01/25/2023 - PacketCity of Port Orchard
Land Use Committee
January 25, 2023 4:30 pm
Remote access only
Zoom Webinar Public Link (not to be used by LU Committee):
https://us02web.zoom.us/i/81034433449
Dial -in: 1 253 215 8782
Webinar ID: 810 3443 3449
AGENDA
1. Discussion: Fiber Requirements
2. Discussion: Fireworks
3. Discussion: County Urban Growth Area Modifications
4. Discussion: Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions Report
5. Discussion: Development Agreement —Sign Regulations
6. Discussion: 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
7. Discussion: March meeting date
RCW 35.99.070 Additional ducts or conduits —City or town may require.
A city or town may require that a service provider that is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts
or conduits in public rights -of -way provide the city or town with additional duct or conduit and related
structures necessary to access the conduit, provided that:
(1) The city or town enters into a contract with the service provider consistent with
RCW 80.36.150. The contract rates to be charged should recover the incremental costs of the service
provider. If the city or town makes the additional duct or conduit and related access structures available to
any other entity for the purposes of providing telecommunications or cable television service for hire, sale,
or resale to the general public, the rates to be charged, as set forth in the contract with the entity that
constructed the conduit or duct, shall recover at least the fully allocated costs of the service provider. The
service provider shall state both contract rates in the contract. The city or town shall inform the service
provider of the use, and any change in use, of the requested duct or conduit and related access structures
to determine the applicable rate to be paid by the city or town.
(2) Except as otherwise agreed by the service provider and the city or town, the city or town shall
agree that the requested additional duct or conduit space and related access structures will not be used
by the city or town to provide telecommunications or cable television service for hire, sale, or resale to the
general public.
(3) The city or town shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to
the access structures and vaults of the service provider.
(4) The value of the additional duct or conduit requested by a city or town shall not be considered
a public works construction contract.
(5) This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television
provider under federal law.
[2000c83§7.1
Poulsbo Municipal Code
12.02.015 Conduit standards.
A. Legislative Findings. The Poulsbo city council finds that:
1. Demand for access to high-speed telecommunications services is growing. In order to fill
such demand, telecommunications service providers install telecommunication lines in public
rights -of -way.
2. In other jurisdictions, the demand for access and the number of telecommunications service
providers has sometimes resulted in multiple, serial excavations within the public rights -of -way.
Each such excavation can and does result in traffic disruption, a weakening of pavement
integrity, and a shortening of the useful life of paved surfaces.
3. The city of Poulsbo has not experienced a high demand for use of the public rights -of -way
by telecommunications service providers, but in order to responsibly manage its public rights -of -
way the city should anticipate such demand in the future and plan accordingly.
4. Requiring that conduit be installed in newly constructed public streets and rights -of -way in
order to accommodate the anticipated future demand for access to telecommunications services
will assist the city in responsibly managing its public rights -of -way by:
a. Reducing or eliminating the need for excavation within public streets and rights -of -way
when telecommunications service providers seek to locate underground telecommunications
facilities within such streets and rights -of -way in the future;
b. Reduce or eliminate the traffic disruption that occurs whenever excavation occurs within
streets and public rights -of -way;
c. Reduce or eliminate the loss of pavement integrity and diminishment of the useful life of
pavement that occurs whenever paved streets and rights -of -way are cut and excavated within;
and
d. Meet the needs and desires of the public for access to high-speed telecommunications
services and the needs and desires of telecommunications service providers to locate within the
public streets and rights -of -way.
5. In residential areas, anticipated demand for the reasonable future can likely be met by the
capacity provided by two telecommunication lines. In non-residential areas, anticipated demand
is higher, but can likely be met for the reasonable future by the capacity provided by four
telecommunication lines. Requiring the installation of conduit and other facilities necessary to
support these lines will allow anticipated needs to be met while allowing the city to responsibly
manage its rights -of -way.
B. Intent. The intent of this section is to provide for the construction of infrastructure sufficient
to allow telecommunications service providers desiring to deploy communication lines in the
future to do so by pulling the same through the conduit and appurtenances installed pursuant to
this section and without excavating within the right-of-way. This section is not intended to
require telecommunications service providers to install additional ducts or conduit pursuant the
provisions of RCW 35.99.070, but is intended to require those constructing public streets,
including the city and private developers, to provide and install such conduit and appurtenances
as may be necessary to accommodate future telecommunications needs within public streets and
rights -of -way without further excavation or disturbance.
C. Requirements —Adoption of Standards. Whenever any new public street is constructed,
whether by the city as a public works project or by a private party in conjunction with
development, the following shall be required:
1. In all new local access public streets serving or abutting residential development, a conduit
of a sufficient diameter and containing interducts of sufficient number and diameter to
accommodate a minimum of two telecommunication lines shall be installed by the parry
constructing the street.
2. In all new collector or arterial public streets serving or abutting residential development, and
in all new public streets serving or abutting nonresidential development, a conduit of a sufficient
diameter and containing interducts of sufficient number and diameter to accommodate a
minimum of four telecommunication lines shall be installed by the party constructing the street.
3. In addition to installing conduit, the parry constructing the street will be required to install
such vaults and other appurtenances as may be necessary to accommodate installation and
connection of telecommunication lines within the conduit.
4. All construction and installation shall be accomplished according to construction standards
adopted by the city engineer. The construction standards shall be adopted with due consideration
given to existing and anticipated technologies and industry standards. The construction standards
shall specify the minimum diameter of the conduit and interducts and the minimum number of
interducts to meet the requirements of this section.
5. All conduit and appurtenances installed by private parties pursuant to this section shall be
conveyed and dedicated to the city with the dedication and conveyance of the public street and/or
right-of-way.
6. Any and all installation costs shall be the responsibility of the party constructing the public
street.
D. Use by Telecommunications Service Providers. Whenever conduit installed or to be
installed under this section is available or will become available within a newly constructed
public streets or right-of-way upon dedication, all telecommunications service providers
thereafter locating telecommunication lines within such street or right-of-way shall be required to
locate their communication lines within such conduit unless it can be demonstrated to the
reasonable satisfaction of the city engineer that such location is not technologically feasible or
reasonably practicable. Conduit capacity shall be allocated to telecommunications service
providers on a first -come, first -served basis; provided, that the city may reserve capacity within
such conduits for its own use; and provided further, that the city engineer may adopt additional
rules for conduit allocation in order to ensure that all telecommunications service providers have
reasonable access to the city's rights -of -way and that no barriers to entry or competition result
from the allocation of conduit space.
E. Fees. The city reserves the right to charge reasonable fees for the use of conduit installed
pursuant to this section, to the extent consistent with and as limited by federal and state laws and
regulations. Any such fees shall be established by resolution or ordinance. (Ord. 2003-25 § 1,
2003)
DocuSign Envelope ID: AF92123F-F61 D-4DFD-9F69-822FB13315DD
City of Port Orchard
Council Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting of March 22, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Putaansuu called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll call was taken by the City Clerk as follows:
Mayor Pro-Tem Lucarelli
Councilmember Chang
Councilmember Clauson
Councilmember Cucciardi
Councilmember Diener
Councilmember Trenary
Councilmember Rosapepe
Mayor Putaansuu
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Staff present via remote access: Public Works Director Dorsey, HR Manager Lund, Finance Director
Crocker, Police Chief Brown, Community Development Director Bond, City Attorney Archer, City Clerk
Wallace and Deputy City Clerk Floyd.
The meeting also streamed live on YouTube.
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Time Stamp: 0:00:26)
Mayor Putaansuu led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Time Stamp: 0:00:44)
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Diener, to approve the agenda
as published.
The motion carried.
3. CITIZENS COMMENTS (Time Stamp: 0:01:48)
Greg Krabbe spoke to the agreement with McCormick Communities, LLC regarding water credit
reimbursements for water improvements and thanked staff and consulting groups for working on
this.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AF92123F-F61 D-41DFD-91`69-8221`1313315DD
Minutes of March 22, 2022
Page 2 of 6
4. CONSENT AGENDA (Time Stamp: 0:03:36)
A. Approval of Voucher Nos. 83688 through 83776 and 83783 through 83812 including bank drafts
in the amount of $357,394.05 and EFT's in the amount of $154,898.53 totaling $512,292.58.
B. Approval of Payroll Check Nos. 83777 through 83782 including bank drafts and EFT's in the
amount of $223,664.56 and Direct Deposits in the amount of $209,203.24 totaling $432,867.80.
C. Approval of the March 8, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes
MOTION: By Councilmember Lucarelli, seconded by Councilmember Rosapepe, to approve the
consent agenda as presented.
The motion carried.
5. PRESENTATION
There were no presentations.
6. PUBLIC HEARING (Time Stamp: 0:04:15)
A. Draft Ordinance Amending Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 Fireworks
Mayor Putaansuu opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.
In response to Randy Jones, Mayor Putaansuu noted this public hearing is only for fireworks and the
Zoom only meetings will hopefully end sometime in May.
Dee C. with Real American Pageants said they use fireworks to raise money for social enrichment
programs for low and no -income families and homeless youth. If Port Orchard takes that away, Kitsap
youth with suffer. This could be the last year they could help assist the youth.
In response to Councilmember Clauson, Dee C. explained they generate about $12,000 a season in
Port Orchard, and scholarships for high school graduates.
Randy Cearley Area Manager for TNT fireworks, said Rice University did a study on what causes the
majority of fires, and noted fireworks/matches causes only 5% of fires. Also, the City of Tacoma
banned fireworks a couple years ago, but they noticed there were as much, or more fireworks than
before the ban. He explained why bans do not work and how it would create a huge pressure on the
City to enforce the ban.
Robert McGee questioned if the City has done an evaluation on what the net sales tax loss would be
to the City and the sales going to the surrounding areas.
In response to Cole Berdowski, Mayor Putaansuu noted this public hearing is only for fireworks.
Mayor Putaansuu noted there is a fireworks survey on the City's website, and we will continue this
public hearing to April 12t" when we take more public testimony.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AF92123F-F61 D-4DFD-9F69-822FB13315DD
Minutes of March 22, 2022
Page 3 of 6
Councilmember Lucarelli asked which fireworks would be banned and what kind of penalties would
we assign?
Councilmember Diener called Point of Order and asked if this is the right time to discuss this.
Mayor Putaansuu agreed this is not the time for deliberations, and we will wait until April 12tn
Community Development Director Bond said several comments came in after the packet went out.
Those comments have been emailed to all Councilmembers and the City Clerk added them to the
record.
In response to Franklin Rusk, Mayor Putaansuu explained the ban would be for all personal fireworks
other than the public display.
Mayor Putaansuu said Randy Jones was having technical difficulties earlier in the meeting during
citizen comments and asked the Council if Mr. Jones could speak.
Councilmembers had no objections.
Randy Jones spoke to the purchase of Mr. Haynes property and voiced his concerns with the price
valuation of the property.
7. BUSINESS ITEMS (Time Stamp: 0:24:08)
A. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Cucciardi, to adopt an
ordinance, amending the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget, as adopted by Ordinance No. 035-20 and as
amended.
The motion carried.
(Ordinance No. 011-22)
B. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Contract with McCormick Communities, LLC Regarding
Credits for Water Capital Facility Charges (Time Stamp: 0:26:37)
MOTION: By Councilmember Lucarelli, seconded by Councilmember Clauson, to adopt a resolution
authorizing the Mayor to sign an Agreement between the City of Port Orchard and McCormick
Communities, LLC, regarding credits for water capital facility charges.
The motion carried.
(Resolution No. 032-22 and Contract No. 048-22)
DocuSign Envelope ID: AF92123F-F61 D-41DFD-91`69-8221`1313315DD
Minutes of March 22, 2022
Page 4 of 6
C. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Kitsap County Tax Parcel No. 4027-
022-001-0004 for the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway Project (Time Stamp 0:36:24)
MOTION: By Councilmember Diener, seconded by Councilmember Clauson, to adopt Resolution No.
028-22, authorizing the purchase of Kitsap County Tax Parcel No. 4027-022-001-0004 for the Bay
Street Pedestrian Pathway Project in the total acquisition payment of $520,899.25 plus the
relocation payment in the amount of $386,118.03, the moving benefit payment in the amount of
$5,000.00 and any additional associated closing costs -escrow fees as needed, and authorizing the
Mayor to execute all documents necessary to effectuate this acquisition and relocation.
The motion carried.
D. Approval of Memorandums of Understanding with Teamsters Local 589 Representing Police
Support Staff, Municipal Court Employees and Public Works Employees (Time Stamp 0:41:20)
MOTION: By Councilmember Cucciardi, seconded by Councilmember Lucarelli, to authorize the
Mayor to sign MOU's with each of the three bargaining units represented by Teamsters Local No.
589 to correct language in Appendix B of the collective bargaining agreements regarding payroll
deductions in three paycheck months.
The motion carried.
(MOU No 1 to Contract No. 021-22, MOU No. 1 to Contract No. 022-22, and MOU 1 to Contract No.
023-22)
8. DISCUSSION ITEMS (No Action to be Taken) (Time Stamp: 0:44:10)
A. Continued: Veterans Park
Discussion was held which included monitoring actions being taken at the park, clearing out trash,
cleanup events, continued trash accumulation within the encampments, signs of rodent infestation,
scheduled removal of the RV, long term removal of the encampments, timeline from the County, and
the Kitsap Sun article.
Council Direction: No direction was given to staff.
9. REPORTS OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES (Time Stamp: 0:48:01)
Mayor Putaansuu reported the Economic Development and Tourism Committee is scheduled to meet
April 18t". Utilities Committee is scheduled to meet April 12t". Finance Committee is scheduled to
meet April 19t". The Land Use Committee is scheduled to meet April 20tn
Councilmember Chang and Mayor Putaansuu reported on the March 22nd Transportation Committee
meeting which included the Bay Street design, Bethel Phase 1, Community Events Center, and Old
Clifton pathway.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AF92123F-F61 D-4DFD-9F69-822FB13315DD
Minutes of March 22, 2022
Page 5 of 6
Mayor Putaansuu explained we learned that you can no longer buy gas trucks on the State's bid list.
We are now required to order electric vehicles. We are pursuing a grant for a solar array and charging
stations.
Councilmember Lucarelli reported on the March 215t Festival of Chimes and Lights Committee
meeting.
City Clerk Wallace reported on the Lodging Tax Application process.
Mayor Putaansuu reported that Kitsap Transit sent a letter stating every 4 years, they are required to
review the composition of its board. We get 1 representative at that meeting. He is willing to do it,
but it is up to Council.
Councilmembers had no objections with Mayor Putaansuu sitting on this committee.
Lastly, he gave a brief report on Housing Kitsap.
10. REPORT OF MAYOR (Time Stamp: 0:59:47)
The Mayor reported on the following:
• Community Events Center survey;
• Phase 1 of the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway project; and
• Equipment install for the Council Chambers.
11. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS (Time Stamp 1:02:11)
HR Manager Lund reported the City of Port Orchard has been awarded the 2022 WellCity Award.
Community Development Director Bond reported on the 2021 Impact Fee Annual Report.
Police Chief Brown reported on recruiting and interviews.
12. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Time Stamp: 1:06:19)
There were no citizen comments.
13. GOOD OF THE ORDER (Time Stamp: 1:07:13)
There were no good of the order comments.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION
No executive session was held.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AF92123F-F61 D-4DFD-9F69-822FB13315DD
Minutes of March 22, 2022
Page 6 of 6
15. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. No other action was taken. Audio/Visual was successful.
DocuSigned by: DocuSigned by:
Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: BA02A434-2B9E-4B5A-AOEB-BC9E24OC83OF
City of Port Orchard
Council Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting of April 12, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Putaansuu called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll call was taken by the City Clerk as follows:
Mayor Pro-Tem Lucarelli
Councilmember Chang
Councilmember Clauson
Councilmember Cucciardi
Councilmember Diener
Councilmember Trenary
Councilmember Rosapepe
Mayor Putaansuu
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Present via Remote Access
Staff present via remote access: Finance Director Crocker, Police Chief Brown, Community
Development Director Bond, Operations Manager Lang, City Attorney Archer, City Clerk Wallace, and
Deputy City Clerk Floyd.
The meeting also streamed live on YouTube.
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Time Stamp: 0:00:30)
Mayor Putaansuu led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Time Stamp: 0:00:52)
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Rosapepe, to approve the
agenda as published.
The motion carried.
3. CITIZENS COMMENTS (Time Stamp: 0:01:50)
There were no citizen comments.
4. CONSENT AGENDA (Time Stamp: 0:02:37)
A. Approval of Voucher Nos. 83813 through 83839 and 83842 through 83902 including bank drafts
in the amount of $1,563,639.20 and EFT's in the amount of $136,847.15 totaling $1,700,486.35.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BA02A434-2B9E-4B5A-AOEB-BC9E240C830F
Minutes of April 12, 2022
Page 2 of 7
B. Approval of Payroll Check Nos. 83840 through 83841 including bank drafts and EFT's in the
amount of $145,464.01 and Direct Deposits in the amount of $213,446.65 totaling $358,910.66.
C. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Certain Item as Surplus and Authorizing its Disposition
(Resolution No. 034-22)
D. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Purchase of Equipment for the Equipment Rental
Revolving Fund 500 (Resolution No. 035-22)
E. Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the 2025-2026 Federal Transportation Funding Cycle
Application for the SR166/Bay Street Improvement Project (Geiger to Frederick) (Resolution No.
031-22)
F. Approval of the March 11, 2022, Council Retreat Minutes
G. Approval of the March 22, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes
MOTION: By Councilmember Lucarelli, seconded by Councilmember Diener, to approve the consent
agenda as published.
The motion carried.
S. PRESENTATION
There were no presentations.
6. PUBLIC HEARING (Time Stamp 0:03:07)
A. Continuation of Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 Fireworks
Mayor Putaansuu noted this is a continuation of the public hearing opened at the last Council
meeting.
Sue spoke in favor of banning fireworks in Port Orchard due to being dangerous, causing anxiety in
pets, and they are bad for the environment.
