20240521 Port Orchard Draft Comp Plan Comment MatrixCITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX
This document is formatted to provide tracking for review comments received by the City so far on the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update from the Planning Commission and from the public. Comments are sorted by
Comprehensive Plan Element and section within the Element. City Staff actions on the comments are identified with details supporting Staff decision.
Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
This section will identify where the
review comment applies to. If the
comment is not specific to a
particular section, it will be marked
as "general" This will be copied from the comment received from the
source.
Comments should be ordered
chronologically according to plan
sections, with general comments
being on top.
This will identify the source of the
comment.
Planning Commission comments
should be noted as "PC -[LAST
NAME]" for easy tracking.
Comments from public providing
names should be noted as "PUBLIC -
[LAST NAME]"
Comments from public not providing
their name should be noted as
"PUBLIC"
This will codify how Staff is
responding to the comment, in one
of the following manners:
(feel free to copy and paste from this
section for formatting consistency)
This section will provide additional details following the
applicable staff action:
Comment accepted and incorporated Identify where in the section the comment will be
into the revised draft element. incorporated. Identify any text revisions to the
comment as it is incorporated into the element
Identify the necessary next steps to determine
Comment under additional feasibility of including the comment in the revised draft.
consideration, identify next steps for Is there additional analysis necessary? Identify if the
analysis. comment would be more applicable to another section
and/or element.
Comment will not be incorporat Identify why the comment is not being incorporated
into the revised draft element. into the revised draft.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - GENERAL
Comment
Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
Number
When referring to the City of Port Orchard, "City" is the
1 Do not capitalize 'city' and be consistent throughout PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated proper spelling. When generally identifying Port Orchard
document g into the revised draft element. as a place, "city" is appropriate.
A document -wide consistency check will be conducted.
Several times it's mentioned that demographics
The City will explore preparing a map identifying historic
changed because of a series of areas being Comment under additional
annexations over time. This may not get added to this
2 incorporated. What areas got incorporated and why Public -Danielson consideration, identify next steps for
Comprehensive Plan Update depending on availability of
were they incorporated? analysis.
data.
Does the city or county maintain a roster of restrictive
covenants anywhere? If people are concerned about
3 maintaining the character of their specific neighborhood Public -Danielson
then that seems like a good way to do it instead of
hamstringing the entire city
With the growing population I'm concerned about light
pollution. One of my favorite late night activities is
laying in my backyard and staring up at the stars, and I'd
like to be able to continue to do that. With all the
4 lighting changes and new buildings being built/
upgraded, could we add something to limit light
pollution? Something saying that all new city lights will
be shrouded or something like that. With $1.1million
being spent on lighting in the next 6 years it seems like a
good time to start
Comment will not be incorpora
into the revised draft element.
Comment under additional
Public -Danielson consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Currently a large portion of commuters are directed
directly through downtown via Bay Street, meaning that
downtown is not a pleasant area to walk around and
enjoy during these times. Would it be possible to
5 Public -Danielson
redirect the majority of through -traffic (via Kitsap Steet/
Rockwell Ave maybe?) to ensure the businesses
downtown can get business from people who want to
go there?
Covenants are recorded and maintained by the Kitsap
County Auditor.
The City could explore new goal and policy language
addressing dark sky regulations/considerations. Not
sure this Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan is
the correct venue based on the timing of adoption (end
of 2024) and the policy development/public
engagement that should occur in support of any new
policies specific to dark skies.
This should be discussed at Planning Commission.
This will not be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan, as the development standards associated with
Comment will not be incorporated street frontages and roadway sections are established in
into the revised draft element. the zoning code and public works standards. The City's
subarea plan for downtown addresses streetscape
planning, where that level of detail for a specific area of
the City is better suited.
Great content overall, but needs more scaffolding and
structure to take it to the next level. Currently, there is a
lot of information and it can be difficult to digest at
some times.
