on Tuesday, November 21". This meeting will be held at 7:00p.m. in the
City Chambers on the Second Floor of City Hall, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard. If you need
further information contact Rob Wenman, Port Orchard City Planner, at (360) 876-4991.
The City and County will consider initiating a planning effort to address future growth and
development in the south Kitsap area, which could include the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
neighborhood. The results of the enclosed survey will help define the scope of the South Kitsap
Subarea planning process. We assure you that the City Council and Board of County Commissioners
will take your point of view seriously and put it to good use. Please participate -your opinions really
do count!
Thank you for your participation.
Mayor Leslie Jay Weatherill
City of Port Orchard
Sincerely yours,
Commissioner Charlotte Garrido
Kitsap County
ANDERSON HILL/BERRY LAKE
COMMUNITY SURVEY
a abStain." O.l~, "o.bj1~qt :.~.1~() .gn_y
undecided or unce1'ta;in,. or
informed decision.
misleading or ina.'PprOJ1ri<lte.
'l ')0 '-..Jl...
Reasons for 1\.fovmgJn or ()u~ofthe A,fea. ·.·. ·.· . ···. . .·.. ... . . . ..... ·.· .... ,·· . . , .· .. ' ..
In this first section, we would like to get a'beiter understanding of what attractiifipeojJ!e'
to the area and why you thinkpeople.move away.. . . .. .
1. What brought you to the area?
ro Business, job opportunity, job transfer
ro Family, friends
ro Born here, raised here
ro Natural environment/quality of life
ro Housing affordability
ro Other (please specify below):
ro Abstain
ro Object
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey October 2000
2. Why do you think people move to the Anderson HilVBerry Lake area?
f<:> Cost oflivinglhousing affordability
f<:> Location -close to shopping/jobs, but rural in character with green spaces
f<:> Jobs -employment opportunities
f<:> Rural lifestyle -quiet, less crowded, a good place to raise a family
f<:> Other (please specifY below):
f<:> Abstain
f<:> Object
3. Why do you think people leave the area?
f<:> Lack of living wage jobs
f<:> Cost of living/housing affordability
f<:> Growth and change -loss of rural character
f<:> Location-too far from shopping/jobs
f<:> Other (please specifY below):
f<:> Abstain
f<:> Object
4. How would you characterize the Anderson HilVBerry Lake area?
f<:> Rural
f<:> Rural changing to suburban
f<:> Suburban
f<:> Urban
f<:> Abstain
f<:> Object
5. What are the "special places" in your neighborhood that you think should be
preserved?
f<:> Abstain
f<:> Object
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 2 October 2000
6. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being most important and 5 being least important, how
would you rank the importance of the following neighborhood characteristics?
Please use each number {1,2,3,4, or 5) only once .
.s» Rural residential character/ability to keep farm animals/agricultural uses
.s» Sense of community
.s» Affordability
.s» Open space and wildlife habitat areas
.s» Convenience to Highway 16, 3, ferries, Silverdale, Tacoma, Bremerton
.s» Abstain
.s» Object
7. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being most significant and 5 being least significant,
how would you rank the following enviromnental issues that may jeopardize the
quality oflife in your area? Please use each number (1,2,3,4, or 5) only once .
.s» Water quality of streams. creeks and ponds
.s» Plant/animal habitat loss
.s» Landslides and erosion
.s» Seasonal flooding/stormwater runoff
.s» Traffic
.s» Abstain
.s» Object
8. What do you think is the lllllli important issue facing your neighborhood?
.s» Increased traffic
.s» Change -encroaching development
.s» Lack of adequate government services and facilities (e.g., water, sewer,
parks, police)
.s» Loss of rural atmosphere
.s» Enviromnental degradation
.s» Other (please specify below):
.s» Abstain
.s» Object
Anderson Hill/Beny Lake
Community Survey 3 October 2000
9. During a community workshop meeting on July 31, 2000, some residents
indicated a desire for the following additional public improvements in the
neighborhood. Recognizing that taxes or fees :m.igh1 have to increase to pay for
some improvements in facilities or services, how important are the following
potential projects to you? Are they very important, somewhat important, or not
very important?
a. Installing neighborhood traffic controls:
£0 Very important
£0 Somewhat important
£0 Not very important
£0 Abstain
£0 Object
b. Providing transit and school bus stops:
£0 Very important
£0 Somewhat important
£0 Not very important
£0 Abstain
£0 Object
c. Adding sidewalks:
£0 Very important
£0 Somewhat important
£0 Not very important
£0 Abstain
£0 Object
d. Developing pathways and trails:
£0 Very important
£0 Somewhat important
£0 Not very important
£0 Abstain
£0 Object
e. Developing a neighborhood park:
£0 Very important
£0 Somewhat important
£0 Not very important
£0 Abstain
£0 Object
. Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 4 October 2000
(Continued from Question #9 on the previous page.)