Randy, Heidi Fenton, Marti Bishop, and Kevin B. spoke in opposition of the ban, mentioning the
fireworks industry is committed to making as little trash as possible, reducing carbon footprint, the
Council can instead ban certain fireworks and not all fireworks, non -profits depend on the fireworks
revenue, public safety, regulating the ban, and continuing family gatherings on the 4tn
In response to Anita Rose, Mayor Putaansuu explained this is the time for public testimony only on
fireworks, but there is a citizen comment portion near the end of the meeting for any topic.
There being no more testimony, Mayor Putaansuu closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m.
Mayor Putaansuu shared the fireworks survey results.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BA02A434-2B9E-4B5A-AOEB-BC9E24OC83OF
Minutes of April 12, 2022
PaRe3of7
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The executive session was not held.
8. BUSINESS ITEMS (Time Stamp: 0:24:56)
A. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 Fireworks
MOTION: By Councilmember Rosapepe, seconded by Councilmember Diener, to adopt an ordinance,
amending POMC 5.60 to ban the private sale and use of fireworks within City limits, as presented.
Councilmembers Lucarelli, Cucciardi, Clauson, Trenary, Chang spoke against the ban.
Councilmember Diener spoke in favor of the ban.
The motion failed. Councilmembers Lucarelli, Cucciardi, Clauson, Trenary and Chang voted no.
B. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Relocation Benefits to the Owners of Kitsap County Tax
Parcel No. 4027-023-017-0004 for the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway Project (Time Stamp:
0:52:28)
MOTION: By Councilmember Diener, seconded by Councilmember Cucciardi, to adopt Resolution
No. 033-22, authorizing relocation benefits payments to the owners of Kitsap County Tax Parcel No.
4027-023-017-0004 for the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway Project, and authorizing the Mayor to
execute all necessary documents.
The motion carried.
(Resolution No. 033-22)
C. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 042-20, Exhibit A -Procurement Policies and
Procedures (Time Stamp 0:58:42)
MOTION: By Councilmember Trenary, seconded by Councilmember Lucarelli, to adopt a Resolution
amending Resolution No. 042-20, Exhibit A, the City's Procurement Policies and Procedures.
The motion carried.
(Resolution No. 036-22)
D. Approval of Amendment No. 6 to Contract No. 066-20 with Rice Fergus Miller, Inc. for the
Design Development and Construction Drawings of the Port Orchard Community Events Center
(Time Stamp 1:03:01)
DocuSign Envelope ID: BA02A434-2B9E-4B5A-AOEB-BC9E24OC83OF
Minutes of April 12, 2022
Page 4 of 7
MOTION: By Councilmember Lucarelli, seconded by Councilmember Chang, to authorize the Mayor
to execute Amendment No. 6 to Contract No. 066-20 with Rice Fergus Miller, Inc. for the South Kitsap
Community Event Center Project in an amount of $1,389,500.
The motion carried.
E. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Contract with N.L. Olson & Associations, Inc for the
Engineering Services for the Demolition and Removal of the Sidney Water Tower Project (Time
Stamp 1:08:56)
MOTION: By Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Diener, to adopt Resolution No.
030-22, authorizing the Mayor to execute Contract No. C047-22 with N.L. Olson and Associates, Inc
for engineering services for the Demolition and Removal of the Sidney Water Tower Project in an
amount not to exceed $34,000.00, and documenting the Professional Services procurement
procedures.
Councilmember Lucarelli recused herself due to family employment at N.L. Olson and Associates,
Inc.
The motion carried.
F. Approval of an Interagency Agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce
to Adopt a Housing Action Plan (Time Stamp 1:14:22)
MOTION: By Councilmember Diener, seconded by Councilmember Clauson, to authorize the Mayor
to execute the Washington State Department of Commerce Interagency Agreement with the City of
Port Orchard through Growth Management Services for the Housing Action Plan Implementation
Grant to adopt a Housing Action Plan in the amount of $75,000.
The motion carried.
(Agreement No. 056-22)
G. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's Recommendation
for Additional 2022 Funding Allocation (Time Stamp 1:19:31)
MOTION: By Councilmember Cucciardi, seconded by Councilmember Rosapepe, to adopt a
resolution, adopting the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's recommendation for additional 2022
funding allocation, as presented.
The motion carried.
(Resolution No. 037-22)
DocuSign Envelope ID: BA02A434-2B9E-4B5A-AOEB-BC9E24OC83OF
Minutes of April 12, 2022
PaRe5of7
H. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 074-21 with CodePros,
LLC for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services (Time Stamp 1:29:40)
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Cucciardi, to adopt a resolution
waiving the city's procurement policies and authorizing the mayor to execute Amendment #1 to
Contract 074-21 with CodePros, LLC, raising the total contract amount to $350,000.
The motion carried.
(Resolution No. 038-22)
I. Approval of a Contract with SAFEBuilt Consultants for Building/Fire Code Plan Review and
Building Code Inspection Services (Time Stamp 1:33:30)
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Lucarelli, to approve a
resolution providing a limited procurement policy waiver and authorizing the mayor to execute a
contract with SafeBuilt for fire code plan review and building code inspection services as presented.
The motion carried.
(Contract No. 057-22)
J. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-MD-2804, United States District Court (Time Stamp 1:40:34)
Council Direction: Add this item to the April 26, 2022, City Council Meeting for consideration and
email the Council the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and summary for better
understanding.
K. Approval of a Road Closure for a Special Event: The Unforgotten Run to Tahoma (Time Stamp
1:56:03)
MOTION: By Councilmember Diener, seconded by Councilmember Rosapepe, to approve the road
closure for the Unforgotten Run event taking place on Saturday, May 28, 2022, as presented, and to
waive POMC 5.94.030(4) for this event.
The motion carried.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS (No Action to be Taken) (Time Stamp: 2:00:56)
A. Continued: Veterans Park
Discussion was held which included removal of the RV at the south end of the park, Kitsap County
Notice of Intent to Close Encampment, closure of individual tent sites, trash and debris, and what
happens when encampments close.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BA02A434-2B9E-4B5A-AOEB-BC9E240C830F
Minutes of April 12, 2022
Page 6 of 7
Council Direction: No direction was given to staff.
10. REPORTS OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES (Time Stamp: 2:07:47)
Mayor Putaansuu reported the Economic Development and Tourism Committee is scheduled to
meet April 18t". The Finance Committee is scheduled to meet April 19t". The Transportation
Committee is scheduled to meet April 26t". The Festival of Chimes and Lights Committee is scheduled
to meet April 18t". The Land Use Committee is scheduled to meet April 20t". The Sewer Advisory
Committee is scheduled to meet May 18c1,
11. REPORT OF MAYOR (Time Stamp: 2:09:13)
The Mayor reported on the following:
• Community Center survey;
• Transportation Improvement Board award for pedestrian improvements by Cedar Heights;
• Garbage can wraps;
• Marina pump station construction and meeting with Port of Bremerton;
• In accordance with Ordinance No. 008-20 'Delegating Authority to the Mayor for Creating
and Modification of Job Descriptions', he approved revised job description for Mechanic;
• Inspector Project Manager hiring,
• Chambers audio update installation; and
• Public Health Board legislation.
12. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS (Time Stamp 2:29:06)
No reports of department heads.
13. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Time Stamp: 2:30:22)
Anita Rose spoke to the Kitsap League of Women's Voters roundtable regarding climate change and
asked for more bicycle lanes and offered suggestions to make bicyclists safer.
Kevin B. suggested Port Orchard become a two-way sanctuary city.
14. GOOD OF THE ORDER (Time Stamp: 2:35:55)
Councilmember Rosapepe encouraged people to get the booster shot. He also spoke to the civil
discussion Council had during regarding fireworks.
In response to Councilmember Clauson, Mayor Putaansuu briefly reported on repairs to City streets.
Councilmember Lucarelli spoke about street trees that have recently been planted.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BA02A434-2B9E-4B5A-AOEB-BC9E240C830F
Minutes of April 12, 2022
Page 7 of 7
15. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. No other action was taken. Audio/Visual was successful.
DocuSigned by:
Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk
EDocuSigned by:
leatic,vf
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ORT
fl�QORgr�'6.p,
SEWA
A o. _
u,rrrruu,l ��
T�
Itleniifiatia, Nummr: 79
SNe Add m,, NO S",Add
"
Amon Nummr(¢ 052301-11030 2005
Cumnt Zmn Rum Pm2oan (1 DIP Aces)
"
Rpue Z m, U Hmn Reutlentiel Zone
JunmiNom Un nmrpamretl Rurel
camm�.uann Dimia 2
Zaamta ...
Itlen[i9cslion Number: 09
pdMdtl NOSuus Atltlreas
/
Rc NUmM 0022302M372001
�I
1
072302303820. ,0723023M3 20 ,
D7230230332W5
r
CumrRZ Wv Rurel Pmreoan Cl DIP Acre)
R Zo : UAan low Remtlemiel(59
DU ,/
JunWiNan: Uninmrpomretl Rural
c mm,,w Dim&2
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan
Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report
January 4, 2023
Introduction
The Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP) defines strategies and implementing actions that
promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all
income levels. The process to develop the HAP included a review of Port Orchard's system of
policies, programs, and regulations which shape opportunities for housing development.
The purpose of this effort is to define strategies and actions that promote greater housing
diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels.
The HAP is intended to inform updates to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan (most notably
the Land Use and Housing elements) and to guide implementation strategies such as
development regulations, housing programs, fee structures, and infrastructure spending
priorities.
Table of Contents
Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
Section1 - Community Profile...............................................................................................3
Section 2 - Housing Inventory and Production Trends........................................................3
Section3 - Cost Trends........................................................................................................31
Section 4 - Housing and Service Needs..............................................................................36
Section 5 - Housing Funding and Monetary Tools.............................................................42
Section 6 - Housing Policies................................................................................................47
Section 7 - Land Capacity Analysis.....................................................................................64
Appendix A - Kitsap County Impact Fee Comparison........................................................64
Appendix B - Comprehensive Plan Policies........................................................................68
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 1
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 2
Abbreviations
ACS. American Community Survey, an annual product of the U.S. Census Bureau.
AMI. Area median income.
BIPOC. Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color.
CHAS. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, a product of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
GIS. Geographic Information System.
HAP. Housing Action Plan.
HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
LEHD. Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, a product of the U.S. Census Bureau.
MFI. Medium family income.
MFTE. Multifamily tax exemption program.
MHI. Medium household income.
MSA. Metropolitan Statistical Area.
POMC. Port Orchard Municipal Code (city law).
OFM. Washington State Office of Financial Management.
RCW. Revised Code of Washington (state law).
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 3
Section 1- Community Profile
The Community Profile discusses Port Orchard's current and future population and the age,
race, and ethnicity of residents. It also discusses the size, income, and characteristics of the
City's households, as well as households with specific needs and risks such as cost -burdened
households, older adults, and adults with disabilities. These demographic and household
characteristics provide background and context for the types of housing required to better serve
all of Port Orchard's residents.
Population and Demographics
Historic and Future Population
Port Orchard's population in 2020 was 15,587 according to the U.S. Census. The Washington
Office of Financial Management Postcensal 2022 population estimate for the city is 16,400.
Figure 1 shows the city's population trends since 1960, average annual growth rates by decade,
and the latest Port Orchard 2044 population target of 26,087 residents as detailed in the Kitsap
County Countywide Planning Policy Update.
Port Orchard is a fast-growing community that has historically grown more rapidly than national
and statewide averages. The city grew at an average annual rate of about 2.8 percent since
1960, but growth accelerated around 2000. Since 2000 the city has grown on average 4.0
percent annually, an increase of 9,442 residents. By comparison, Kitsap County grew at a rate of
0.9 percent per year over the same period and national population growth was 0.7 percent in the
2000-2020 period. The 2020 census and 2044 population target represent an expected annual
growth rate of 2.2 percent per year, though recent trends have suggested higher growth rates
closer to 3 percent indicating that Port Orchard may exceed its planning target.
30,000
25,000
20,000
c
0
15,000
Q
0
a
10,000
5,000
� Population Annual Growth Rate
■
1960 1970 1980
6%
5%
�a
2% c
1%
0%
1990 2000 2010 2020 2044
Figure 1. Port Orchard Population, Historic Through 2020 and Projected Through 2044 with Annual Growth
Rates. Sources: WA OFM (Historic Population), Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policy Update
101412022 (Projections)
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 4
The City of Port Orchard annexed a large amount of acreage between 2010 and 2012, which
contributed to the comparatively rapid population growth in the 2010s. During this period, the
City annexed 1,400 acres comprising 515 parcels. Together, the newly annexed areas make up
19.5% of Port Orchard's total acreage. Without granular population numbers at a parcel level, it
is difficult to assess exactly how many new residents are represented by this area, but these
annexations have certainly affected the rapid growth rates seen over the past 20 years.
Age, Race/Ethnicity, and Language
Figure 2 shows the racial and ethnic breakdown of the Port Orchard and Kitsap County
populations. Port Orchard is about 67 percent White, compared with 76 percent in Kitsap
County. The city has a higher share of Hispanic/Latino and mixed -race residents than the
county and similar shares of Asian and Black/African-American residents.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Port Orchard
Kitsap County
■ Hispanic / Latino
■ Other / Two or More Races
■ Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
Asian
American Indian / Alaska Native
■ Black / African American
■ White
Figure 2. Racial and Ethnic Distribution in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05
The Port Orchard population is somewhat younger than regional and statewide populations, as
shown in Figure 3. Over half the population is under 35 years old, and 14 percent of residents
are over 65, compared with 18 percent countywide. This younger population suggests a current
need for smaller or more affordable housing units, and the potential for larger units as younger
residents age and form households in coming decades.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 5
100%
90%
80% 11% 13%
14°i°
70% 11 % ■ 65 and older
12%12%60% 12% ■ 55 to 64
50% 12% 13% ■ 45 to 54
40% ° _ ■ 35 to 44
30% 220/, ■ 20 to 34
20°i° ■ 19 and younger
10%
0%
Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington
Figure 3. Age Distribution in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05
The chart below shows the age distribution of Port Orchard residents by sex. Generally, there
are more males in the 25 to 54 age group and more females in older age cohorts.
85 years and over
75 to 84 years
65 to 74 years
60 to 64 years
55 to 59 years
45 to 54 years
35 to 44 years
25 to 34 years
20 to 24 years
15 to 19 years
10 to 14 years
5 to 9 years
Under 5 years
■ Male
Female
-1,400 -1,200 -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Figure 4. Age Distribution by Sex in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American
Community Survey, Table SO101
Most Port Orchard residents are citizens born in the United States. About a third of Port
Orchard's residents were born in the state of Washington. About half were born in another state
(including U.S. territories). Almost five percent were born in Asia, with small numbers born in
other regions of the world, as seen in Figure 5.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 6
Place of Birth
USA (same state)
Percent
37.0%
Total
5,292
USA (other state)
52.3%
7,480
Europe
0.6%
79
Asia
4.8%
685
Africa
0.0%
0
Oceania
0.1 %
20
Latin America
1.3%
188
Northern America
0.4%
59
Figure 5. Port Orchard Residents Place of Birth, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, Table CP02
Most Port Orchard households speak English as a first language. Almost six percent, or 815
households, speak an Asian or Pacific Island language, and about two percent, or 272
households, speak Spanish at home.
Census data on English language proficiency is not available at the geographic scale of Port
Orchard, but across all of Kitsap County, about 29 percent of Spanish speakers and 39 percent
of Asian or Pacific Island language speakers do not speak English "very well." Limited English
proficiency can have implications for housing security if materials are not translated or there is
confusion over contracts, expectations, or tenant rights.
Language
English
91.8%
13,130
Spanish
1.9%
272
Indo-European languages
0.6%
86
Asian/ Pacific Island languages
5.7%
815
Other languages
0.1 %
14
Figure 6. Language Spoken at Home, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,
Table S1601
Household Characteristics
Household Size, Type, and Tenure
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as "all the people who occupy a housing unit."
Households can be comprised of any combination of related family members, unrelated people,
or individuals.' The 2020 American Community Survey estimated about 5,517 total households
in Port Orchard, up from about 4,316 households in 2010—an increase of about 28 percent, or
2.5 percent per year. Figure 7 shows total households, occupied households, and the vacancy
rate over the past decade.
The vacancy rate compares the total number of occupied versus unoccupied units. This
accounts for all "natural vacancies" due to units on the market being available for sale or rent,
second homes and seasonal homes, vacation rentals, and any other type of unoccupied
housing. See Section 2 for more information on market -based vacancy rates.
1 U.S. Census Bureau: Subject Definitions.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 7
The vacancy rate has fluctuated from seven percent in 2010 to as high as 14 percent in 2015
but has decreased to 5.6 percent in 2020.This decreasing vacancy rate suggests increased
demand for housing in the city.
Vacancy Rate Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units
7,000 16%
6,000 14%
5,000 12%
m
10%
o 4,000
8%
73 3,000 M
0 6% �
2,000 4 �
°i°
1,000 2%
0 0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 7. Vacancy Rates and Housing Unit Occupancy, 2010-2020. Source: 2010-2020 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25002
The following table shows household composition in Port Orchard and Kitsap County. Overall,
the shares of family and non -family households are very similar to county averages, with nearly
70 percent of households classified as family households, about half of which are married
couples. Twenty-two percent of Port Orchard residents live alone, and about half of those
residents are over 65 years old. Household composition data can provide insight into the
various types and sizes of housing to best meet the needs of the city's residents.