It might help to restructure each chapter to begin with a
Comment under additional
As the document gets to the final draft form, additional
6 table of contents and opening with the goals (then go PC-Ta
consideration, identify next steps for
text and layout revisions will be make to make a
into detail of each goal later in the chapter). This primes
analysis.
cohesive and accessible document.
and orients the readers for whats to come. SeaTac's
2035 is a great example of how each chapter begins
with a table of contents and goals, then goes into each
goal later in granular detail.
The green box with the orange background for each
Vision statement of each chapter has an opportunity to
be visually more impactful. The use of italics undermine
its importance, especially if the vision statement is the
Comment under additional
As the document gets to the final draft form, consistent
same font size as the title. Right now, it is easy to skip
7 PC-Ta
consideration, identify next steps for
design elements will be included to provide a cohesive
over it. Also there is an inconsistency with the Vision
analysis.
and accessible document.
Statement for each chapter. For example, on Chapter 8,
is it in paragraph form. In previous chapters, we had a
green box. Worried that small inconsistencies like this
will make the document unpredictable to parse.
What I would love to see is incorporating past "wins" or
examples of us executing on our policies. We don't
necessarily need a dedicated section for each chapter
Additional graphics/photos will be added to reflect new
that tediously talks about what we've done, but we can
t
Comment under additional
developments and highlights across the City in
utilize / incorporate more pictures. This would set the
8 PC-Ta
consideration, identify next steps for
Sections/Elements that are relevant to the graphics.
tone that we are successful in executing a vision and are
analysis.
Specific items to include will be identified as the Update
making decisions that bring us forward. For example:
Chapter 8 would be a perfect spot to include pictures of
process continues.
McCormick roundabout / other major city changes as
we talk about future plans.
I think the City's website is not well designed to
Examine opportunities to address website and
facilitate community inputs. Some improvement to the
9 PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated
communication effectiveness in the Comprehensive
website - Planning page in particular would be most
into the revised draft element.
Plan (e.g. Capital Facilities Element).
helpful.
10
11
12
13
Communication
Communication
Better Communication from the City not only for
downtown merchants, and business
owners but for the general public, residents and
customers.
A current example: the final work on the roundabout.
Road closures and
reduced lane use significantly impacts downtown
businesses. There is a lot of
anxiety that may be alleviated with information of what
to expect.
Comment under additional
Public-POBSA consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Another concern downtown business owners have is the
timing for the road elevation
planned, across from the current Kitsap Bank Drive
Thru. More information on that
timeline would be helpful. Also, it is clear that many
Public-POBSA
residents do not understand urban
growth density, and growth management.
How might we educate, spread the word better on why
so much development
takes place right in the urban area of Port Orchard?
We request and support a friendlier communicative
response from City staff to existing
businesses, potential new businesses, developers,
contractors etc.
Communication A tone that recognizes efforts and risks small business Public-POBSA
owners, contractors, and
developers take, and acknowledges that City staff serve
the residents and
taxpayers.
We would like to see better branding and promotion of
the City by the City.
-Possibly a tagline and collaborative efforts to promote
Communication Public-POBSA
our downtown.
-We encourage the City to have a stronger, friendlier
social media presence.
Comment will not be incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Examine opportunities to address this in the
Transportation, Capital Facilities, and/or Land Use
Elements.
Discuss at next Planning Commission meeting what
appropriate policies (and location within the Plan) may
look like.
The Introduction section provides context for the
Comprehensive Plan process and intended use of the
document. It also provides framework of how the
Comprehensive Plan, as a policy document, interacts
with the City's zoning and development regulations.
There are goals and policies in the Plan that are
supportive of small businesses development and
Comment will not be incorporated retention. Outside of the goal/policy perspective, this
into the revised draft element. I concern may be better addressed to individual City
departments individually rather than the
Comprehensive Plan.
Comment accepted and incorporated New Policy ED-42 has been added to the Economic
into the revised draft element. Development Element addressing this item.
14
15
16
17
We encourage and request an elevated level of service,
and support in the downtown
core. With policies that support building owner's
responsibility to keep their buildings/lots
maintained.