f. Purchasing land to leave as permanent open space:
ro Very important
ro Somewhat important
ro Not very important
ro Abstain
ro Object
g. Providing public water service:
ro Very important
ro Somewhat important
ro Not very important
ro Abstain
ro Object
h. Providing public sewer service:
ro Very important
ro Somewhat important
ro Not very important
ro Abstain
ro Object
1. Providing stormwater and flood control facilities:
ro Very important
ro Somewhat important
ro Not very important
ro Abstain
ro Object
10. Are there any other facilities or improvements not listed above that you believe
should be a high priority for the neighborhood? If the answer is yes, please list
the desired improvements below:
ro Abstain
ro Object
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 5 October 2000
11. Do you feel your neighborhood is growing:
ro Too fast?
ro Too slow?
ro Just right?
ro Abstain
ro Object
12. Neighborhood residents have a nwnber of different ideas regarding the future of
the area Sometimes these different ideas conflict with one another and require
residents to make tradeoffs. The following pairs of statements represent such
tradeoffs. For each pair, please pick the one statement that you agree with more,
or as with the other questions, you can mark abstain or object.
a. Subdivision densities:
ro We should be allowed to subdivide our property in the future at
higher densities, such as 4-9 units per acre.
ro We should assure that future development maintains our existing
rural densities, such as 1 unit to 5 or 10 acres.
ro Abstain
ro Object
b. Connection to public water and sewer services:
ro I would consider hooking up to the City of Port Orchard's water
and sewer service if it became available.
ro I want to remain on an individual well and septic system.
ro Abstain
ro Object
c. Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
ro I think clustering urban development will best protect
environmentally sensitive areas.
ro Maintaining our rural densities (i.e., 1 unit per 10 acres) will best
protect environmentally sensitive areas.
ro Abstain
ro Object
Anderson HilVBerry Lake
Community Survey 6 October 2000
(Continued from Question #12 on the previous page.)
d. Commercial development:
.1"0 I would like the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake neighborhood to remain
primarily a residential neighborhood with limited commercial
development .
.1"0 I would like to see more mixed use and commercial developments
in this neighborhood .
.1"0 Abstain
.1"0 Object
e. Future governance:
.1"0 I would support being annexed to the City of Port Orchard in order
to obtain urban services such as water, sewer and parks .
.1"0 I live here because I value the rural lifestyle and want to remain in
unincorporated Kitsap County in the future .
.r0 Abstain
.1"0 Object
13. What two things would you most like to see happen in the Anderson Hill/Berry
Lake neighborhood in the next five ( 5) years? What about in the South Kitsap
area as a whole?
a. Anderson Hill/Berry Lake: (!). _____________ _
(2)--------------------------------~----~---
.r0 Abstain
.r0 Object
b. South Kitsap, generally: (!). ______________ _
(2). ________________________________________ ___
.r0 Abstain
.1"0 Object
Anderson Hill!Beny Lake
Community Survey 7 October 2000
14. If, like the legend of Rip Van Winkle, you fell asleep for twenty (20) years, what
do you think you would see in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area when you woke
up? If you had control, would you change this vision? If yes, in what way, and
why?
ro Abstain
ro Object
18. If you have children, where do they attend school?
ro Port Orchard
ro Bremerton
ro Sunnyslope
ro Home school
ro Other (please specify): -----------------
£0:1 Abstain
ro Object
19. Where do you live?
ro Anderson Hill Road area
ro Berry Lake Road area
ro Old Clifton Road area
ro Outside the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake area
ro Abstain
ro Object
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community SUIVey 8 October 2000
20. How long have you lived in the Anderson Hill/Berry Lake neighborhood?
ro Less than one year
ro 1-5 years
ro 6-1 0 years
ro 11-20 years
ro Over 20 years
ro Abstain
ro Object
21. How long do you expect to remain in the neighborhood?
ro Less than 3 years
ro 3-10 years
ro Indefinitely
ro Abstain
ro Object
22. Where do you work?
ro Port Orchard
ro Bremerton
ro Silverdale
ro Navy support personnel
ro Pierce County
ro King County
ro Other (please specify):
ro Abstain
ro Object
23. Do you own or rent your residence?
ro Own
ro Rent
ro Abstain
ro Object
Pr(}cess reedbafk Questi.ons > . .·· .. ·.··. . . ... ·. . .· .·.•· ·.· .·. i ... · ... ·.·•·· ... < . ·• .... ·.··.·.··.•· .•. ··•·.
The lasifew q~e_stio~s.f{ive. ~irecifeeqqack)o. city anq.gq~~fJ!.offi:~i~{s .. abqu_th~'iv td. ·
involve neighl:i(Jrhood resididztsinfutiireplafming efforts.>•· · ·· .······ ·· •
24. Is this survey a good way to encourage citizen participation and improve
communications with elected officials at the County and City of Port Orchard?
ro Yes
ro No
ro Abstain
ro Object
Anderson Hill/Berry Lake
Community Survey 9 October 2000
25. Which of the following means of communication is best for keeping you informed
about future planning efforts involving your neighborhood?
ro Newspaper articles
ro Word of mouth from friends and neighbors
ro Letter in mail
ro Website
ro County or City newsletter
ro Abstain
ro Object
26. Do you have suggestions for other ways to involve neighborhood residents in
decisions about the future of the area? If yes, please list them below:
ro Abstain
ro Object
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO FILL TIDS OUT!
If you have any other comments you would like to add, please write them below or on
another sheet of paper.
YOUR OPINIONS REALLY DO COUNT!
Anderson Hi!IIBerry Lake
Community Survey 10 October 2000