Household TyPercent
pe
otal Households
Port Orchard
Total
5,517
100%
Total
105,758
Percent
100%
Family households
3,819
69%
71,415
68%
Married -couple family
2,995
54%
56,388
53%
Other family
824
15%
15,027
14%
Nonfamily households
1,698
31 %
34.343
32%
Householder living alone
1,214
22%
25,787
24%
Householder 65 years and over
601
11 %
11,396
11 %
Figure B. Household Composition in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS)
5-Year Estimates, Table S2501
Figure 9 shows tenure in Port Orchard. About 60 percent of households are renters and 40
percent are homeowners. This is broadly similar to statewide averages though a higher share of
renter households than in Kitsap County, likely owing to the large number of apartments in Port
Orchard compared to the rest of the county.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 8
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% ■ Renter -occupied
40% ■ Owner -occupied
30% .•'
20%
10%
0%
Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington
Figure 9. Tenure in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates,
Table S2501
Renters can face increased housing instability due to evictions and rent increases not faced by
homeowners. In addition, renters are more likely to be BIPOC and lower -income households,
compounding the effects of these housing challenges. As shown below in Figure 10, about 86
percent of ownership households in Port Orchard have a householder who identifies as White,
compared with 64 percent of renter households. Nationally, Black households had the highest
renter rate in 2022 at 55 percent, and Hispanic households were at 51 percent, compared to 26
percent for white households.2 Additionally, as discussed below under "Income" and shown in
Figure 14, renters in Port Orchard earn less than homeowners, with a median household income
for renter households of $46,209 in 2020 compared to $97,504 for ownership households.
Race of Householder
One Race
Ownership Households
Renter Households
White
89.4%
71.5%
Black or African -American
2.2%
4.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native
0.3%
0.0%
Asian
3.0%
4.3%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
0.8%
8.8%
Some Other Race
0.5%
3.2%
Two or More Races
3.8%
7.8%
Hispanic or Latino Origin
6.2%
12.9%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
86.4%
64.4%
All Households
60.1 %
39.9%
Figure 10. Tenure by Race in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year
Estimates, Table S2502
2 Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, "The State of the Nation's Housing 2022"
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 9
Figure 11 shows the breakdown of Port Orchard's households by tenure and household size.
About 34 percent of households are two -person households, and 27 percent have four or more
members. Renters make up a slightly larger share of smaller households, although 11 percent of
four -or -more -person households are also renters.
4-or-more-person household
3-person household
2-person household
1-person household
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
■ Ownership Households ■ Renter Households
Figure 11. Port Orchard Tenure by Household Size, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS)
5-Year Estimates, Table S2501
The average household size in Port Orchard is 2.4 people per household'.
There is a mismatch between housing size and household size in Port Orchard. Fifty-six percent
of households are made up of one or two people, whereas only 37 percent of housing units are
studio, one- or two -bedroom units, as shown below in Figure 11. Although smaller households
may prefer to live in larger units, this type of mismatch can cause housing affordability issues if
smaller households are forced to rent more expensive larger units due to supply constraints.
3 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 10
Household Size
3-person
household
16°i° 2-person
household
34%
Housing Unit Size
3
bedrooms
41%
Studio / 1
bedroom
10%
bedrooms
Figure 12. Household Size and Housing Unit Size in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501, DP04
When analyzed by tenure, there are more significant disparities in household size and housing
unit size for homeowners, as shown below in Figure 12. Only 2 percent of ownership housing
units are studio or one -bedroom units, whereas 53 percent of ownership households are one- or
two -person households. The rental housing stock is more closely matched with renters'
household sizes in the city. This shows that residents in smaller households seeking to
purchase housing may face difficulties and higher costs due to lack of availability of small
ownership units.
Household Size
■ 1 person HH
■ 2 person HH
3 person HH
■ 4+ person HH
100%
90%
100%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
�
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Owners
Renters
Housing Unit Size
■ 0-1 bedroom ■ 2-3 bedrooms
■ 4+ bedrooms
Owners Renters
Figure 13. Household Size and Housing Unit Size by Tenure in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501, S2504
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 11
Income
The median household income (MHI) in Port Orchard was $71,719 in 2020, $7,250 less than the
Kitsap County MHI and $5,287 less than the statewide average. The Port Orchard MFI increasec
21 percent since 2010, when adjusted for inflation. This is significantly higher than the 12
percent increase in Kitsap County and 14 percent increase across Washington during the same
timeframe, as shown in Figure 13.
$97,524 ■ 2010 ■ 2020
$75,600 $78,969 $77,006
$71,719 $70,268 $67,548
$59,325
$44,074 $46,209
Port Orchard Port Orchard Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington
(All Households) (Ownership Households)(Renter Households)
Figure 14. Inflation -Adjusted Median Household Income in Port Orchard and Region, 2010-2020. Source:
2010-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, CPI Inflation Index
Renters in Port Orchard earn considerably less than
homeowners. In 2020, the MHI for ownership
households was $97,524, compared to only $46,209 for
renter households. In addition, renters in Port Orchard
have seen only a five percent increase in incomes
between 2010 and 2020, compared to a 29 percent
increase in incomes of ownership households, when
adjusted for inflation. Rental households' lower
incomes and slower income growth compared with
ownership households raises concerns over the ability
of renters to keep up with rising housing costs or to
move into homeownership, particularly given that
wealthier ownership households may be able to pay
more for housing.
For the Bremerton -Silverdale Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA), the 2022 median family income (MFI) is $102,500 and the 2020 MFI was $91,700.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 12
When broken down across income levels, the largest share of Port Orchard households earn
between $75,000 and $100,000 per year, as shown in Figure 14. Port Orchard has smaller
shares of high -income earners making over $150,000 per year than Kitsap County, and a much
larger share of the lowest -income households earning less than $10,000 per year than
countywide averages. This shows a high level of need for subsidized affordable housing,
discussed further in Section 2 under "Affordable Housing."
20%
18%
16% ■Port Orchard
14% OKitsap County
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
O O O C) C) CD Ln CD Ln O N ODCD
b4 Y M CD b4 b4 to b4 (V O
b4 tH b4 11
4 O
V IN
O O O O O O Y
N M Ln QO ul O Ln O
b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 I� O N l2
b4
to b4 b4
Figure 15. Household Income in the Past 12 Months, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates, Table B19001
Figure 16 below is from HUD Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data' for 2019 and shows
a breakdown of Port Orchard's households by income
level and tenure. Almost half of Port Orchard residents
(46 percent) earn less than 80 percent of the AMI, a
common threshold for subsidized housing eligibility.
About 69 percent of renter -occupied households earn
less than 80 percent AMI, while 30 percent of owner -
occupied households earn less than 80 percent AMI.
Additionally, over a quarter (28 percent) of renters earn under 30 percent of the AMI, or $27,500
for a family of four, demonstrating the need for more subsidized affordable housing in Port
Orchard, which is typically the only type of housing that can meet these deep affordability levels.
Stakeholders described over 1,000 people are on the waiting list for housing vouchers at the
Kitsap Housing Authority, which manages vouchers in both Bremerton and Port Orchard.
4 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, a HUD dataset based on calculations from the American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates that provides a series of tables demonstrating housing problems and needs.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 13
100%+AMI
80-100% AM I
50-80% AMI
30-50% AMI ■ Owner ■ Renter
< 30% AMI
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Figure 16. Port Orchard Households by Income Level and Tenure. Source: 2015-2019 HUD CHAS data
Vehicle Ownership
Figure 16 shows number of vehicles available to Port Orchard households by the tenure of unit.
Owner -occupied units are more likely to have two or three vehicles, while renter -occupied units
are more likely to have one to two vehicles. Also of note,14 percent of renter households have
no access to a vehicle. These vehicle ownership ratios are similar to statewide averages,
although ownership households are slightly more likely to have two vehicles in Port Orchard
than statewide.
60%
■ Owner ■ Renter
50% �
40%
30% �
20%
10%
0% �
No vehicle 1 vehicle available 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 or more vehicles
available available available available available
Figure 17. Vehicle Ownership by Tenure of Unit, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, Table B25044
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 14
Employment Trends
Understanding workforce and employment trends is essential for housing planning. A growing,
shrinking, or shifting economy can affect residents' ability to afford housing and limit or expand
their housing choices. Strong economies in nearby communities can also affect commuting and
residential patterns.
Figure 18 shows changes in Port Orchard's top employment sectors from 2009 to 2019, the year
of the most recent Census employment data. Retail jobs have increased significantly, and health
care and food service jobs have also seen growth since the 2008 recession. The large number
of public administration jobs reflect county offices within Port Orchard, the county seat.
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400 f�
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
& 00 RR 00 OHO 01 00 O°' .�O NN ,�`L Nrb NIX '�h NO NA NO Nq
�O �O �O If, If, If, �O rf, rO If, If, I_fI rf, rf, 1O If, If, rf,
Retail Trade
Public Administration
Health Care / Social Assistance
Accommodation / Food
Construction
Professional Services
Figure 18. Job Trends by Top Sectors in Port Orchard, 2009-2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal
Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND) via Census OnTheMap
Figure 19 shows the top job sectors in the city and the top job sectors worked by Port Orchard
residents. Many of the employees in the top sectors, particularly retail and public administration,
are not Port Orchard residents. On the other hand, there are larger shares of residents who work
in professional services, education, and manufacturing than jobs in the city. This reflects a
variety of scenarios, including technology/knowledge workers employed in Seattle, regional
educators at schools in nearby cities, and industrial employees in surrounding areas, potentially
connected to the Naval shipyard in Bremerton.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 15
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200 lilliddom
0
mijoi
aae `°� aye &``A `°" G°5 `°" Goe ��` ae - o�
"J a�G'oK
Q GPaca 1 o°a\ G �y\oa Pam or \��� �r°tee a Ge\ lac
QJ•Q\` �
■ Jobs in Port Orchard ■ Jobs Worked by Port Orchard Residents
Figure 19. Top Job Sectors in Port Orchard and Jobs Worked by Port Orchard Residents, 2019. Source: U.S.
Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD) via Census OnTheMap
The map below shows commuting patterns of Port Orchard workers as of 2019, the year of the
most recent Census commuter data. About 585 workers, or 11.7 percent of Port Orchard
employees, both lived and worked in the city. 6,540 workers lived outside of the city and
commute in for work, and 4,396 workers lived in the city but commuted to work elsewhere.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 16
Employed and Live
in Selection Area
Employed in Selection Area,
Live Outside
Live in Selection Area,
Employed Outside
Bremerton Navy Yard City
304
T
,,540 Port orchard 4,396 Parkwood
Ea,-. Port Orchard
5-85
# S��r�east �ea9Wi
Figure 20. Port Orchard Commuting Inflow and Outflow, 2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD
(Longitudial Employer -Household Dynamics) via Census OnTheMap tool.
As shown below in Figure 21, a similar amount of Port Orchard residents were working in
Seattle, Port Orchard, and Bremerton in 2019. Smaller shares of residents were working in other
nearby locales, including unincorporated East Port Orchard. This data is not yet available for
more recent years but monitoring these commuting trends will be important due to the changes
in workplace dynamics and remote work since the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020.
Work Location
Seattle city, WA
Percent
12.3%
Port Orchard city, WA
11.7%
Bremerton city, WA
10.8%
Silverdale CDP, WA
5.0%
East Port Orchard CDP, WA
4.7%
Tacoma city, WA
4.3%
Gig Harbor city, WA
4.0%
Bellevue city, WA
2.2%
Kent city, WA
1.7%
Poulsbo city, WA
1.5%
All Other Locations
41.6%
Figure 21. Port Orchard Commuting Locations, 2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD (Longitudial
Employer -Household Dynamics) via Census OnTheMap tool.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 17
Section 2 - Housing Inventory and Production Trends
This section discusses the type and age of Port Orchard's existing housing stock and current
and future housing production. It also identifies special housing types in Port Orchard such as
subsidized affordable units and senior housing. An inventory of existing housing creates a
baseline for future housing planning and identifies market trends.
Total Housing Units
Port Orchard's 5,577 housing units account for approximately five percent of Kitsap County's
housing units. The breakdown of unit types is shown below in Figure 22. Sixty-three percent of
units are single-family detached units, somewhat less than the county. Port Orchard has a
noticeably higher share of buildings with 5-19 units than the county, and an overall higher share
of multifamily units.
100°i°
3%
5%
90% 6%
80% 7%
5%
70% 3%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Port Orchard
3%
Kitsap County
Mobile home
■ 20 or more units
■ 10 to 19 units
■ 5 to 9 units
■ 3 or 4 units
■ 2 units
■ 1-unit, attached
■ 1-unit, detached
Figure 22. Housing Unit Type in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 18
Housing Age and Production
Figure 23 shows the age of housing stock in Port Orchard as of 2020. The city has a
considerably younger housing stock than Kitsap County overall, with 57 percent of housing built
since 1990, compared with 40 percent countywide. However, Port Orchard also contains a
slightly larger share of older buildings constructed before 1950 than the county, at 23 percent.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
12%
5%
7%
Port Orchard
5%
14%
18%
7%
4%
Kitsap County
■ 2010 or later
■ 2000-2009
■ 1990-1999
■ 1980-1989
■ 1970-1979
■ 1960-1969
■ 1950-1959
■ 1940-1949
■ 1939 or earlier
Figure 23. Age of Housing in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04.
Building permit issuance data shown below in Figure 20 corroberates this data on housing age.
A significant number of multifamily housing permits were issued in the 1990s, and multifamily
permitting has accelerated in the past decade, as have single-family housing permits. This data
shows issued permits, not completions, so much of the housing shown in the past several years
has not yet been occupied but is in the pipeline.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 19
600
500
Single -Family Duplex Triplex / 4-Plex ■ 5+ Unit Multifamily
400
300
200 '
100 '
0
1§0 %101 O O1` � 00 00 Oc0 l, C51X 0 qOff' O 00 O�
�
Figure 24. Port Orchard Building Permits Issued by Unit Type, 1980-2022 (to date). Source: HUD State of the
Cities Data Systems (SOCDS)
Figure 25 shows expected dates when certificates of occupancy will be granted for permitted
housing in the pipeline. In total, 5,198 units are permitted and expected to be completed in Port
Orchard in the coming years, and 2,482 of those units are planned to be completed between
2022 and 2024, of which 45 percent will be multifamily units. This high rate of housing
production will nearly double the city's housing inventory within the next several years.
3000
2500
2000
■Mixed -Use Development
1500 ■ 5+ Unit Apartment
4-Plex
1000 Townhouse
Single Family & Townhouse
500
Single Family
0
2022 2023 2024 Permitting
Initiated,
Timeline
Uncertain
Figure 25. Number of Units Permitted with Certificates of Occupancy Expected 2022 and Later by Unit Type.
Source: City of Port Orchard.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 20
Interviews with developers and stakeholders conducted by the project team in summer 2022
confirmed a large amount of single-family and apartment construction both underway and
planned. In particular, the McCormick Woods development, a large master planned community
in the western part of the city, has been in development since the 1980s and will significantly
increase the city's housing stock, as well as representing a portion of the newly annexed land
previously discussed. City permitting data indicates 2,729 units at McCormick Woods either
permitted or currently in the permitting process.
The multifamily developments built in Port Orchard to date have been walk-up apartments.
Some developers indicated that there may be a market for denser podium -style development in
the 10-20 year time horizon, and at least one such project has recently been proposed (see the
project spotlights later in this section).
Vacancy Rates
Port Orchard's vacancy rates for rental and ownership properties are shown in Figure 26. In
2020, the Census -reported rental vacancy rate was 5.8 percent and the ownership vacancy rate
was 1.4 percent. Both vacancy rates have decreased over the past decade as shown below, and
the 5.8 percent rental vacancy rate reflects the large amount of rental apartment construction
which has taken place in Port Orchard in recent years.
Note that this vacancy rate is based only on dwelling units that are available on the market for
sale or rent. It is different from the total number of unoccupied units discussed in Section 1.
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Ownership Vacancy Rate Rental Vacancy Rate
Figure 26. Vacancy Rates in Port Orchard, 2010-2020. Source: American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, Table DP04
In contrast with the relatively high census -reported rental vacancy rates shown above, CoStar, a
commercial real estate database, estimates vacancy rates for multifamily apartments in Port
orchard at about 3.5 percent as of mid-2022, as shown below in Figure 27, which shows the
stabilized (accounting for new development coming onto the market) vacancy rates in the city
over the past decade. This lower vacancy rate reported by the real estate industry may be more
representative of the strong demand for apartments in the city.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 21
0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Figure 27. Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate in Port Orchard, 2012-2022. Source: Costar
Vacation Housing
Census data shows there are zero seasonal and recreational housing units in Port Orchard.
Short -Term Rentals
Short-term rentals, also known as vacation rentals, are considered stays of 30 days or less in a
residential dwelling. Looking at listings on Airbnb, VRBO, and Vacasa for the December to
January 2022/2023 holiday season, there are 15 short-term rentals in Port Orchard.
Most of the short-term rentals are in the downtown area, with proximity to the water and Bay
Street. Rentals range from a private room up to five bedrooms. The average cost per night for a
private room or one bedroom is $114, $194 per night for two- and three -bedroom listings, and
$292 per night for four- and five -bedroom listings. City staff report that many short-term rentals
are not paying the required lodging tax.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 22
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing is housing reserved for people earning below a certain income and who
cannot afford market -rate costs (other interrelated terms include low-income housing,
subsidized housing, public housing, or rent -restricted housing). Affordable housing properties
may be reserved for people meeting other criteria such as families with children, seniors, people
with physical or intellectual disabilities, or people with substance abuse disorders.
Affordable housing is important to support community members who face barriers in the
private housing market, especially those who are on the edge of or transitioning out of
homelessness. This type housing is subsidized and mostly operated by government or non-
profit organizations.
The main affordable housing provider in Port Orchard is Housing Kitsap, a government agency
that provides housing assistance for families who need affordable alternatives to the private
market. Housing Kitsap operates countywide. In and near Port Orchard, Housing Kitsap's
portfolio includes 375 units across six properties and 109 "Section 8" vouchers (which pays
rents for voucher recipients).
In addition, Housing Kitsap has a Mutual Self -Help Housing program where homeowners put in
sweat equity to build their home and purchase it at an affordable price point. Housing Kitsap
also has a Home Rehabilitation Program that assists with home repairs. According to Housing
Kitsap staff, approximately 500 homes in Port Orchard have benefited from the two programs
since the 1970's.