Beautification/Maintenance If the City believes business owners are responsible for
clearing drains or
sandbagging their businesses that needs to be
communicated. The significant
flooding this past fall caught Public Works, and business
owners unprepared.
Beautification and Parks: We encourage a plan where
the City takes over the planting,
watering, and maintenance of hanging baskets and
planters along Bay Street. We also
encourage the development of a Parks Department in
Beautification/Maintenance the City.
POBSA maintained all responsibility for Christmas
lighting, and hanging baskets
until the past few years. We still maintain the sidewalk
planters. Because of
irrigation difficulties hanging baskets are no longer in
place.
Permitting: Occupancy Permits take a long time. We are
aware of this not only for downtown, but in other areas
of the City. We understand the City is experiencing
some planning staffing shortages and higher workloads.
We also understand some service businesses require
conditional use permits, which can add an additional 3
Comment under additional
Public-POBSA consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Comment under additional
Public-POBSA consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Economic Development months to the permitting process. Public-POBSA
We support a reconsideration of conditional business
permits and encourage reducing, or streamlining these
processes to reduce vacancies, and help support
business development. This reduces the financial risk
small businesses incur in setting up a new business in
Port Orchard.
Fees: We support further consideration of removing the
Economic Development transportation impact fees in the Public-POBSA
downtown core.
This could be better implemented at the development
regulation level - essentially in the instance that a
property owner fails to maintain their property, the City
could do so and expense the owner. This has some legal
implications and any proposed language should be
reviewed by the City Attorney.
Discuss at the next Planning Commission how to address
this comment.
Location -specific services like those identified in the
comment are best addressed in the City's PROS Plan,
rather than the Comprehensive Plan. At the current
time, a dedicated Parks Department is not feasible
based on the City's size and maintenance obligations. As
the City continues to grow (as well as the services
needed to accommodate a growing population), a
dedicated Parks Department may be realistic.
This is better addressed in the permitted and
Comment under additional conditional uses established in association with the
consideration, identify next steps for zoning code.
analysis. Discuss at the next Planning Commission meeting
approaches to add goal/policy language addressing this
item.
Comment under additional Examine opportunities to support a reduced TIF in the
consideration, identify next steps for downtown TAZ. This should be discussed further at the
analysis.
next Planning Commission meeting.
W-1
19
FW
Mainstreet Collaboration: Support for POBSA to
potentially transition to a Mainstreet Association
Organization in the coming years. This endeavor
Economic Development
requires a significant financial investment, and a
reorganization, which would include hiring a paid
Director.
Perhaps a future Port Orchard Mainstreet Director could
manage the Event Center Building?
Marquee: Merchants, business owners, and customers
often ask about a Marquee
Replacement Plan/timeline. Poles are structurally
unsound, marquee is attached to both
Future Projects buildings and aging poles. We are aware this involves
electrical/lighting. In the Marquee
replacement/improvement plans we'd like to see water
lines included for an irrigation
drip system to water the hanging baskets and planters
along Bay Street.
Parking Options/Solutions: While we know a parking
garage is a long term project we
would like to see the City provide more frequent
communication with residents,
businesses owners, and the community at large with
Future Projects proposed future parking plans.
Especially with construction projects such as the sewer
lift station.
We are looking for a better way in which POBSA, and
the City can alleviate the
perception that there is no parking in downtown Port
Orchard.
Public-POBSA
Public-POBSA
Public-POBSA
Comment accepted and incorporated New Policy ED-43 has been added to the Economic
into the revised draft element. Development Element addressing this item.
Comment will not be incorpora
into the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated
into the revised draft element.
The timeline and scope of this project is outside of the
scope of this Comprehensive Plan Update process.
Discuss any City updates on this project at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
This will not be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan, as the development standards associated with
parking are established in the zoning code. The City's
subarea plan for downtown addresses parking concerns
and future planning, where that level of detail for a
specific area of the City is better suited.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - INTRODUCTION
Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
Number
This target outcome refers to reducing lane miles and miles of
pipe per capita that need to be replaced and maintained. Sea -
Does this "targeted outcome" address infrastructure needs up to 2044? I do not think so. We have
level rise is addressed in the SMP. Flooding downtown is
flooding downtown that must be addressed.