Under Port Orchard's multifamily tax exemption program, 20 privately -owned units are being
rented at affordable rates. See more information under Section 5.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 23
Property
Housing Kitsap Rental Housing
Heritage Apartments
R3
56
Multifamily
Section 8; families or
people with disabilities
Orchard Bluff
R2
89
Mobile Home
Park
Low income & head of
household 55 or older
Port Orchard Vista
R4
42
Multifamily
(senior)
Low income & 62 or older
Conifer Woods Apartments
(outside city limits)
UGA
72
Multifamily
Low income
Viewmont East Apartments
(outside city limits)
UGA
76
Multifamily
Section 8; families or
people with disabilities
Madrona Manor
(outside city limits)
UGA
40
Multifamily
(senior)
Low income & head of
household 55 or older
Housing Kitsap Homeownership
Mutual Self -Help Housing
Sherman Ridge
R2
27
Single-family
80% AMI or less
Riverstone
R3 & R2
39
Single-family
80% AMI or less
Private Rental Housing
The Overlook
R3
8 affordable
(39 total)
Multifamily
MFTE Type 1
(12 year affordability)
Plisko Apartments
CMU
12
affordable
(58 total)
Multifamily
MFTE Type I
(12 year affordability)
Figure 28. Port Orchard affordable housing inventory (Housing Kitsap and City of Port Orchard)
Figure 29. Housing Kitsap long-term affordable housing sites in Port Orchard (excludes MFTE sites)
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 24
Public Land
Surplus public land is sometimes used for affordable housing. State law enacted in 2018 (RCW
39.33.015) allows local governments to transfer, lease, or dispose of surplus property at low or
no cost to developers for affordable housing projects. Port Orchard has a large number of City -
owned lands, and most are actively used for utility purposes or other public works, parks, and
administrative functions. Some lands are also in greenbelts, wetlands, or ravines which are
undevelopable.
Discussion with City staff yielded the following sites to consider in the Housing Action Plan.
Other public lands (such as those owned by Kitsap County, the Port of Bremerton, and other
agencies) could be reviewed in the future.
Map
Key
1
Parcel #
342401-4-016-2001 &
Zoning
CMU
Area
1.0 acres
Considerations
Surplus property from the construction of the
342401-4-015-2002
roundabout at Tremont/Pottery. Considerable
size and has appropriate zoning for affordable
housing.
2
252401-3-045-2009
R4
1.7 acres
Sloped site near the high school on Mitchell
Avenue. Considerable size, ideally located, and
has appropriate zoning for affordable housing.
3
4062-003-005-0006
R1
0.86
Vacant parcel owned by the water utility; it would
need to be purchased from the enterprise fund.
Considerable size and good location. Would likely
need to be rezoned.
4
4650-009-006-0208
DMU
0.25 acres
640 Bay Street (see Project Spotlights). This site
is planned for a housing project by a private
developer.
5
4538-009-007-0007
UGA
0.21 acres
Vacant property just outside city limits in the
Annapolis neighborhood.
6
4537-014-001-0004
UGA
0.15 acres
Vacant property just outside city limits in the
Annapolis neighborhood.
Figure 30. Table of surplus or vacant public land to consider for housing opportunities. Source: City of Port
Orchard
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 25
Figure 31. Map of surplus or vacant public land to consider for housing opportunities. Source: City of Port
Orchard
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 26
Project Spotlights
This section provides detailed case studies of recent and ongoing housing developments in
Port Orchard. It includes a cross-section of housing types. The spotlights are intended to
provide insights on housing cost and design trends.
Valley Quadplex
This a recently completed
fourplex development at
the corner of Mitchell
Avenue and Dwight Street. "
The site is zoned R3 and is
within the Downtown
Countywide Center. The
site is on a block with
single-family homes, to the
south is a small
multifamily complex, and
to the east is South Kitsap High School.
Each of the four units is 3 bed/2.5 bath with about
1,450 square feet of living area. The lot is 8,276 square
feet lot (0.19 acres), so the density is 21 units per acre.
The building is three -stories and steps down a slope,
with one -car garages located in a daylight basement in
the rear of each unit. The site incorporates a rear
shared access drive connected to a private alley.
Residential open space is provided on the east and
south sides of the building.
Staff report the development fits the neighborhood well
and it is a good example of infill. The developer
suggested more friendly paperwork and inspection
scheduling (the City just recently launched online--
scheduling and permitting). The fourplex was as
intimidating and laborious to permit as an apartment building, possibly due to the required
environmental review and the use of the commercial building code (as opposed to the
residential building code).
The developer was interested in but unable to participate in the multifamily tax exemption
(MFTE) program due to the local minimum threshold of 10 dwelling units (under updated state
law a four -unit development is the minimum).
The land cost was about $93,000 and the total construction cost (before sales tax) was about
$200 per square foot. The units are each renting for $2,300 to $2,500 per month.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 27
Haven Apartments
This is a nearly complete garden apartment
development in southern Port Orchard located off
Pottery Avenue and within the Ruby Creek
subarea. The site is zoned Commercial Mixed Use
and is within the Ruby Creek Overlay District. This
is a semi -rural area quickly transitioning into a
low -density neighborhood center.
Adjacent to the site to the south is Ruby Creek
and a single-family property, to the west is
additional vacant land where the Haven
Townhome project is planned by the same
developer, to the north is a church and car
dealership, and to the east is a wooded wetland.
Only about half of the 18-acre parcel is
developable due to the wetland and stream buffers; after subtracting those, the development's
net density is about 24 units per acre. The development has 216 total units spread across 10
three-story buildings. About 36% of units are 1-bedrooms, 52% are 2-bedrooms, and 11 % are 3-
bedrooms. An average of 1.65 parking spaces per unit are provided.
This development offers more amenities than typical multifamily projects in Port Orchard. With
units renting slightly above $2.00 per square foot (e.g. at least $2,100/month for a two -bedroom
unit), the project will serve the mid -high end of the Port Orchard rental market. This is partly due
to the developer's intentional positioning and the site amenities, including a 6,000 square feet
clubhouse with a swimming pool.
Higher rents are also partly due to the high construction costs that need to be recouped. Hard
construction costs, not including land, were about $170 per square foot. Impact fees totaled
about $28,000 per unit ($6 million total). Through a development agreement, the developer is
receiving sewer general facility fee credits to help offset the cost of a new $2.5 million sewer lift
station constructed at the developer's expense. The developer is also receiving transportation
and park impact fee credits for constructed improvements constructed and land dedication.
r_
BEN
- _ E
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 28
McCormick Village
This is a planned mixed -use subdivision that is a small part of
the large master planned McCormick Woods area, which has
been under development since the 1980's and was annexed to
Port Orchard in 2009. This particular site is about 23 acres
and located on the north side of Clifton Road. The area is
currently forested vacant land, with a large church to the
southwest of the site, single-family subdivisions planned or
under construction in the vicinity, and new public schools
planned just west of the site.
The site has a mix of zoning: Residential 3, Neighborhood
Mixed Use, and Commercial Mixed Use. It also has a special
McCormick Village Overlay (MVOD) with subtle changes to
the residential lot standards. The City developed the MVOD
regulations to implement the McCormick Village Subarea Plan
and worked closely with the landowner. The overlay provides
some nuances such as additional allowed building types,
revised minimum/maximum setbacks, and a prohibition on
parking in the front of lots.
The residential preliminary plat shows up to 153 lots and all lots having alley access. A variety
of housing types are illustrated, with the majority being 30-feet wide lots with detached homes
and above -garage accessory dwelling units (uniquely, all such units will start as rentals). One
version of the plat also shows paseo houses (similar to cottage housing, but with less common
open space) and two-story forecourt apartment buildings (with 6-8 units per site). The total unit
count is not yet known, but based on one drawing provided to the City, the site could have up to
320 units (including ADU's). The gross density (including ADU's and excluding the commercial
area) would be about 20 units per acre.
The separately permitted commercial village is at the northeast corner of the site. This would be
Port Orchard's first retail development west of State Route 16. Preliminary plans show pads for
about 10 small commercial buildings served by surface parking and woonerf-style drive aisles.
1.1.1J__
—Ir ll:i -I f-i1 I'1II �`
-
I
„� °f,
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 29
The Ramsey
This is an ongoing mixed -use development in southern Port Orchard located at the northeast
corner of Sedgwick Road and Ramsey Road. It is zoned Commercial Mixed Use, located within
the Sedgwick-Bethel SR-16 center, and within the soon -to -be master planned Bethel Sedgwick
Countywide Center. This is a semi -developed suburban area characterized by a mixture of small
and large auto -oriented commercial uses.
This site is located uphill from the area's major intersection. Adjacent to the site to the east is a
gas station, to the south are single-family homes and a home -based auto detailing shop, to the
west is a fitness center, and to the north is vacant forested land.
The development is occurring on a relatively compact and sloping 2.5-acre site. It consists of
three buildings, one of which is small drive -through coffee stand. The other two buildings are
three stories and, combined, contain commercial space and 99 apartments on the upper floors.
The gross density is about 40 units per acre.
The development is one of the few participating in the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE)
program since the program was started in 2016. The developer is currently applying for a "Type
3" 8-year property tax exemption in exchange for incorporating structured parking and a
shopfront design (commercial retail space).
This is the first large private development in Port Orchard to incorporate structured parking. The
project is located far from Downtown Port Orchard, and yet the land value and market
economics appear to be enabling this unconventional hybrid between suburban and urban land
use intensity. While it is was assisted by the MFTE program, this project may be representative
of an early transition in the Port Orchard real estate market where more dense, mixed -use
development is becoming economically viable.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 30
Downtown Mixed Use Projects
Several residential -commercial mixed -use projects have been proposed in Downtown Port
Orchard in recent years. None have broken ground as of this writing, though one is now
permitted. Conceptual designs show urban features like structured parking, storefronts, rooftop
open space, and being at least four stories in height. This swell may be signaling a shift in the
local real estate economy where compact infill and redevelopment is on the verge of being
more feasible due to a combination of land values and market rents.
Project
Description
Bay Street Apartments (429 Bay Street)
This project has been permitted on the site of the old
Lighthouse Restaurant and will develop 39 units and 500
square feet of commercial on four levels. It is located on
a 1.35 acre waterfront site. The project will have a single
level of structured parking on the ground floor. The
I
developer requested a reduction of 66 parking spaces to
41 spaces. The residential density is 29 units per acre.
Heronsview (100 Bethel Avenue)
The conceptual plans have a total of 106 units on four
-
levels; 55% of units are studios, 23% are 1-bedrooms, 15%
are 2-bedrooms, and 7% are live/work units. Proposed on
-
a 1.08 acre site, the development's residential density
would be 98 units per acre. About 6,000 square feet of
commercial space are shown in conceptual drawings. At
least 143 parking spaces would be required if no on -
street parking is available. Parking would be provided in a
two -level garage, with the roof used as a residential open
space.
1626-1636 Bay Street
This concept includes 71 units on five levels, including
two levels of structured parking. Proposed on a 0.51 acre
site, the residential density would be 139 units per acre.
The site and development concept is currently for sale for
about $6 million.
q
640 Bay Street
This a City -owned property that was intended to be sold
f
to a private developer, though the project has been on
u _
--�
hold for at least four years. This early concept proposed
r
to include 44 units on five levels and about 12,000 square
'rm 1
feet of commercial space. Parking is proposed off -site. It
rm 8 1
would include a rooftop garden and a vacation of Fredrick
Street which would be developed as a landscaped public
space and hill climb. The potential residential density is
159 units per acre.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 31
Section 3 - Cost Trends
Housing Cost Trends
Housing costs in Port Orchard have been increasing steadily over the last decade, for both
renters and homeowners, as shown in Figure 32 below. As of mid-2022, Zillow reports an
average home value of $511,600 and an average rent of $1,638 per unit in the city, a yearly
increase of five percent for ownership units and nine percent for rentals over the past decade.
Notably, both ownership and rental housing costs have increased more rapidly since the onset
of the COVID-19 pandemic, a pattern seen across the greater Puget Sound region, and
particularly in smaller and moderate -sized jurisdictions when compared with larger cities such
as Seattle.
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
a)
co
$300,000
0
$200,000
$100,000
Average Home Value
Average Multifamilv Rent Per Unit
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Figure 32. Housing Costs in Port Orchard, 2012-2022. Source: Zillow, Costar.
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400 },
.E
$1,200
a�
o_
$1,000
of
$800
co
$600
$400 75
$200
$0
Figure 33 shows the change in Port Orchard's housing prices compared with the change in
incomes from 2010-2020. After a drop in home prices between 2010 and 2012, incomes and
housing prices increased similarly between 2012 and 2015, after which home prices began to
increase significantly faster than incomes. Rental prices, which had been stable from 2013-
2017, also began a steep increase in 2017, also outpacing incomes. The gap has continued to
worsen over the past few years, with a 28 percent increase in rents and 56 percent increase in
home values from 2015-2020, compared to only a 15 percent increase in incomes over the
same period. This shows that housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port
Orchard resident in recent years, a trend also seen across the country.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 32
70%
60%
50%
40°i° ✓
30%
20%
10%
0% —�
-10%
-20%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Median Gross Rent Zillow Home Value Index Median Household Income
Figure 33. Change in Home Prices, Rents, and Incomes in Port Orchard, 2010-2020. Source: Zillow,
American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, DP04, Leland Consulting Group
Figure 34 shows the relationship between what the typical Port Orchard household earns in a
year and the amount they would need to earn to afford the typical home in the city, based on
2020 census and home price data. The income needed to afford the median home in the city is
about $50,585 more than the median household currently earns, or to put it another way, the
typical Port Orchard household could afford a home worth about $303,012, but the typical home
in the city in 2020 was worth 1.5 times as much, $468,702.
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$468,702
$303,012
$122,304
$71,719
M 0 1 1
Median Household Income Needed To Median Sales Price Maximum Home Price
Income Afford Median Home Affordable to Median
Household
Figure 34. Ownership Housing Affordability in Port Orchard. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting Group
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 33
A housing affordability chart illustrating home prices which would be affordable to a variety of
income levels is shown below in Figure 35. Port Orchard's median incomes and sales prices are
both shown. This data illustrates the degree to which ownership housing has become out of
reach for many Port Orchard residents, even those earning more than the city's median
household income.
$900
■ Household Income ($1,000s) ■ House Price ($1,000s)
$800
$700
$600 Median Sales Price ( 468)
$500
$400
$300
Median Household
$200 Income ($71) $192
$96
$100
$-
A household earning $100,000
could not afford the median Port
Orchard sales price of $468,000
even though they are earning
nearly $30,000 more than the
median household income.
$383
$287
$150
■
$575
$766
Figure 35. Housing Prices Affordable to Various Incomes with Port Orchard Median Income and Sales Price,
2021. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting
Group
Construction Costs
The cost of construction for all housing types has been increasing for decades, although the
past few years have seen unprecedented increases. These costs have a major impact on
development feasibility. Higher development costs ultimately drive up the sales price of finished
housing and can lead to reduced housing production when the market cannot support those
higher housing prices.
The following chart provides construction price indexes' for multifamily housing units under
construction, single-family houses sold, and for single-family houses under construction. Recent
data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows construction costs went up by 17.5% year -over -year
from 2020 to 2021, the largest spike in this data from year to year since 1970. Costs in 2021
were also more than 23% higher than pre -pandemic 2019. Preliminary data for 2022 indicates
an even greater jump in construction costs, largely due to supply chain issues, inflation, and
labor shortages.
5 The houses sold index incorporates the value of the land and is available quarterly at the national level and annually
by region. The indexes for houses under construction are available monthly at the national level. The indexes are
based on data from the Survey of Construction (SOC).
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 34
reo,
MFR
180 SFR Under Construction
SFR Sold (West)
160
140
120
100 -
80
LO % 00 ON O N co LO % 00 ON O N
O O O O O - - - - - - N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Figure 36. Construction Price Indexes. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Construction Price Indexes
Developers interviewed by the project team in summer 2022 indicated concerns over
construction costs in the region. They described as many as ten material cost adjustments per
year, compared to one to two price changes per year in the past. Developers generally agreed
that lumber prices were likely to begin decreasing and stabilize in the coming years, though they
expressed less optimism about short-term decreases in other material costs.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 35
Impact Fees
Impact fees are a one-time fee required by local governments for new development to help pay
for a portion of the expected costs of providing increased public services. The topic arose in
stakeholder interviews and so an analysis compared Port Orchard's impact fees to other Kitsap
County jurisdictions. Determining impact fee by building type (housing type) also provides
information about how the fees are affecting the variety of housing being built.
The table below a table shows total impact fees (combining fees for roads, parks, and schools)
by housing type. Roads impact fee schedules typically have the most detailed housing types
and thus was used as the basis for housing type comparison. The breakdown of impact fees by
type of impact fee can be seen in Appendix A. Port Orchard has a fee for all three categories,
which is not the case for some of the other jurisdictions. Bremerton currently does not collect
impact fees but may start collecting them in the near future.
The comparison finds that Port Orchard does have some of the highest impact fees in Kitsap
County, but these fees may be closer to the median when making wider regional comparisons.
For example, Sammamish impact fees total at least $14,000 per unit (as of 2019). Judging by
the large volume of permitted developments in Port Orchard, the fees are having little negative
effect on total development.
However, the fees may be a minor factor for the variety of housing products being produced.
Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and ADU's have notably high fees for the lower
resource impacts and land area they require compared to single-family homes. This may
partially be because the school and park impact fees do not provide a high level of distinction
among building types due to those fees being based more on persons per household.