Comment will not be incorp
being addressed as part of specific projects on the TIP, CFE,
1 1.2 - 3rd bullet
Power grid vulnerability, uneven service to the Internet, Cell phone dominate communications with
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
and Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. The City does not have
limited or spotty service.
control over cell phone providers, the internet, or the power
grid. Concerning the internet, we should ensure that we are
communicating with KPUD for fiber as development occurs
and as the City completes transportation projects.
Keep this and drop the last bullet.
Comment will not be incorporated i
The last bullet is being added to address new requirements of
2 1.2 - 4th bullet
(bullet reads: Housing has remained available to all members of the community, and the diversity of
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
state law under HB 1220.
housing types has expanded.)
Comment will not be incorporated into
The City's transportation element addresses this, especially for
3 1.2 - 5th bullet
I'm curious about the plan to achieve this. PO is not very conducive to connections other than driving.
PC -Wright
non -motorized transportation. Our PWESS include
the revised draft element.
requirements for complete streets.
I'd like to see an new waterfront vision. Parking lots and car dealerships are counter to this goal. Is
Comment will not be incorporated into
The City completed a new downtown plan in 2021. We will
4 1.2 - 6th bullet
there a plan to accommodate relocation
PC -Wright
reasonably?
the revised draft element. A
not be reopening the downtown plan until at least 2031.
5 1.2 - 8th bullet
This implies there is not a comfortable and productive relationship with city government. Seems
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised phrasing to add the words "Residents continue to
negative.
into the revised draft element.
enjoy...
6 1.2 - 13th bullet
Native American cultural and historic resources (archeological sites) 51�, will be protected
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to remove "shall" phrasing.
into the revised draft element.
See MPP-RC-2 in Vision 2050, where this language is used
verbatim:
It seems to me it shouldn't matter someone's color ... if an individual/family is in need of access to
"Prioritize services and access to opportunity for people of
7 1.2 - 15th Bullet
services and opportunities, and he/she/they are lacking the resources to do so, then he/she/they
PC -Bailey
Comment will not be incorporated into
color, people with low incomes, and historically underserved
should receive assistance, regardless color.
the revised draft element.
communities to ensure all people can attain the resources and
o
opportunities to improve quality of life and address past
inequities.
1.2 - 15th bullet
8
not a fan of this term. I question the need for this bullet point altogether. 4th bullet covers this. Maybe
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
This item is pulled verbatim from MPP-RC-2 of Vision 2050.
(referring to term 'equity')
tweak it a bit to make PSRC happy.
the rat element.
1 have questions about what this really means. Again is this necessary? tweak 4th bullet if needed but
drop this.
Comment under additional
Revised language to: "Housing has remained available and
9 1.2 - Last bullet
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
affordable to all members of the community, and the diversity
(bullet reads: Establish a robust housing stock that provides affordable options for all incomes at a
analysis.
of housing types and densities has expanded."
varietv of housing densities.)
10 1.3
This comprehensive plan seeks to lay out a vision lays out a vision for Port Orchard that is founded on
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested language.
connectivity and the idea that stronger connections will ultimately lead to a stronger community.
into the revised draft element.
Is there a reference to this? Is "the established connections framework" a concept of or an established
Comment will not be incorporated into
The theme of connections was something that came out of
11 1.3
planning practice?
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
our public outreach for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. None
A
of our outreach thus far has suggested removing this theme.
I am curious about the "how" to these actions. Will the Comp Plan lay out specific actions the city will
12 1.3 PC -Wright
take to achieve these connections?
What does this mean? I'd like an example of this to better inform the residents what we are talking
13 1.3 PC -Wright
about.
What is this regional trail network? Should we have a reference to where the details of this are
14 1.3 PC -Wright
located?