Family
Duplex
Triplex &
Fourplex
Townhouse
Multifamily
floorsSingle-
1-2
Multifamily
floors
Multifamily
ADU
Port
$10,856.52
$9,156.34
$6,835.28 —
$9,156.34 —
$6,820.28
$6,189.29
$5,768.63
$4,677.97 -
Orchard
$9 096.34
10,347.34
$6,150.28
Kitsap
$6,428.60
$3,496.75
$3,496.75
$3,766.74
$3,496.75
$2,956.77
$2,821.78
$3,766.74
County
Bremerton
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Poulsbo
$3,214.66
$2,598.81
$2,598.81
$2,598.81
$2,598.81
$2,598.81
$2,598.81
$1,759.00
Bainbridge
$1,811.82
$1,123.33
$1,123.33
$1,413.22
$1,123.33
$1,123.33
$1,123.33
$1,123.33
Island
Gig Harbor
$10,887.00
$9,261.00
$9,261.00
$9,261.00
$9,261.00
$9,261.00
$9,261.00
$11,212.00
Fiaure 37. Impact Fees Der Unit by Housina TVDe. Source: Kitsaa Countv and Municipalities of Kitsaa
County
Some cities exempt ADU's from impact fees since they are not a primary unit and because the
fees can be insurmountable for low- and moderate -income homeowners. Also, under RCW
82.02.060, cities may reduce impact fees by up 80% for affordable housing. Under POW
20.182, the City has not adopted any impact fee exemptions or reductions, though the idea is
supported by Comprehensive Plan policy HS-6.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 36
Section 4 - Housing and Service Needs
This section offers information about the needs for households in the City of Port Orchard.
Market Rate Housing
The chart below shows projected demand for new housing units through 2044 by income in
Port Orchard based on the Kitsap County target of 5,291 new housing units in Port Orchard by
2044.E The allocation of housing units by income is shown using three projection
methodologies. The Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) has recently
released a draft calculator which uses two methodologies to calculate future housing needs by
income by county, city, and UGA. Method "A" shown below allocates future housing needs by
projected household income (as a share of AMI) evenly across all municipalities in Kitsap
County. This shows a particularly high 2044 need of over 1,400 units affordable to the lowest -
income households earning less than 30% AMI - which would need to be provided by
subsidized affordable units. Commerce Method "B" allocates housing across all jurisdictions in
the County after taking into account their existing housing unit breakdown by income level.
Because Port Orchard already provides some subsidized units (and a larger share than some
other Kitsap County municipalities), this method shows a need for fewer units for households
earning under 30 percent AMI and between 30 and 50 percent AMI, but allocates more units for
higher -income households earning more than 120 percent AMI.
The third methodology shown is Leland Consulting Group's model which allocates future
housing units based on Port Orchard's current income breakdown. This methodology shows a
strong housing need for the lowest -income residents of the City but also reflects the need for
"workforce" housing for the significant share of Port Orchard's population earning between 50
and 100 percent of the AMI.
Overall, these three methodologies show that the largest housing needs by income in Port
Orchard in the next two decades will be for the lowest -income households, which can only be
met through regulated affordable (i.e. subsidized) housing, to a lesser degree for "workforce"
housing for residents earning less than 100% AMI, which can be provided through a variety of
channels including subsidized units, vouchers, other incentive programs such as MFTE, and
filtering of existing units as new housing stock is built. Finally, there will remain a demand for
between 1,200 and 1,800 market rate housing units targeting households earning more than
120 percent AMI over the next 20 years.
Although the Commerce methodologies are still in draft form, all three sets of results are
presented here to demonstrate the various calculations and considerations underlying future
housing needs and targets regionally. The Kitsap County Regional Coordinating Council will
decide on a final target number of new units by income level for all jurisdictions in the County in
2023, and that final target breakdown will be integrated into the 2024-2044 Port Orchard
Comprehensive Plan.
6 This housing unit target and the Kitsap County population target for Port Orchard (10,500 new residents by 2044)
would yield an average household size of 1.98 people per household. This is significantly less than the current Port
Orchard household size of 2.44 people per household. This discrepancy may need to be addressed by Commerce.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 37
2,000
1,800
1,600
It
0 1,400
N
T
1,200
0
1,000
Z
800
600
z
400
200
IN d
0-30 30-50 50-80 80-100
% AMI
■ Commerce Method A ■ Commerce Method B
100-120
LCG Method
120+
Figure 38. Housing Demand Projections for Port Orchard, 2022-2044 Source: Washington Department of
Commerce Draft Projected Housing Needs Methodologies, Leland Consulting Group
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 38
Low -Income and Cost -Burdened Households
HUD sets income limits that determine eligibility for assisted housing programs.' The 2022 Area
Median Income (AMI) for the Bremerton -Silverdale Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is
$102,500. The following table outlines the 2022 Bremerton -Silverdale MSA HUD income limits
for low, very low, and extremely low-income households making 80 percent, 50 percent, and 30
percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), respectively.
Household
Extremely Low (30%)
21,600
24,700
27,800
1 30,850
33,350
37,190
41,910
46,630
Very Low Income (50%)
36,050
41,200
46,350
51,450
55,600
59,700
63,800
67,950
Low Income (80%)
57,650
65,850
74,100
82,300
88,900
95,500
102,100
108,650
Figure 39. HUD FY20221ncome Limits ($), Bremerton -Silverdale, WA MSA. Source: HUD
In addition to income, HUD uses a measurement of
"cost burden" to further determine which subset of a
community's residents are most in need of housing
support or most at risk of displacement or housing
hardship.
Figure 40 shows a breakdown of Port Orchard's
households by tenure and cost burden status. Overall,
about 35 percent of Port Orchard's households are
considered cost -burdened. Half of all renter -occupied
households are considered cost -burdened, while one quarter of owner -occupied households are
considered cost -burdened.
As is the case nationwide, renters are significantly more at risk of economic hardship and
displacement than homeowners. With rental rates increasing dramatically in recent years and
income growth failing to keep up, it appears that renters are suffering the consequences in
terms of cost burden. There is a clear need for more rental housing that is affordable to all
income levels.
7 Including the Public Housing, Section 8 project -based, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Section 202 housing for
the elderly, and Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities programs HUD develops income limits based on
median family income estimates and fair market rent area definitions.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 39
All Households ®� 65%
Renter occupied 50%
Owner Occupied 75%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■ Severely Cost Burdened ■ Cost Burdened Not Cost Burdened
Figure 40. Household Tenure by Cost Burden in the City of Port Orchard, 2020. Source: HUD CHAS 2015-
2019.
The following chart shows cost burden status by household income level for households
earning less than the area median income (AMI). The lowest -income households earning 30
percent AMI or less have by far the highest cost burden, with 615 of the 715 households in this
income bracket spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, and 495
households, or 70 percent of households in the income bracket, spending more than half their
income on housing costs. Similarly, 75 percent of households earning between 30 and 50
percent of the AMI also spend more than a third of their income on housing costs. However,
there are still a substantial number of households earning between 30 and 80 percent AMI
which are also housing cost -burdened, as well as a quarter of households earning between 80
and 100 percent AMI.
This data shows a need for subsidized affordable housing at various income levels, but
particularly for households earning less than 50 percent AMI.
80-100% AM I IL 60 465
50-80% AMI 465 520
30-50% AMI 130
< 30% AMI • JO100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
■ Severely Cost Burdened ■ Cost Burdened Not Cost Burdened
Figure 41. Cost Burden Status by Household Income Level in Port Orchard. Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 40
Special Needs Housing
Figure 42 shows the number of households in Port Orchard with a disabled resident by disability
status and income. Most households with a disabled resident earn more than 80 percent of
AMI, though particularly for residents with an ambulatory limitation (generally meaning they are
unable to walk), there is a significant number of households earning less than 30 percent AMI.
In addition to ambulatory limitations, hearing or vision impairments are the most common
disability reported in Port Orchard households.
Figure 42. Households by Disability Status and Income in Port Orchard. Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019
People Facing Homelessness
Kitsap County conducts a Point in Time Count of people experiencing homelessness
countywide each year, typically in January. In 2022, the count was conducted in February
instead. The count encompasses both sheltered and unsheltered people and is conducted
during one 24-hour period each year. Therefore, the number is generally considered to be an
undercount of the true population experiencing homelessness. In February 2022, 563 individuals
were experiencing homelessness countywide, of which 136 were in transitional housing, 244 in
emergency shelters, and 183 unsheltered. This was an 8 percent decrease from 20208 though a
7 percent increase from the previous four-year average. Of the 183 unsheltered residents
surveyed, 23 percent, or 42 people, were in Port Orchard. Countywide, 67 percent of those
surveyed reported becoming homeless due to health or mental health issues, 58 percent due to
job loss, 40 percent due to loss of housing, 35 percent due to family conflict, and 25 percent due
to substance use.9
A 2020 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office finds that every $100 increase in
median rent is associated with a nine percent increase in the estimated homelessness
population, even after accounting for demographic and economic characteristics. This formula
is considered at a national level but may be helpful context for the current trend in local rent
increases.
8 The count of unsheltered individuals was not completed in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
9 Kitsap County Point In Time Count. https://www.kitsapgov.com/hs/Pages/HH-Point-in-Time.aspxx
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 41
Transit
Kitsap Transit provides public bus and passenger ferry service in Port Orchard. There are six
fixed -route bus lines operating within the central and eastern part of the city, and two ferry
docks which have service to the Bremerton ferry terminal (where riders can catch auto ferries or
fast passenger ferries to Seattle). The in -town fixed -route bus lines generally run at frequencies
of 30 to 60 minutes. Buses stop running in the early evening. On Saturdays, buses only run a few
hours between 10am and around 5pm. There is no regular bus service on Sundays.
Geographic coverage of transit in central/eastern Port Orchard is moderately good, serving
many of the main arterial areas, though it is oriented north -south with few east -west
connections. The western Port Orchard area is a served by an on -demand, weekday -only service
called SK Ride which connects residents to some regular bus routes. Other services include
worker/driver buses for Navy facility commuters, door-to-door Access buses for seniors and
people with disabilities (runs 8am to 4pm on weekdays and Sundays), and vanpools/carpools.
Overall, the low level of fixed -route service is generally impractical to most people for
commuting, after -work entertainment and shopping, running errands, or getting to
appointments. It is particularly unfavorable to transit -reliant people who need to access social
and human services (including the lack of bus service between Port Orchard and Bremerton).
Low fixed -route transit service does little to help housing developments justify reduced amounts
of parking. It also limits the ability of residents to drive less and spend less on transportation.
Figure 43. Kitsap Transit fixed -route bus lines in the Port Orchard area.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 42
Section 5 - Housing Funding and Monetary Tools
Existing Funding
Port Orchard does not have currently any funding streams directly funding affordable housing
development or preservation.
In January 2022, Kitsap County imposed a 0.1 % affordable housing sales tax as allowed under
RCW 82.14.530. The revenue must be used for constructing or maintaining affordable housing.
It is expected to generate about $5 million per year.10 This sales tax option would have been
available to Port Orchard (generating about $850,000 per year per .1 %, based on 2021 revenue),
but state law stipulates that after a county adopts the tax cities in the county may no longer
implement their own tax.11 Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island implemented affordable housing
sales taxes before the county did and so their taxes remain effective in addition the county's.
Other Funding Options
The Municipal Research Service Center provides a list of other funding sources for Washington
cities and affordable housing developers. These include:
• Property tax levy of up to $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation for up to 10 years to fund
very low-income housing (RCW 84.52.105)
• Real estate excise tax of up to 0.25% to fund affordable housing through 2026 (RCW
82.46.035)
• Mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements that require residential developments to
either provide affordable housing on -site or to pay into a housing fund for city
governments to fund housing elsewhere (generally this tool must be paired with large
upzones to avoid regulatory takings claims)
• Lodging taxes, which may be used to fund a variety of government programs (as noted
under the short-term rental discussion, Port Orchard already has a lodging tax)
• Loans and grants from the Washington State Housing Trust Fund (administered by the
Washington State Department of Commerce)
• State law under RCW 43.185C.080 allows cities to receive grants from the Washington
homeless housing account. A prerequisite is adoption of a local homeless housing plan
or adopting by reference a county homeless housing plan that has a specific strategy for
the city. Grant value is tied to the real estate document recording fees generated within
the local jurisdiction.
• Low-income housing tax credits which investors in housing projects can apply to
(administered by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission)
10 "Commissioners vote to impose 1 /10th of 1 % sales tax for affordable housing." January 2022. Kitsap Daily News.
https://www.kitsapdailynews.com/news/commissioners-vote-to-impose-1-10th-of-1-sales-tax-for-affordable-
housin
11 Funding Local Affordable Housing Efforts. August 2022. Municipal Research Service Center.
https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2022/Options-for-Funding-Local-Affordable-Housing-
Efforaspx
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 43
Multifamily Tax Exemption
Overview
The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) is a program authorized by the state, starting in 1995
(RCW 84.14). Cities can grant one or more of the following programs for new buildings or
existing buildings:
• 8-year exemption for any type of multifamily development
• 12-year exemption for multifamily developments that reserve at least 20 percent of units
for low- and moderate -income households
• A 20-year exemption for multifamily developments that reserve at least 25 percent of
units for sale as permanently affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less, and the
development must be sponsored by a non-profit or governmental entity (this option was
added by the Legislature in 202112). Port Orchard meets the threshold of 15,000
population to unlock this option.
Land, existing site improvements, and non-residential improvements are not exempt and are
subject to normal property taxes. At the local government's discretion, the exemption's basis
may be limited to the value of affordable units or other criteria. The local government has
latitude in many other aspects. It can require certain public benefits, change what types of
development apply, and can map specific areas where the exemption is available. Cities can
also set lower maximum rent prices than the statute allows.
MFTE programs require ongoing monitoring, especially for any buildings with affordable units,
to ensure that rental rates and resident incomes are meeting the criteria.
A 2019 statewide audit found that local MFTE programs are frequently used to improve the
financial performance of private developments but it is unclear if they result in a net increase in
housing production. For 2018 the audit found average annual local and state property tax
savings of $10,651 per affordable unit and $2,096 per market -rate unit, with wide variations
depending on the location, land value, and local property tax rates. Seattle has the most MFTE
units in the state and likely skews the average tax savings high. Participating properties in
Bremerton see average annual property tax savings of $6,123 per affordable unit $1,413 per
market -rate unit (data was not available for Port Orchard).
Port Orchard MFTE Review
Port Orchard has had an MFTE program in place since 2016, which is codified under Chapter
3.48 POMC. It goes beyond the basic framework of state law and provides three types of
exemptions.
The "Type 1" program is a 12-year tax exemption available to properties zoned for multifamily or
mixed -use development within one-half mile of a transit route or ferry terminal. At least 20
percent of units must be rented at least 10 percent below fair market rent to tenants with the
following incomes:
12 "Overview of 2021 Changes to the Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption Program." Washington State Department of
Commerce. htttps://deptofcommerce.box.com/shared/static/7k5p88yv4l m8ot882abtzafwzlofkf05.pdf
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 44
• At or below 40 percent of median family income, for housing units in congregate
residences or small efficiency dwelling units
• At or below 65 percent of median family income for one -bedroom units
• At or below 75 percent of median family income for two -bedroom units
• At or below 80 percent of median family income for three -bedroom and larger units.
Type I Tax Exemption
Multifamily -zoned Parcels
in Designated Centers
and Other Properties
City Limits
Applicable Properties
Figure 44. Parcels eligible for the Type 1 MFTE program
The "Type 2" program is an 8-year tax exemption available to properties within local centers of
importance (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) and which are encouraged to redevelop
and may require rezoning. Properties must meet at least one of these criteria:
• Have abandoned buildings (vacant or unused for more than two years)
• Underutilized buildings (50 percent or more vacancy for more than two years)
• An assessed building value to land ratio of two -to -one or more.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 45
7� Type 2 Tax Exemption
Redevelopment
i J a
�h f- Li .i
lfoi
Uocuma 11. t„S:Itcr I.tt ALalaruriP. YWL- acrr.,'A /.L2LJe3mntl
F' 4 ` r Figure 5. Parcels cels eligible for the Type 2 MFTE program
The "Type 3" program is an 8-year exemption available to properties within local centers of
importance (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) and zoned for multifamily or mixed -use
development. Developments must meet one of these standards:
1. At least 50 percent of required parking must be structured and achieve at least 50 units
per net developable acre
2. Construct mixed -use shopfront building(s) containing non-residential square footage
equal to at least 40 percent of all building footprints
3. Purchase one additional story of building height for one or more buildings through the
city's transfer of development rights program
d Ltd
r
T•4T4
-T
�I
rI)
r
Fr
I
i
Type 3 Tax Exemption
Multifamily -Zoned Properties
in Centers
1771 City Limits
Uoc-t- U:tGISK, nmtair TYW3T.Pba .,e Map72=..d
Figure 46. Parcels eligible for the Type 3 MFTE program
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 46
The following table shows how many developments and dwelling units are utilizing Port
Orchard's MFTE program since inception. Numbers in parenthesis are MFTE applications
currently in progress (as of December 2022).
Figure 47. MFTE program statistics. Source: City of Port Orchard
Observations:
• Port Orchard's MFTE program is structured differently than most Washington cities
• In the Type 3 program, options for combining required features could be clarified, as was
done with the one participating project which used less structured parking and shopfront
design than required individually but combined use of both features to qualify.
• In the Type 1 program, the minimum development size of 10 units reduces the number
of small projects that can participate. State law sets the minimum development size at
four units.
• In the Type 1 program, residents have their incomes verified only in order to determine
what size of unit they can occupy. In other words, individualized rent caps are set for
physical units and not customized for each household's size and characteristics. This is
a different approach than most cities, but appears to fit within the state law framework.
• In the Type 1 program, the depth of affordability (10% below market rate) may be
imbalanced with the property tax savings.
• Updates to RCW 84.14 allow median family income to now be based on the city or
metropolitan statistical area of the project (rather than just the county).
As noted in Section 3, the past few years have seen unprecedented increases in construction
costs which have a major impact on development feasibility. There is interest among City
officials and stakeholders to revisit the MFTE program and make adjustments to improve
economic feasibility and administration.
The City has the legal option to seek help with monitoring the MFTE program and freeing up
staff resources. Housing Kitsap, for example, already has systems in place to administer
income -based housing.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 47
Section 6 - Housing Policies
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
This section focuses on a handful of key policies in the Housing Element. Full comments are
available in Appendix B.
Policy
HS-2
Support the development of a variety of housing
The City has a good foundation of supportive
types, including apartments, townhomes, mixed-
zoning standards to support a variety of housing
use (residential and other uses) and live -work
types, though as noted in Section 6 some
development, small -lot and zero lot line single-
improvements could be made or more incentives
family homes, and manufactured homes, as well
added. The MVOD zone is an example of
as traditional single-family homes, through
innovative planning. Financial assistance largely is
innovative planning, efficient and effective
implemented through the MFTE program, though
administration of land and building codes, and,
other options may need to be explored to support
where available, applicable financial assistance.
the low-income population.
HS-6
Consider reducing permitting fees for
No waivers/reductions for impact fees and general
development which provide affordable housing as
facilities charges are in place.
defined by the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) section 200-120- 020.
HS-9
Implement minimum residential density
The City does not have any minimum density
requirements in centers of local importance in
standards in any zone.
order to increase land and infrastructure
efficiency.
HS-14
Implement zoning and development regulations
This type of development does not appear to be
which encourage infill housing on empty and
happening in large numbers, with most housing
redevelopable parcels.
being built on greenfields on the edge of the city.
More incentives for infill and redevelopment in
local centers should be explored in the HAP.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 48
Development Regulations
Port Orchard's zoning standards are codified under Title 20 POMC and primarily exist in
Chapters 20.30 through 20.58. The key standards reviewed here are the permitted land uses
and dimensional standards. Other standards provide supplemental residential use and design
standards for most housing types. Multifamily design standards are located under Chapter
20.127 POMC.
In most cities, this consists of a simple list or table organized by zone. In Port Orchard,
understanding the permitted uses is complex because there are two permission standards: One
code section describes "building types", and the other describes "residential uses", and these
are located in separate chapters.
The key development regulations on housing are summarized in the tables below. Following the
tables is a set of observations.
Residential Zones: Allowed Residential Development
In the first table, P means permitted and a blank cell means the building type is not permitted in
the zone.
Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely.
P
Detached House
P
P
P
P
Backyard Cottage
P
P
P
P
Cottage Court
P
P
P
P
Duplex: Side -by -Side
P
P
P
Duplex: Back -to -Back
P
P
P
Attached House
P
P
Fourplex
P
P
P
Townhouse
P
P
P
P
Apartment
P
P
P
Live -Work
Manufactured or Mobile Home
Park
Accessory Building
P
P
P
P
P
P
Figure 48. Excerpt of Port
Orchard Municipal Code
table 20.32.015
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 49
In the second table are selected permitted uses in residential zones. These are reorganized
from the actual code and have subheadings added. P means permitted, C means conditionally
permitted (subject to extra review and public comment), and a blank cell means the housing
type is not permitted in the zone.
Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely.
Use Types (POMC
Residential Zones
General
Single-family detached (including new manufactured
homes)
P
P
P
P
Two-family
P
P
P
Single-family attached (2 units)
P
P
P
Single-family attached (3 or 4 units)
P
P
P
P
P
Single-family attached (5 or 6 units)
P
P
P
P
Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units)
P
P
P
Multifamily dwellings (5 or more units)
P
P
P
Manufactured or Mobile Homes
Designated manufactured home, manufactured or
mobile home (except for new designated
manufactured home)
P
New designated manufactured home
P
P
P
P
Manufactured or mobile home park
Supportive Housing
Indoor emergency housing
Indoor emergency shelter
Permanent supportive housing
C
C
C
C
C
C
Transitional housing
C
C
C
C
C
C
Group Lodgings
Boarding house
C
C
Congregate living facilities
C
C
C
C
Lodging house
C
C
C
Group home (up to 8 residents), except as follows:
P
P
P
P
P
P
Adult family home
P
P
P
P
All group living (9 or more residents)
C
C
Figure 49. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.39.040
Observations:
There are several user -friendliness challenges with these standards of Chapter 20.32 and 20.39,
particularly as they relate to middle housing:
• The R2 zone, the largest by land area, allows a good mix of housing types, though might
consider adding "Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units)"
• Residential development allowances are regulated in at least three code sections, which
creates some opportunity for confusion. Residential development allowed by zone are
regulated in Chapter 20.32 (Building Types), Chapter 20.34 and 20.35 (Residential
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 50
Districts & Commercial and Mixed -Use Districts, respectively), and Chapter 20.39 (Use
Provisions).
• Code users must know to look in all applicable locations. For example:
o Permissions for "Detached House" building type and "Single-family detached"
land use, which have similar meanings to most people, are found in both
Chapters 20.32 and 20.39.
o Chapter 20.32 describes a "Townhouse" as a single building type but it appears
to be buildable under at least six different land uses in Chapter 20.39. This is an
effort to limit townhouse complexes to four connected units in lower density
zones, but to allow larger six unit townhome clusters in higher density zones.
o Chapter 20.32 describes a Fourplex as being either three or four units. Triplex is
the term for a three -unit building and should be added, or the term renamed to
Triplex/Fourplex.
o Chapter 20.32 describes a Cottage Court but it is unclear which type of
residential land use that falls under in Chapter 20.39, especially since there are
mismatches in which zones the different types of single-family uses are allowed.
• The terms "Two-family" and "Single-family attached (2 units)" in Chapter 20.39 should
simply be "Duplex" which is a more commonly used term. It is also unnecessary to
describe two different types of duplexes in Chapter 20.32 when they are both allowed in
the same zones. The building type "Attached House" is another instance of the same
use being duplicated.
• A single-family triplex/fourplex is intended for potential homeownership with each unit
on its own lot, and a multifamily triplex/fourplex is most likely intended for rentals.
However, it is unknown why they have different permissions by zone. The same goes for
fiveplex and sixplex developments. Ownership and rental housing that has the same
land use and appearance should be treated similarly.
• The City has no path to permit manufactured housing (also known as factory -built
housing). Factory -built housing should be treated the same as site -built housing if it
conforms to all applicable zoning and design standards.
Residential Zones: Dimensional Standards
A blank cell means the standard is not applicable.
Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely.
StandardsDimensional
••
Residential Zones
Minimum Lot Size (square feet)
Detached House (street vehicle
2,800
access)
6,000
5,000
5,000
4,000
Detached House (alley vehicle
access)
51000
3,000
2,400
Cottage Court
1,200
1,200
1,200
Duplex: Side -by -Side
5,000
5,000
5,000
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 51
StandardsDimensional •• i
Residential Zones
Duplex: Back -to -Back
5,000 5,000 5,000
Attached House
2,500 2,000 2,500
Fourplex
7,000 7,000 7,000
Townhouse
2,000 800 800 1,000
Apartment
10,000 10,000 10,000
Minimum Site Size (square feet) (POMC
20.32)
Cottage Court
22,500
22,500
22,500
22,500
Townhouse
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Minimum lot width (feet)
Detached House
50
50
36
40
(street vehicle access)
Detached House
(alley vehicle access)
50
30
26
40
Cottage Court
20
20
20
20
Duplex: Side -by -Side
(street vehicle access)
60
60
60
Duplex: Side -by -Side
(alley vehicle access)
40
40
40
Duplex: Back -to -Back
40
40
40
Attached House
(street vehicle access)
30
30
30
Attached House
(alley vehicle access)
20
20
20
Fourplex
60
60
60
Townhouse
(street vehicle access)
30
30
30
30
Townhouse
(alley vehicle access)
20
16
16
16
Apartment
80
80
80
Other Lot Standards
Maximum hard surface
50%
70 /0
80 /0
80 /0
80 /a
°
75 /o
coverage
Building Height (feet/stories)
Height, maximum
35
35
35
45
55
35
3 stories
3 stories
3 stories
4 stories
5 stories
3 stories
Height, Accessory Structure
(feet)
24
24
24
24
Density
Minimum density
(units per acre)
Maximum density
(units per acre)
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 52
StandardsDimensional •• i
Residential Zones
Setbacks (Feet)
Primary street setback,
10
10
10
10
10
10
minimum
Side street setback, minimum
10
10
10
10
10
10
Side interior setback, minimum
5
5
5
5
5
5
Rear setback, minimum
10
10
10
4-10
10
10
Figure 50. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.34
Observations:
• Chapter 20.34 has complex lists of lot area and width standards that differ by zone and
by building type, which is summarized in the table above. This is one of the more
complicated arrangements of dimensional standards among Washington cities.
• However, the actual minimum lot widths, lot sizes, and setbacks and maximum hard
surface coverage standards are generally reasonable. Some of the minimum lot widths
greater than 50 feet may be worth revisiting for infill opportunities.
• There are no minimum density requirements, which disincentives most new
development (especially subdivisions) from building anything other than single-family
homes. This does not fulfill Comprehensive Plan policies LU-11, HS-9, and HS-16, which
call for minimum densities at least in local centers.
• The lot size and setback standards are highly specific, providing no flexibility for
developers and site planners. One building type must be chosen and stuck with
throughout the design process, otherwise choosing or adding a different type seems to
require restarting land area needs and design assumptions from scratch. This
disincentivizes developing a mix building types in large subdivisions or any type of infill
"missing middle" housing.
• The minimum "site size" provided only for cottages and townhouses discourages those
middle types by providing a layer of complication and limiting the sites that are eligible
for middle housing development.
• Each building type is listed in Chapter 20.32, where there are lists of dimensional
standards (lot width, setback, etc.) that says "set by district" for nearly every standard.
However, it does not say where to find this information. Code users must know to
navigate to the relevant Chapter 20.34, for example, for Residential Districts.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 53
Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones: Allowed Residential Development
In the first table, P means permitted and a blank cell means the building type is not permitted in
the zone.
Note: The RMU zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely.
es (POMC 20.32.015)
Commercial
Building Type ff"�F-BPMU CMU
_00------
Detached • -Backyard
and Mixed Use Zones
DMU GMU
CC
CH
IF
Cottage
Cottage •
000------
Duplex: Back -to -Back
Attached • -
-00------
• • -
0000-0---
- •
0000000-0
Shopfront House
0000-00-0
Mixed Use ShopfrontManufactured
--000-0-0
or
Mobile Home Park
Accessory Building
000000000
Figure 51. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.32.015
In the second table is selected permitted uses in residential zones. These are reorganized from
the actual code and have subheadings added. P means permitted, C means conditionally
permitted (subject to extra review and public comment), and a blank cell means the housing
type is not permitted in the zone.
Note: The RMU zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely.
(POMC
Mixed
Commercial and -Use Z64111111ff
General
Single-family detached (including
P
P
new manufactured homes)
Two-family
P
P
P
Single-family attached (2 units)
P
P
P
Single-family attached (3 or 4 units)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Single-family attached (5 or 6 units)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Multifamily dwellings (5 or more
units)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 54
Manufactured or Mobile Homes
Designated manufactured home,
manufactured or mobile home
(except for new designated
manufactured home)
New designated manufactured
home
P
P
P
Manufactured or mobile home park
Supportive Housing
Indoor emergency housing
C
C
C
C
C
Indoor emergency shelter
C
C
C
C
C
Permanent supportive housing
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Transitional housing
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Group Lodgings
Boarding house
C
C
P
Congregate living facilities
C
C
P
Lodging house
C
C
P
Group home (up to 8 residents),
except as follows:
P
P
Adult family home
P
P
All group living (9 or more
residents)
P
C
P
P
C
P
Figure 52. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.39.040
Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones: Dimensional Standards
A blank cell means the standard is not applicable.
Dimensional Standards (POMC 20.35)
Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones
Measure RMU I NMU BPMU CMU I DMU GMU CC CH IF
Minimum Lot Size (square feet)
Detached House
(street vehicle
Detached House
(alley vehicle
��
���
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 55
StandardsDimensional •O
Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones
Shopfront House 6,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 None 5,000 5,000
Mixed Use
Shopfront
10,000
5,000 None
None
5,000
None
Minimum Site Size (square feet) (POMC
20.32)
Cottage Court
Townhouse
Minimum lot width
(feet)
Detached House
(street vehicle
60
60
access)
Detached House
(alley vehicle
60
60
access)
Cottage Court
Duplex: Side -by -
Side (street
60
60
vehicle access)
Duplex: Side -by -
Side (alley
60
60
vehicle access)
Duplex: Back -to-
60
60
Back
Attached House
(street vehicle
30
access)
Attached House
(alley vehicle
30
access)
Fourplex
60
Townhouse
(street vehicle
30
30
16
access)
Townhouse
(alley vehicle
16
16
16
access)
Apartment
50
Shopfront House
60
65
60
50
None
50
50
Mixed Use
Shopfront
80
50
None
None
50
50
Other Lot Standards
Maximum hard
surface coverage
90%
70%
75%
80%
100%
90%
70%
70%
70%
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 56
StandardsDimensional ••
Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones
Building Height (feet)
Height,
35
35
40
40
38
38
35
35
maximum
Density
Minimum density
(units per acre)
Maximum
density (units per
acre)
Setbacks
(Feet)
Primary street
0
10
10
0
15
setback,
(10
(30
(30
(10
(0 Max)
(50
20
5
minimum
Max)
Max)
Max)
Max)
Max)
Side street
0
10
10
0
15
15
setback,
(70
(30
(30
(70
(0 Max)
(50
(50
5
minimum
Max)
Max)
Max)
Max)
Max)
Max)
Side interior
setback,
0-5
5
5
0
(0 Max)
10
10
minimum
Rear setback,
10
10
10
20
(0 Max)
10
10
minimum
Figure 53. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.35
Observations:
• Apartment and townhouse building types are not allowed in the Commercial Corridor
(CC) zone, but single-family attached and multifamily land use is allowed. This appears
to limit this type of development to the live -work building type, which has struggled to
achieve market feasibility in most of the region.
• Apartment and townhouse building types are allowed in the Commercial Mixed Use
(CMU) zone, which is often adjacent to the CC zone along arterial corridors and appears
to serve a similar purpose.
• No residential development is allowed in the Commercial Heavy (CH) zone, which
prevents any possible mixed -use redevelopment of aging shopping centers or
underutilized commercial properties in the Bethel and Sedgwick corridors.
• The maximum impervious surface standards provide sufficient flexibility for residential
development
• Note that while the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) and Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) base
height limit 38 feet, the Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) that overlaps almost
all of these two zones provides increased height limits of 48-68 feet, which increases the
feasibility of mixed -use development.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 57
The 40 feet height limit in the CMU and BPMU zones (perhaps the other most promising
zones for mixed -use development given their coverage of the city) is limiting, allowing
for only about three stories of development by -right. Mixed -use development is generally
more feasible the taller the building is, since the cost of construction on a per -square -
foot basis remains relatively constant for 3-6 story buildings.
Options for height increases and bonus provisions (outside of the transfer of
development rights program) may be evaluated in the HAP. Some cities provide height
bonuses as part of MFTE participation. As a point of reference, the Ruby Creek Overlay
District provides a base 55-feet height limit for the CMU, CC, and CH zones in the
southern area of the city.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 58
ADU Standards
Port Orchard regulates accessory dwelling units (ADU) in two locations: Chapter 20.68 POW
for basic procedures and design requirements, and POW 20.32.030 for the "Backyard cottage"
dwelling type. Attached ADUs are allowed in all residential zones on lots with a single detached
dwelling unit and limited to 40 percent the size of the primary unit or 1,000 square feet,
whichever is less. Detached ADUs (backyard cottages) are allowed in the R1, R2, R3, R6, NMU,
RMU, BPMU, and GB zones and limited to 40 percent the size of the primary unit or 1,000 square
feet, whichever is rg eater.
Port Orchard explicitly permits ADUs to be used as a short-term rental and for occupation by
home businesses and occupations.
Port Orchard amended its ADU standards in October 2022 with Ordinance 038-22. The
ordinance removes requirements to register an ADU with an affidavit and ending the need for an
"ADU agreement" to be recorded with the county auditor. As part of this, the owner occupancy
requirement and parking requirements for ADUs have been removed; these are two of the most
common and significant barriers to ADUs, so these changes will improve feasibility of ADU
development.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 59
Zoning Map
The City's current zoning map is copied below.
�r
r
j
Design Standards
Port Orchard has several housing type design standards.
49...
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
2021
Zoning Map
P.......... zom
a m a 2
:1—
omm ry 1
1,a s . F CIF)
_ w5
• POMC 20.32: Building types
• POMC 20.139: Residential design standards for residential building types like detached
houses, backyard cottages, cottages, duplexes, townhomes, and accessory buildings
• POMC 20.127: Commercial and multifamily development block frontages, site planning,
and building design
At least two stakeholders said the cottage housing standards discourage their development,
particularly the minimum site size standards and the minimum open space:
• The minimum site area is 22,500 SF regardless of number of units, and an additional
4,500 SF site area is required per unit when there are six or more cottages even though
the minimum unit lot size is 1,200 SF.
• The minimum courtyard area is 3,000 SF (minimum width 40 feet) and extra 600 SF per
unit is required when there are six or more cottages.
• Compare these other typical cottage standards, such as in Anacortes, which do not
regulate lot size and have smaller open space requirements.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 60
Building Code
The City of Port Orchard has adopted standard building and trades under Chapter 20.200 POMC
with local amendments. Adopted codes include the International Building Code (applies to
commercial and mixed -use development, and residential development with three or more units),
the International Residential Code (applies to single-family, duplex, and townhouse
development), and international codes for mechanical systems, plumbing, energy conservation,
fire safety, and property maintenance.
Landlord —Tenant Regulations
People who rent homes are significantly more likely to be cost -burdened, face eviction, and be
at risk of homelessness. Recognizing this, the State of Washington sets the baseline for the
landlord -tenant relationship through the State Residential Landlord -Tenant Act, RCW 59.18.
According to the Attorney General's Office, there is no centralized enforcement mechanism for
the RCW, and so it is incumbent upon landlords and tenants to either self -remedy violations,
seek counseling or low-cost legal help from non-profit organizations, and/or resolve disputes
through the courts.
Over the past few years, the Washington State Legislature has adopted new tenant protections
as follows.