15 1.3 Again, I'm skeptical this is achievable in a meaningful manner. Example would be good. PC -Wright
How can the City achieve this in a larger manner without removing large portions of built
16 1.3 PC -Wright
infrastructure? Sounds great but in practice.... g
I'm having trouble with the entire "Connectivity" concept. Is this a strategy the City wants to try and
17 1.3 PC -Wright
follow through 2040?
18 1.3 Insert - Topography and critical areas, PC -Wright
19 1.3 Not sure what "natural amenities" is. PC -Wright
We cannot please everyone. Majority must have the overall say with considerations for minority
20 1.3 PC -Wright
concerns.
A lot of PO history is linked to the Mosquito Fleet isn't it? Maritime transportation is a huge part of our
21 1.5 PC -Wright
past.
Sawmills and shingle mills are part of the lumber industry. Let's ask the historical Museum to take a
22 1.5 PC -Wright
look at this section and beef it up. Also adds community involvement.
1.6.1, pg 1-6, second pars, blue
3% used twice, unsure if one is a typo. "...would need to grow at 3%..." and "...therefore only needs to
23 highlighted area grow at 3%...". The way the sentence reads it seems the second 3% would be a lower number (or the PC -Bailey
first a higher).
24 1.6.1, pg 1-7, first para, second employment capacities have been struck but no replacement numbers are inserted. Perhaps left out PC -Bailey
sentence on purpose but wanted to point out just in case.
25 1.6.1 Do we have "extensive" public input? Give a reference if so. If not, do not say so.
26 1.6.1 Which programs??
27 1.6.1
(Population Employment Allocations and Capacity) Not a sentence. Is this a header that is mis-
formatted?
The city has heard previously about the importance of
preserving views of the waterfront, allowing access along the
Comment will not be incorporated into
waterfront (bay street pedestrian pathway), and by providing
the revised draft element.
access to the water (see the SMP). The waterfront includes a
variety of parks and public amenities and is the location where
events are held.
One way that this can be done is through interpretive signage
Comment will not be incorporated into
and historic markers. It can also be done through historic
the revised draft element.
preservation. These are being planned at the new community
event center.
Connect neighborhoods within the city and connect the city to
Comment will not be incorporated into
the region through trails and bike lanes. See our non -
the revised draft element.
motorized transportation section in the transportation
element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
This refers to not motorized connections such as sidewalks
the revised draft element.
and trails. See our non -motorized plan.
Comment will not be incorporated '"This
See the greenbelt zone on the zoning map. Blackjack Creek is
the revised draft element.
an example.
Comment will not be incorporated i
was produced in the previous Comprehensive Plan
the revised draft element.
Update and has helped promote connectivity between
individual Comprehensive Plan Elements.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Text has been revised to include topography and critical areas
into the revised draft element.
in the list of physical elements.
I would consider this to be open space and that natural
Comment will not be inco
environment. This can be public or private. Physical
the revised draft element.
occupation of the space is not required. Enjoying views,
smells, ecosystem services are all natural amenities.
This is only referring to the Comprehensive Plan process. We
need to coordinate with various groups in our community to
Comment will not be incorporated into
understand their concerns. The POBSA is not a majority of the
community, but they have valid concerns about downtown
the revised draft element.
Orchard. The McCormick Woods HOA may not provide
input on other areas of the city, but they are a large voice in
MAPort
one area of the city.
Comment under additional
Noted -are there specific revisions for the Comprehensive
consideration, identify next steps for
Plan addressing this?
analysis.
Comment under additional
Noted -outreach to the museum will be conducted for
consideration, identify next steps for
suggested edits to this section.
analysis.
Comment under additional
The phrasing for this section will be revised for clarity and to
consideration, identify next steps for
incorporate 2024 OFM population numbers, once finalized
analysis.
and issued (expected June 2024).
Revised to add language identifying slight deficit of
Comment accepted and incorporated
employment land. Also added language pointing to the Land
into the revised draft element.
Use Element, which provides more detailed employment
capacity information.
PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Language revised to: "Based on extensive public input that has
into the revised draft element. occurred over the last Comprehensive and Periodic updates..."
PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporate'OMThis applies to all City programs utilizing the Comprehensive
the revised draft element. j Plan for goal and policy guidance.
Comment accepted and incorporated
PC -Wright Formatting for this text has been revised.
into the revised draft element.
28
29
30
31
1.6.1 Give reference. Date and publication?
PC -Wright
1.6.1 Awkward sentence - use of "of" twice is confusing - reword.
PC -Wright
As determined by Kitsap County. Does the City agree with this assessment? If we do not, have we
1.6.1
made our disagreement known? Did the City participate with that Kitsap County "calculation"?
PC -Wright
This section concerns me. Has the City of PO done independent growth calculations and do they
correlate? Getting there "too soon" implies much more rapid growth that must be managed in terms of
1.6.1 overall government, residents attitudes, infrastructure, etc. Too rapid growth could cause strife and
PC -Wright
disgruntlement in residents if infrastructure is not in sync. This can be self-defeating with all the other
objectives of the "connectivity" idea.
32 1.6.1
33 1.6.1
34 1.6.1
35 1.6.1
36 1.6.1
37 1.6.2
38 1.6.2
39 1.6.2
Use of the term surplus implies these jobs (assuming living -wage jobs) or whatever is already here. I
disagree. Lots of low -paying jobs around but not processional/skilled technical jobs. Final number in PC -Wright
text is missing. 2437 is crossed out without a new entry.
"Other factors" is used redundantly. Please state what these other factors are.
Reference to the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report
Comment accepted and incorporated has been provided in this section.
into the revised draft element. https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/FINAL%20Bu
iIda ble%20Lands%20Report_November%202021.pdf
Comment accepted and incorporated
Language has been revised for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
Per the GMA, Counties are to prepare the BLR. We
Comment will not be incorporated into
participated in the preparation of the report and used our
the revised draft element.
own consultant to provide data and review of the County's
document.
The growth rates since 2020 have been far above historical
averages and if sustained for 20 more years would result in
more growth than we are supposed to plan for. However, the
current growth rates are likely to tapper off at the end of this
current cycle of rapid growth. Prior to 2020, we
Comment will not be incorporated int�
underperformed relative to our targets. Annual growth rates
for the last 3 years were 2.39%, 2.76% and 6.59%. Since 2020,
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
This should be reworded to seamlessly stitch the future growth of PO to a smooth Comp Plan vision
(this document). We set a vision based on community involvement. Plan growth with wisdom and
PC -Wright
care. Then implement properly with sound fiscal management leading with infrastructure linked to
critical areas management/protection.
What is supposed to be the number here?
Will the public be made aware of these conversations? Who is conducting these "conversations"?
Where is the record?
What if we do not agree with all 15 goals? "Addressing" them may be "we do not agree" of "we
acknowledge the state's input". and leave it there.
Why don't we address vehicles too? We have huge congestion issues along Sedgwick, Bethel,
Tremont.... Roadway infrastructure is not in sync with load in my opinion. Keeping traffic moving and
not stopped at intersections for long periods will cut back on emissions. Cars are America's #1 mode of
transportation. Remember - during the pandemic, buses, trains, etc. were largely unused.
Are these 15 goals verbatim from the state? Maybe a reference is in order.
PC -Wright
PC -Wright
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
the city needed to target annual growth of 2.169% to reach its
2044 target. However, growth tends to be cyclical and we are
seeing rapid growth since 2020 that is unlikely to be sustained
more than a few more years. If in our next Comprehensive
Plan Periodic Update things have not slowed down, we may
need to consider measure to slow growth.
Section has been revised for clarity and to add employment
capacity numbers.
Revised for clarity.
Revised for clarity and to better reflect/incorporate the
Comprehensive Plan vision statements.
Language revised and added UGA population information.
The City provided a public comment to Kitsap County
concerning the changes proposed to the UGA. Ultimately, the
County decided to table all proposed boundary amendments
Comment will not be incorporated into to 2025. The existing population of the UGA is over 15,000
the revised draft element. residents excluding their growth target. Added to the City's
growth target of 26,000 residents and you have more than
41,000. If the UGA boundary were to change, this number
may need to change.
PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into These goals are listed in state law.
the revised draft element.
PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into State law does not have a goal to address traffic on city
the revised draft element. streets.
PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated These goals are verbatim to state law, RCW 36.70A.020.
into the revised draft element. Added reference to this section.
40 1.6.2
41 1.6.2
42 1.6.2
43 1.6.3
44 1.6.3
45 1.6.3
46 1.6.3
47 1.6.3
48 1.6.3
Awkward. "Permits.".
PC -Wright
I dislike absolute statements like this in a "plan". Can we use "incorporate" policies and objectives into
plans, etc to address climate change and resiliency? PC -Wright
This is a lot to ask of a small city like PO.
PC -Wright
Does PSRC's VISION address the availability of fresh water for these 5.8 million people? Heavy growth
(use/consumption and impervious surfaces) with decreasing precipitation/increasing temps warrants PC -Bailey
concern in regard to water quantity.
I'm curious where in the PO Comp Plan these items are discussed in greater detail. PC -Wright
cut "enhance" makes no sense as inserted. PC -Wright
"Targets" and "targeting process". What is this? Is there a reference for the housing plan? Are existing
PC -Wright
subarea plans demonstrable of this targeting? McWoods Village may be the worthy but others?
Once all the elements are drafted, I'll want to revisit this section to cross-check accuracy. PC -Wright
Skinny paragraph here. The "Plan" was shifted to "plan" - are we referring to a different "plan" or this
Comp Plan? PC -Wright
49 1.6.4 Rewrite to be proper diction. KT, Suquamish, and Port Gamble are associate members. The NBK is an
ex officio member.
50 1.6.4 KRCC membership should include Bremerton — unless they quit again. I think perhaps Bremerton was
not a member in 2018.
51 1.6.4
52 1.7
53 1.8
54 1.8
PC -Wright
PC -Ashby
Are these the same 15 elements set by the state noted earlier? If so say so, if not say how they differ. PC -Wright
Where can one view the feedback received from this effort? Is there a web page dedicated for Comp
Planning and Community input to the entire process? Looking at the edits, it seems PO did not really PC -Wright
engage the public like 2014/2025/2016. Am I misinterpreting?
reference for this?
PC -Wright
I'm curious how you propose to deal with climate issues. The City can certainly can add resilience into
the plan but I'm not sure in a meaningful manner. We can prepare for future catastrophes (with major PC -Wright
infrastructure upgrades, but we cannot change the climate.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
ill not be incorp
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorpor
the revised draft element.
Language revised for clarity.
This is verbatim from 36.70A.020 (14).
This is verbatim from 36.70A.020 (14).
Vision 2050 address the protection of water resources in the
Environment chapter. It addresses urban services including
Comment will not be incorporated into water availability, conservation, and efficiency in the Public
the revised draft element. Services chapter.
https://www.psrc.org/sites/defau It/files/2022-11/vision-2050-
r)lan.Ddf
Comment will not be incorporated into
See Natural Systems and the Critical Areas Code.
the revise&draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to "conserve and enhance key fish and wildlife
into the revised draft element. habitats".
III
Comment will not be incorporated into See the population and employment allocations above. These
the revised draft element. are derived from PSRC targets.
Comment will not be incorporated int�
Noted, revised drafts will be routed for review.
the revised Wit.
Comment under additional
If referring to the Comprehensive Plan, Plan should be
consideration, identify next steps for capitalized. In other instances it should be lowercase. A
analysis.
consistency check across the entire document will be
conducted.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Language revised for clarity and updated information.
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to include Bremerton in the list of KRCC members.
into the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated inter No, there are 15 chapters/elements in the Countywide
the revised draft element. AM Planning Policies.