Year
RCW
Topic
2018
59.18.255
Prohibition on source
Prohibits source of income discrimination against a
of income
tenant who uses a benefit or subsidy to pay rent
discrimination
2019
59.18.200
Notice of demolition
Tenants must be provided a 120-day notice to tenants of
demolition or substantial rehabilitation of premises
2019
59.18.140
Notice of rent
Tenants must be provided a 60-day notice of a rent
increase
increase, and increases may not take effect until the
completion of the term of the current rental agreement
2020
59.18.610
Initial deposits and
Tenants may request paying initial deposits,
fees
nonrefundable fees, and last month's rent in installments
(may be spread over 2-3 months, depending on lease
length)
2021
59.18.650
Just cause evictions
Landlords must specify a reason for refusing to continue
a residential tenancy, subject to certain limited
exceptions
Figure 54. Recent state landlord -tenant regulations
Notably, rent control by local jurisdictions was banned at the state level in 1981 (RCW
35.21.830). Otherwise, local jurisdictions are free to adopt additional or more stringent
regulations than those provided by the state, and numerous cities and counties have done so.
The City of Port Orchard has not adopted any local landlord -tenant regulations. The King County
Bar Association provides a model tenant protection ordinance within the framework of
Washington State law which could be informative for future discussions and recommendations.
Several Washington cities have recently adopted at least portions of the model ordinance.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 61
State Land Use Law
In recent years the Washington State Legislature has enacted preemption laws requiring local
jurisdictions to ease regulations on certain types of residential land uses. In the 2022 legislative
session, several additional bills were proposed with major preemptions regarding missing
middle housing, accessory dwelling units, and minimum building heights (respectively, HB 1782,
HB 2020, and HB 1660). These recent bills did not pass but can likely be expected to come up
again in 2023 and beyond as Washington continues to confront statewide housing challenges.
A non -exhaustive list of recent state preemptions follows.
RCW
TopicYear
2018
36.70A.450
Home -based family
Cities may not prohibit the use of a residential dwelling,
day care
located in an area zoned for residential or commercial
use, as a family day-care provider's facility serving
twelve or fewer children
2019
35.21.684
Tiny homes
Cities may not adopt ordinances that prevent tiny
homes with wheels used as a primary residence in a
manufactured/mobile home community, with the
exception that ordinances may require that tiny houses
with wheels contain sanitary plumbing fixtures.
2019
35A.63.300
Religious
Upon request, cities must allow an increased density
organization density
bonus for development of single-family or multifamily
bonus
residences affordable to low-income households on
property owned by religious organizations.
2019
36.70A.600
Safe harbor from
The adoption of ordinances and other nonproject
appeals under the
actions taken by a city to ease regulations on housing
State Environmental
development are not subject to administrative or
Policy Act
judicial appeal under RCW 43.21 C. Similar protection is
made for housing elements and implementing
regulations that increase housing capacity under RCW
36.70A.070.
2020
36.70A.698
Parking for accessory
Cities may not require the provision of off-street
dwelling units
parking for accessory dwelling units within one -quarter
mile of a major transit stop (likely does not apply to
Port Orchard due to low transit service today).
2020
36.70A.620
Parking for
Cities may not require more than a certain ratio of
multifamily housing
parking spaces per unit within one -quarter mile of a
frequent transit stop. There are different limits for
market -rate units, designated senior and disability
homes, and low-income units (likely does not apply to
Port Orchard due to low transit service today).
2021
35A.21.430
Permanent
Cities may not prohibit permanent supportive housing
supportive housing
in areas where multifamily housing or hotels are
permitted. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and
intensity of use requirements may be imposed. This
supersedes a similar law passed in 2019, RCW
35A.21.305.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 62
2021
35A.21.430
Transitional housing
Cities may not prohibit transitional housing in areas
where multifamily housing or hotels are permitted.
Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use
requirements may be imposed.
2021
35A.21.430
Indoor emergency
Cities may not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and
shelters and indoor
indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels
emergency housing
are permitted. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and
intensity of use requirements may be imposed.
2021
35A.21.314
"Family' definition
Except for limits on occupant load per square foot or
and number of
general health and safety provisions, cities may not
unrelated household
regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that
occupants
may occupy a household or dwelling unit.
2021
36.70A.070
Requirements for
Requires planning and analysis of housing needs for
Comprehensive Plan
moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income
Housing Elements
households; a variety of housing types; zoning that may
have a discriminatory effect; and other related issues.
This will apply to the next major update of Port
Orchard's Comprehensive Plan due in 2024.
Figure 55. Recent state zoning preemptions
Federal Incentives
Created in 2017, Opportunity Zones are intended to assist economically distressed
communities with preferential tax treatment for those investing eligible capital gains. Port
Orchard has been designated with two federal Opportunity Zones located contiguously with
Census Tracts #53035092200 and #53035092300. This covers the much of the city east of
State Route 16. Generally, this tool has seen little interest from large residential developers, but
it may be appealing to local or long-term hold developers. The program expires in 2026.
r
c
_ ,w9
1S�',l
ai 3�
Vp Fi h.ii , ley, Rd
a .
4
II� I
cd
P
Old Cldon Rd
o ,
r
a m
Figure 56. Location of the federal Opportunity Zones in Port Orchard
h
^4*
-FHH '.
Om hard
Indu nal
Park
r
Snulfi
Kit.p
High
QI�lN
Fbn
F�a
mangy
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 63
Port Orchard shares many of its housing challenges with other communities nationwide, and the
country's affordable housing problem has caught the attention of the White House. In May 2022,
President Biden released a statement saying, in part:
"One of the most significant issues constraining housing supply and production is the lack
of available and affordable land, which is in large part driven by state and local zoning and
land use laws and regulations that limit housing density. Exclusionary land use and zoning
policies constrain land use, artificially inflate prices, perpetuate historical patterns of
segregation, keep workers in lower productivity regions, and limit economic growth.
Reducing regulatory barriers to housing production has been a bipartisan cause in a
number of states throughout the country. It's time for the same to be true in Congress, as
well as in more states and local jurisdictions throughout the country."
The President has directed his administration to leverage existing transportation and economic
development funding streams to reward jurisdictions that promote density, main street
revitalization, and transit -oriented development. For the near future, the President has also
proposed billions of dollars for HUD grant programs to support local jurisdictions in eliminating
barriers to affordable housing production, supporting manufactured housing, scaling up ADU
production, and other measures.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 64
Section 7 - Land Capacity Analysis
A land capacity analysis is a core element of a housing needs analysis, as required by the
Washington Department of Commerce. Kitsap County completed a Buildable Lands Report in
November 2021 which contains a comprehensive analysis of vacant and redevelopable land in
Port Orchard as well as required land to meet expected population growth. As shown in Figure
54, Port Orchard has surplus land to accommodate 5,750 more residents than expected by
2036. According to the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report, the County is currently
updating its zoning to remove barriers to housing in UGAs. The target population growth in Port
Orchard's UGA is based on forthcoming County zoning code revisions incentivizing urban
housing development in the UGA consistent with its designation as a High -Capacity Transit
Corridor in PSRC's VISION 2050 framework. Together, the city and UGA have available land for a
surplus of 5,750 residents.
Figure 57. Port Orchard 2021 Residential Buildable Lands Analysis Summary. Source: 2021 Kitsap County
Buildable Lands Analysis, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, City of Port Orchard
Figure 58 shows a breakdown of unit and population capacity by zone and type of unit. As
shown, the majority of the new unit capacity is on vacant or redevelopable land in the R2 and R3
zones, as well as to a lesser degree in the CMU zone. The largest amount of multifamily unit
capacity is found in the R3 zone.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 65
Zoning
Greenbelt (GB)
Net
Acres
71.74
Single -
Family
Unit
Capacity...Capacity
36
Multifamily
Unit
Population
96
Residential 1 (R1)
35.15
255
685
Residential 2 (R2)
147.06
1,495
4,022
Residential 3 (R3)
31.87
1,540
1,350
7,049
Residential 4 (R4)
21.56
456
954
Residential 6 (R6)
18.11
421
1,134
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU)
0.54
5
11
Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU)
5.59
19
39
Downtown Mixed Use (DMU)
0.24
2
4
Gateway Mixed Use (GMU)
0.31
39
82
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
49.76
961
2,009
Commercial Corridor (CC)
18.62
79
166
Figure 58. Port Orchard 2021 Buildable Lands by Zone. Source: 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands
Analysis.
Port Orchard's land capacity is likely higher than the numbers listed in the 2021 Kitsap County
Buildable Lands Report as a result of new zoning changes adopted in 2019 but not used in the
analysis. For example, the Buildable Lands Report assumed that the R2 zone would see only
single-family development even though although multifamily development is allowed in the zone
and multifamily development would result in a larger number of units than shown in the table
above.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 66
Appendix A - Kitsap County Impact Fee Comparison
Single- Duplex Triplex & Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily ADU
Family . ..floors
Road Impact Fees
Port
Orchard
$5,205.69
$5,205.69
$2,944.63 -
$5,205.69 $5,205.69
$2,944.63
$2,313.64
$1,892.98
$1,472.32
-
$2,294.91
$2,944.63
Kitsap
$4,229.84
$2,294.91
$2,294.91
$1,754.93
$1,619.94
$2,564.90
County
I$2,564.90
Bremerton
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Poulsbo
$564.00
$564.00
$564.00
$564.00
$564.00
$564.00
$564.00
$564.00
Bainbridge
Island $1,811.82 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,413.22 $1,123.33
$1,123.33 $1,123.33
$1,123.33
Gig
Harbor $5,257.00 $5,582.00 $5,582.00 $5,582.00 55,582.00
$5,582.00 $5,582.00
$5,582.00
Parks Impact Fees
Port $4,280.00 $3,089.00 $3,029.00 $3,089.00 - $3,014.00
Orchard $4,280.00
$3,014.00 $3,014.00
$2,344.00
Kitsap
$743.10
$362.03
$362.03
$362.03
$362.03
$362.03
$362.03
$362.03
County
Bremerton
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Poulsbo
$1,195.00
$1,195.00
$1,195.00
$1,195.00
$1,195.00
$1,195.00
$1,195.00
$1,195.00
Bainbridge
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Island
Gig
Harbor $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 T$1,0. 00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
School Impact Fees
Port $1,370.83 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65
Orchard
Kitsap
$1,455.66
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
County
Bremerton
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Poulsbo
$1,455.66
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
$839.81
$0.00
Bainbridge
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Island
Gig $4,130.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $4,130.00
Harbor
Total Impact Fees
Port
$10,856.52
$9,156.34
$6,835.28 -
$9,156.34 -
$6,820.28
$6,189.29
$5,768.63
$4,677.97 -
Orchard
$9 096.34
10,347.34
$6,150.28
Kitsap
County
$6,428.60
$3,496.75
$3,496.75
$3,766.74
$3,496.75
$2,956.77
$2,821.78
$3,766.74
Bremerton
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,598.81
$0.00
$2,598.81
$0.00
$0.00
Poulsbo
$3,214.66
$2,598.81
$2,598.81
$2,598.81
$2,598.81
$1,759.00
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 67
Bainbridge $1,811.82 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,413.22
Island
Gig $10,887.00 $9,261.00 $9,261.00 I$9,261.00
Harbor
$1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33
$9,261.00 $9,261.00 $9,261.00
$1,123.33
$11,212.00
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 68
Appendix B - Comprehensive Plan Policies
The consultant team's comments on select housing policies are listed below.
Housing Element
Goal/
Policy
HS-1
Identify a sufficient amount of land for housing,
The Land Capacity Analysis in Section 7 of this
including but not limited to government -assisted
report finds the City has surplus capacity for 5,750
housing, housing for low-income families,
residents beyond 2044 growth targets. Land
manufactured housing, multifamily housing,
capacity will be reviewed in more detail with the
group homes, and foster care facilities.
update to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan
due in 2024.
HS-2
Support the development of a variety of housing
The City has a good foundation of supportive
types, including apartments, townhomes, mixed-
zoning standards to support a variety of housing
use (residential and other uses) and live -work
types, though as noted in Section 6 some
development, small -lot and zero lot line single-
improvements could be made or more incentives
family homes, and manufactured homes, as well
added. The MVOD zone is an example of
as traditional single-family homes, through
innovative planning. Financial assistance largely is
innovative planning, efficient and effective
implemented through the MFTE program, though
administration of land and building codes, and,
other options may need to be explored to support
where available, applicable financial assistance.
the low-income population. See also HS-20.
HS-3
Monitor official and estimated population and
The HAP is partially fulfilling this policy. Some
housing data to ensure zoning and development
gaps have been found in this report.
regulations reflect market demands
HS-4
Adopt zoning and development regulations that
According to City staff, this policy is generally
will have the effect of minimizing housing costs
being met, but stakeholders report other factors
and maximizing housing options.
outside the City's control are also contributing to
increasing the costs of building housing.
HS-5
Support the development of housing and related
Port Orchard does not have any emergency
services that are provided by regional housing
housing or emergency shelter for homeless
programs and agencies for special needs
individuals. Supportive and group housing for
populations, especially the homeless, children,
people with mental or physical disabilities also
the elderly, and people with mental or physical
appears limited, though there is a considerable
disabilities.
share of senior housing and assisted living
facilities concentrated on the Pottery Avenue
corridor.
HS-6
Consider reducing permitting fees for
No waivers/reductions for impact fees, general
development which provide affordable housing
facilities charges, or other permitting fees appear
as defined by the Washington Administrative
to be in place.
Code (WAC) section 200-120- 020.
HS-7
Consider the creation of zoning and other land
This has been met through the MFTE program.
use incentives for the private construction of
affordable and special needs housing as a
percentage of units in multi -family development.
HS-8
Consider adopting incentives for development of
This has been met through the MFTE program.
affordable multi -family homes through property
tax abatement in accordance with 84.14 RCW,
focusing on designated mixed -use local centers
with identified needs for residential infill and
redevelopment.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 69
Goal/
Policy
Text
MAKERS Comments
HS-9
Implement minimum residential density
The City does not have any minimum density
requirements in centers of local importance in
standards in any zone.
order to increase land and infrastructure
efficiency.
HS-10
Encourage the development of vertical multi-
The MFTE Type III program and supportive zoning
family housing above ground floor commercial
helps encourage this type of housing, and there
uses within centers of local importance.
are a variety of private projects proposed in local
centers.
HS-11
Encourage the development of a mix of housing
A more thorough review of the future land use
types within walking and bicycling distance of
map will be needed in the Comprehensive Plan
public schools, parks, transit service, and
update. This is a good policy to continue forward.
commercial centers.
HS-12
Require that new housing developments occur
This is primarily met through impact fees.
concurrently with necessary infrastructure
investments.
HS-14
Implement zoning and development regulations
This type of development does not appear to be
which encourage infill housing on empty and
happening in large numbers, with most housing
redevelopable parcels.
being built on greenfields on the edge of the city.
More incentives for infill and redevelopment in
local centers should be explored in the HAP.
HS-15
Allow the development of residential accessory
Allow in all residential areas. Consider policy to
dwelling units (ADUs) and detached accessory
allow ADU's to be built with all single-family,
dwelling units (DADUs) in appropriate residential
duplex, and triplex developments.
areas with sufficient public facilities to
adequately serve additional residents.
HS-16
Consider increasing maximum housing densities
Similar to policy HS-9. Minimum densities will be
and implementing minimum housing densities in
explored in the HAP. The City has no maximum
appropriate areas.
density limits in residential zones.
HS-18
Consider programs to preserve or rehabilitate
One project has utilized the MFTE Type II program
neighborhoods and areas that are showing signs
intended for abandoned properties. The City could
of deterioration due to lack of maintenance or
consider other maintenance support, such as use
abandonment.
of Community Development Block Grants to help
low-income homeowners with rehabilitation.
HS-19
Consider commercial building design standards
Commercial design standards have been adopted.
that establish and protect neighborhood
character.
HS-20
Seek federal, state, and other funding for the
Staff report no work has been done on grant
renovation and maintenance of existing housing
applications to renovate/maintain existing
stock.
housing stock.
HS-22
Streamlining the permitting process for
Stakeholders noted that permit processing time
development by implementing policies and
and unexpected hurdles are a continuing problem,
procedures that reduce the length of time
though the City has recently moved to an
involved in plan approval.
electronic system.
HS-24
Consider developing and implementing flexible
The City has recently updated its critical areas
development standards for housing being
standards and has no maximum density limits in
proposed in the vicinity of critical areas to meet
residential zones.
both the goals of housing targets and
environmental protection.
HS-27
If the City's growth rate falls below 2.1 % annual
In individual years the growth rate has sometimes
growth, the rate at which the City would need to
been lower than 2.1 % (e.g. 2.7% from 2017 to
grow at in order to hit its 2036 growth target, the
2018), and from 2015 to 2022 the average annual
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 70
city should consider adopting reasonable
growth rate was 2.6%. It is unclear which
measures such as reducing adopted
timeframe should be used to evaluate whether
transportation levels of service, impact fees, or
"reasonable measures" are needed.
accelerating growth related projects within the
City's Capital Improvement Program.
HS-28
If the City's growth rate increases from the 2.5%
In individual years the growth rate has sometimes
growth rate experienced from 2013-2015, the
been higher than 2.5% (e.g. 2.8% from 2021 to
City should consider adopting reasonable
2022), and from 2015 to 2022 the average annual
measures including increasing transportation
growth rate was 2.6%. It is unclear which
level of service standards, impact fees, or
timeframe should be used to evaluate whether
delaying projects within the City's Capital
"reasonable measures" are needed.
Improvement Program.
Land Use Element
Goal/
Policy
LU-1
Ensure that land use and zoning regulations
Some variety of housing types are being seen in
maintain and enhance existing single-family
recent years, but not enough to meet all market
residential neighborhoods, while encouraging
needs. Revisiting this policy in the context of
that new development provides a mixed range of
single-family neighborhoods may be warranted in
housing types.
the Comprehensive Plan update.
LU-11
Within centers of local importance, set minimum
The housing policy review in Section 6 finds that
building densities that enable lively and active
none of these ideas have been implemented, with
streets and commercial destinations. Such limits
the exception of maximum street setbacks in
may take the form of: minimum floors or building
limited commercial areas.
height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and
maximum street setbacks and parking spaces.
LU-17
Incentivize infill development to preserve and
This type of development does not appear to be
protect open space, critical areas, and natural
happening in large numbers, with most housing
resources.
being built on greenfields on the edge of the city.
More incentives for infill and redevelopment in
local centers should be explored in the HAP.
Transportation Element
Goal/
Policy
Goal 7
Work with Kitsap Transit to provide increased
Level of service standards for transit frequency is
transit service to the City as development
not mentioned anywhere in the Transportation
occurs.
Element.
TR-38
Require new development and redevelopment to
The future land use map and zoning map should
provide safe neighborhood walking and biking
be evaluated to determine what housing capacity
routes to schools.
and potential for new development exists near
schools. New infrastructure is most easily paid for
by new development, and schools should be
nodes of residential density to facilitate short
walks and bike rides for students from home.
TR-86
Consider reduction of parking requirements if a
Noted.
development provides alternatives for multi-
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 71
ORDINANCE NO. XXX-23
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
RELATING TO THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH REGARD TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND THE CITY SIGN CODE;
AMENDING SECTION 20.26.020 OF THE PORT ORCHARD
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD THE SIGN CODE CHAPTER 20.132 POMC
TO THE LIST OF CODE PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE MODIFIED BY
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; AMENDING SECTION 20.132.060
OF THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE THAT
MASTER SIGN PLANS MAY BE APPROVED BY USE OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; PROVIDING FOR CORRECTIONS
AND SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.7013.170, the City Council has the authority to review and
enter into development agreements that govern the development and use of real property within
the City; and
WHEREAS, such agreements are advantageous to both municipalities and applicants by
facilitating certainty and stability in the land use permitting process, while also providing
flexibility in the innovative application of local development standards, often leading to enhanced
project design and infrastructure improvements for the public; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted standards and procedures governing the City's use
of development agreements, codified at Chapter 20.26 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code
(POMC) which was last updated by Ordinance No. 030-20; and
WHEREAS, when a project includes signage the City's sign code (Chapter 20.132 POMC)
applies; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement section 20.26.020 that sets forth the code
chapters that are subject to Development Agreements does not currently include the City sign
code; and
WHEREAS, for mixed use developments, a master sign plan is required in accordance with
POMC 20.132.060; and
WHEREAS, allowing master sign plans to be approved by Development Agreement may
result in a better result for both project proponents and for the public at large;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the amendments to those regulations set
forth in this ordinance to enhance the City's ability to utilize development agreements for the
benefit of the City and public; and
Page 1 of 8
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
Ord. XXX-23
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was submitted to the Department of Commerce for review on
DATE, 2023, and review was granted on DATE, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on DATE, 2023, the City's SEPA official issued a determination of
nonsignificance for the proposed revisions, and there have been no appeals; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the substance of this
Ordinance on DATE, 2023, and recommended adoption by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration of the recommendation from the
Planning Commission, all public comment, and the Ordinance, finds that this Ordinance is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, the Growth
Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, and that the amendments herein are in the best interests
of the residents of the City and further advance the public health, safety and welfare; now,
therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and
incorporated as findings in support of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Section 20.26.020 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
20.26.020 Form of agreement, effect and general provisions.
(1) Form. A development agreement shall set forth the development
standards and other provisions that apply to and govern and vest the
development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the
duration specified in the agreement.
(a) For the purposes of this chapter, "development standards" may
include, but are not limited to:
(i) Project elements such as residential densities, nonresidential densities
and intensities or building sizes;
(ii) The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in
accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement
provisions, other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees,
or dedications;
(iii) Mitigation measures, development conditions, and other
requirements under Chapter 43.21C RCW;
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
Ord. XXX-23
Page 3 of 8
(iv) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, landscaping, and
other development features;
(v) Affordable housing;
(vi) Parks and open space preservation;
(vii) Phasing;
(viii) Review procedures and standards for implementing decisions;
(ix) A build -out or vesting period for applicable standards; and
(x) Any other development requirement or procedure deemed appropriate
by the city council.
(b) In order to encourage innovative land use management and provide
flexibility to achieve public benefits, a development agreement adopted pursuant
to this chapter may impose development standards that differ from the following
development regulations of this code; provided, that any development standards
imposed by the development agreement shall be consistent with the
comprehensive plan:
(i) Chapter 20.08 POMC, Vesting;
(ii) Chapter 20.12 POMC, Definitions;
(iii) Chapter 20.30 POMC, Introduction to Zoning, Land Uses, and Building
Types;
(iv) Chapter 20.32 POMC, Building Types;
(v) Chapter 20.33 POMC, Greenbelt District;
(vi) Chapter 20.34 POMC, Residential Districts;
(vii) Chapter 20.35 POMC, Commercial and Mixed Use Districts;
(viii) Chapter 20.36 POMC, Industrial Districts;
(ix) Chapter 20.37 POMC, Civic and Open Space Districts;
(x) Chapter 20.38 POMC, Overlay Districts;
(xi) Chapter 20.39 POMC, Use Provisions;
(xii) Chapter 20.40 POMC, Site and Lot Dimensions;
(xiii) Chapter 20.41 POMC, Transfer of Development Rights Program;
(xiv) Chapter 20.54 POMC, Nonconformities;
(xv) Chapter 20.68 POMC, Accessory Dwelling Units;
(xvi) Chapter 20.80 POMC, Subdivisions — General Provisions;
(xvii) Chapter 20. 82 POMC, Administration and Enforcement;
(xviii) Chapter 20.84 POMC, Boundary Line Adjustments;
(xix) Chapter 20.86 POMC, Short Subdivisions;
(xx) Chapter 20.88 POMC, Subdivisions — Preliminary Plats;
(xxi) Chapter 20.90 POMC, Subdivisions — Final Plats;
(xxii) Chapter 20.94 POMC, Binding Site Plans;
(xxiii) Chapter 20.96 POMC, Vacation and Alteration of Final Plans and
Short Plats;
(xxiv) Chapter 20.98 POMC, Improvements;
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
Ord. XXX-23
Page 4 of 8
(xxv) Chapter 20.100 POMC, Development Standards — Subdivision Design;
(xxvi) Chapter 20.120 POMC, Development Standards — General
Provisions;
(xxvii) Chapter 20.122 POMC, Building Elements;
(xxviii) Chapter 20.124 POMC, Development Standards — Parking and
Circulation;
(xxix) Chapter 20.127 POMC, Design Standards;
(xxx) Chapter 20.128 POMC, Landscaping;
(xxxi) Chapter 20.129 POMC, Significant Trees;
(xxxii) Chapter 20.132 POMC, Sign Code:
(xxxiii) Chapter 20.139 POMC, Residential Design Standards;
(xxxi4iv) Chapter 20.162 POMC, Critical Areas Regulations;
(xxx+v) Chapter 20.164 POMC, Shoreline Master Program;
(xxxvi) Chapter 20.182 POMC, Impact Fees.
(c) A development agreement shall not modify any provision of this code
that is not identified in subsection (1)(b) of this section.
(d) A development agreement may modify the provisions of this code only
if the city council determines that the requested modifications are necessary to
provide flexibility to achieve public benefits and provide superior outcomes than
those that would result from strict compliance with the other applicable
development standards.
(e) Any approved development standards that differ from those other
applicable development standards shall not require any further zoning
reclassification, variance from city standards or other city approval apart from
development agreement approval.
(f) Subsequently adopted standards which differ from those in the
development agreement shall apply to the subject site where necessary to address
a serious threat to public health and safety or where the development agreement
specifies a time period or phase after which certain identified standards may be
modified. Building permit applications shall be subject to the building and
construction codes in effect when the building permit application is deemed
complete.
(2) Decision Type. Development agreements are a Type V action and shall
be reviewed and approved pursuant to the procedures in Chapter 20.22 POMC
and this chapter, except that if the development agreement is consolidated with
a new or pending Type I, II, III or IV project permit application as defined in RCW
36.70B.020, the city council's decision to approve, deny, or modify the
development agreement may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW.
(3) Effect. Development agreements are not project permit applications
and are not subject to the permit processing procedures in Chapter 36.70B RCW
or Chapter 20.24 POMC. A development agreement shall constitute a binding
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
Ord. XXX-23
Page 5 of 8
contract between the city and the property owner and the subsequent owners of
any later -acquired interests in the property identified in the development
agreement. A development agreement governs the project identified in the
development agreement during the term of the development agreement, or for
all or that part of the build -out period specified in the development agreement,
and may not be subject to an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development
standard adopted after the effective date of the agreement, except as set forth in
this chapter. A permit or approval issued/granted by the city after execution of a
valid development agreement must be consistent with the development
agreement.
(4) Limitations.
(a) A development agreement shall be limited to a 20-year term if any
provision of the agreement requires the city to:
(i) Refrain from exercising any authority that it would have otherwise been
able to exercise in the absence of the development agreement;
(ii) Defer application to the subject property of any newly adopted
development regulations that would otherwise apply to the property identified in
the agreement; or
(iii) Allow vesting beyond the applicable deadlines for a phased
development.
(b) The development agreement shall also contain a proviso that the city
may, without incurring any liability, engage in action that would otherwise be a
breach if the city makes a determination on the record that the action is necessary
to avoid a serious threat to public health and safety, or if the action is required by
federal or state law.
(c) The full costs of drafting and processing the development agreement
shall be reimbursed by the owner or applicant prior to final city council action on
the agreement to the extent such costs exceed the initial application fee.
(5) Developer's Compliance. The development agreement shall include a
clause stating that the city's duties under the agreement are expressly conditioned
upon the property owner's substantial compliance with each and every term,
condition, provision and/or covenant in the development agreement, all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations and the property owner's
obligations as identified in any approval or project permit for the property
identified in the development agreement.
(6) No Third Party Rights. Except as otherwise provided in the development
agreement, the development agreement shall create no rights enforceable by any
party who/which is not a party to the development agreement.
(7) Liability. The development agreement shall include a clause providing
that any breach of the development agreement by the city shall give right only to
damages under state contract law and shall not give rise to any liability under
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
Ord. XXX-23
Page 6 of 8
Chapter 64.40 RCW, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, or similar state constitutional provisions.
(8) Termination, Modification and Extension. Every development
agreement shall have an identified, specific termination date. Upon termination,
any further development of the property shall conform to the development
regulations applicable to the property at the time of permit application. The city
shall not modify any development agreement by extending the termination date
unless the city council makes legislative findings that the additional benefits to the
city provided by the developer in exchange for such extension of the development
agreement outweigh the impacts from the development authorized by the
extension. In no case shall an extension include the extension of provisions that
are inconsistent with state or federal law at the time of such extension. Any
request for a modification shall be consistent with the city's development
regulations applicable to the property at the time of the request, not the original
execution date of the development agreement. Any extensions granted shall be
for no more than a length of 10 years. No more than two extensions of up to 10
years shall be granted. Extensions may not be granted unless an application for an
extension is made no later than 180 days prior to the termination date in the
development agreement or prior to the termination of any extension of a
development agreement.
SECTION 3. Section 20.132.060 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
20.132.060 Master sign plans.
(1) Approval Required. Before the city will issue any sign permit relating to
space in a proposed new mixed use, nonresidential, multitenant building(s), or
multitenant site development, the city must first approve a master sign plan for
the building(s) and/or site development. In addition, a master sign plan may be
voluntarily developed and maintained by the owner or agent of any new or
existing nonresidential use. As an alternative to the procedures included in this
section, an applicant may apply for approval under the development agreement
procedures under chapter 20.26 POMC. If a development agreement is utilized.
then the development agreement procedures shall replace the procedures in this
section, provided, however, that the applicant will still provide the information
listed in subsection 3 below as part of the review under the development
agreement procedures.
(2) Review Procedures. A master sign plan is a Type I permit per POMC
20.22.030. The community development director shall make the decision on the
master sign plan without a hearing. Refer to Chapter 20.24 POMC for application,
review and approval procedures.
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
Ord. XXX-23
Page 7 of 8
(3) Application Requirements. A complete master sign plan application
shall consist of the following:
(a) A complete master sign plan application, including the applicant's
name, address, phone number and email address. If the applicant is not the
property owner(s), then the property owner(s) must be identified and the
application must include an affidavit from the property owner(s), verifying that
the property owner(s) has given permission to the applicant for the submission of
the master sign plan application. No sign may be placed upon real property
without the consent of the real property owner(s);
(b) A site plan drawn to legible scale, indicating the location of all buildings,
driveways and pavement areas, landscape areas, abutting streets and proposed
freestanding signs on the site;
(c) Elevation drawings of each building on a site that indicates proposed
sign locations on each of the buildings;
(d) Maximum allowable signage on each elevation based upon a five
percent calculation of all facades;
(e) The master sign plan application shall identify the sign features and sign
types proposed to be used on each building and the proposed location. In
addition, a statement shall be included which describes the manner in which the
building or site owner wishes to allocate allowable signage among tenants and
where specific tenant signage shall be located;
(f) A narrative description of the development to demonstrate that the
master sign plan meets the required design standards of this chapter; and
(g) Fees. Payment of the appropriate fee for a master sign plan.
(4) Criteria for Approval. All signs in the master sign plan must meet the
criteria for approval in POMC 20.132.050, Sign permits. In addition, all of the signs
in the master sign plan:
(a) Shall be architecturally similar and visually related to each other
through the incorporation of common design elements. Up to two sign types may
be used on any one building. All sign cabinets, trim caps and all sign supports such
as poles and braces shall be of a common color;
(b) Shall be architecturally integrated with the buildings included in the
master sign plan; and
(c) Must not obscure the view of other signs which are consistent with this
chapter.
(5) Notice of Final Decision. See POMC 20.132.050, Sign permits.
(6) Expiration of Master Sign Plan. Once a master sign plan is approved, the
signs depicted in the approved plan must be installed within 180 days or the
master sign plan will expire. The director may grant a 180-day extension to the
master sign plan if such a request is made in writing prior to the expiration of the
master sign plan and provided that the sign plan remains consistent with the sign
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
Ord. XXX-23
Page 8 of 8
regulations. Building permits and street use permits for any signs shown in the
master sign plan shall expire in accordance with other applicable code provisions.
No sign may be erected under an expired master sign plan, even if the associated
sign permit, building permit or street use permit has not expired.
(7) Amendment to Master Sign Plan. An application for an amendment to
an approved master sign plan may be made at any time, subject to the same
limitations, requirements and procedures as those that apply to an original
application in this section. Tenants whose signs are included in the amendment
application need the property owner's consent to file such application. In order to
approve any such amendment, the director shall consider the existing signs on the
building(s) subject to the approved plan when determining whether the
application meets the criteria for approval in subsection (4) of this section.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any sentence, section, provision, or clause of this Ordinance
or its application to any person, entity or circumstance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional, the remainder of the Ordinance, or the application of the provision to other
persons, entities, or circumstances is not affected.
SECTION S. Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and/or
code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to this Ordinance,
including but not limited to the correction of scrivener's/clerical errors, references, Ordinance
numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference thereto.
SECTION 6. Publication and Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
five (5) days after posting and publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may
be published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, as authorized by state law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this ***th day of *** 2023.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
FA19:►119
Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sponsored by:
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
Ord. XXX-23
Page 9 of 8
Charlotte A. Archer, City Attorney , Councilmember
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
1761272.1 - 366922 -0021
r , •y + .y i
� 1 ,
f a r
Meline Road Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ;i'.4
- r - - sew► -..... � r• s •M = �� ` — �
1
+ * ! ,
SE SEDGWICK RD-
cn
1�I
AV . _ �"�` �..SE MELINE RD ,
W r .•
Or
00
VIP
t•
' i •
w
r i ,► O
t ♦ 0
bp
s
{► r � 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles -
So rce: Esn, Max7ar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, C«NES/Airbus D-USDA, USGS, Aero^G'RUD, 11i and
4 _ +, ` the GIS User Community
• Meline Road Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment .-.:
112301-3-003-2006
• 112301-3-010-2007 112301-3-009-2000 ,t •„" ,'
112301-2-022-2005
SE SEDGWICK RD -
cn Y S ` a_ 112301-3-002-2007
•� ''� ,. SE MELINE RD
W r •• R ...
z
�;
1 N
F11 «
! r 4800-000-023-0106
'"ra.Ws+r'Al 112301-3-012-2005 112301-3-008-2001 112301-3-005-2004 112301-3-048-2003
112301-3-011-2006
112301-3-047-2004 I
r O
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles
�" So rce: Esn, Maxar, G�eo ye, EarGhstar Geographies, C«NES/Airbus D- USDA, USG�S, AeroGRID, fGN, and
the GIS User Community
cn
0
w
i o
Meline Road Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
- Existing Zoning
ol
M
s'I-
K-10,
a.SE MELINE RD_�
/
Id-
,
w0
►' O
� � 0
N
{
r
{. 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles
1 So rce: Esri, Maxar, G�eo e, Ear
Y
,� •• the GIS User Community
Legend
BPMU
CC
CH
- CI
CMU
''14 DMU
GB
GMU
- IF
LI
NMU
PF
- PR
R1
R2
R3
- R4
- R6
1 '
e
SE SEDGWICK RD'--.
cn
w
lei
o
Meline Road Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
- Proposed Zoning
t • �' i
t
;s•
+►A!
t
A.SE MELINE RD
Fry
p
{. 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles
1 So rce: Esn, Maxar, G�eo ye, EarGhstarGeographics, OWNS DA,
•` 4he GIS User Community
Legend
BPMU
.� cc a.
- CH
- cl
cMU
DMU
GB
GMU
- IF
LI
NMU 1
PF
- PR
R1
R2
R3
- R4
- R6
Meline Road Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
- Existing Comp Plan
SE SEDGWICK RD-
cn
0
SE M E L I N E RD '+� hL_ r+i► ..
z 1 r
o
INW—
w
A --
wg r
Legend
�► o- �r
0 COM
40ob— GIB
j Ar �-
► • - HDR '
IND
LDR
MDR
r C w w r' t
{ s r " PCs
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles
Source: Esn, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, C«NES/Airbus D-,USDA, USGS, AeroGR'ID, IGN, a i
4 wr*yr��4 „ • the GIS User Community