The plan in 2014-16 had major deficiencies and significant
work was needed to comply with Vision 2040 and the
Comment will not be incorp
Countywide Planning Policies. The 2024 update is a much
the revised draft element.
lighter touch, because the 2016 plan was much more aligned
with regional policy and was innovative on housing ahead of
recent housing mandates.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to add reference to Vision 2050.
into the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
The draft Climate Element addresses many of these
the revised draft element.
considerations.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - LAND USE
Comment
Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
Number
4
5
6
7
8
9
(referring to 'intersection point') consider using "nexus"
PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Why did Chapter 2 not have a vision that was styled in a green box? Include
this same element for each chapter or omit it entirely as it ruins the polish of PC-Ta
this document.
Can we explain the significance of the 20-year planning horizon. PC-Ta
(referring to sentence 'The goals and policies contained herein...') Can we
2.1 flip this sentence and instead say "planning thoroughly will result in lower PC-Ta
taxes and lower infra and service costs." Having a positive connotation in
lieu of a negative one just sets the tone better for the rest of the chapter.
(referring to last sentence) Sentence is redundant with the above that
2.1 PC-Ta
begins with "the purpose of this section", consolidate pls.
2.2 (referring to 'a common theme heard') Would be more clear to say "the first PC-Ta
key issue is that..."
2.2 (referring to first sentence last paragraph) Redundant with above, consider PC-Ta
removing
2.2
2.2
10 2.2
Insert "expected" 2044 population and employment growth allocations PC -Wright
I think it makes more sense to change the last bullet point from "Allow
middle housing types..." to a more general "Increase density", and then the
allowance of middle housing would be a sub -bullet point to accomplish that.
Public Danielson
Other sub -bullet points that I think would be helpful would be "Expand
mixed -use zoning allowance" and "Expand gentle infill through the use of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Accessory Commercial Units (ACUs)"
(Last bullet) Section 2.2 was about Key Issues, but I was only able to identify
just 1. Am I confused? This section had a lot of information that was PC-Ta
redundant / repetitive. We can tighten our messaging here.
Note that in other sections/elements, it is city not City. Lets be sure to be
11 2.4 PC -Wright
consistent in the final version.
Interesting statement "reasonable measures". You are suggesting that if we
12 2.4 approach the growth projections too rapidly, we implement a moratorium PC -Wright
on new development? Or, we would consider expanding into the UGA where
appropriate.
13 2.5 This assumes that we could develop all this land in a timely matter PC-Ta
What were the main drivers of this 3.5% growth and are they different
14 2.5.1 today? Calling this out because we can't assume the same growth projection PC-Ta
if the drivers are different.
15 2.6 Can we define what an "overlay district" is and how one becomes to be? PC-Ta
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Revised language per suggestion.
Revised style for consistency. Also revised for consistency in all
Elements.
Agreed, will revise Introduction Element Section 1.6 to add
language addressing this.
Language revised for tone and clarity.
Language revised for clarity.
Comment will not be incorporated into
Maintaining language to highlight common themes, not
the revised draft element.
intending to provide full/exhaustive list of issues within the
Ad Element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity and to resolve redundancy with Section 2.1.
into the revised draft element.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�kot be incor
These are the allocations that the City is required to plan for.
the revised draft element.
omment will not be inco
the revised draft element.
The mandate (HB 1110) that we are facing has to do with
middle housing. We have adequate land supply and
densification (other than allowing middle housing) is not
proposed at this time. We don't have ACUs in our code, so it
will not be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Maintaining language to highlight common themes, not
Comment will not be incorporated into
intending to provide full/exhaustive list of issues within the
Element.
Comment under additional
When referring to the City of Port Orchard, City should be
consideration, identify next steps for
capitalized. A document -wide consistency check will be
analysis.
conducted.
Reasonable measures is meant to be open phrasing to allow
Comment will not be incorporated into
for appropriate responses in light of the particular situation,
the revised draft element.
which could take various forms. Moratoriums are typically not
used for this purpose.
Comment will not be incorporated in
The phrasing is intended to indicate there is sufficient capacity
the revised draft element.
to accommodate the allocations throughout the 20-year
planning horizon.
Population growth is explained in more detail in the next
Comment will not be incorporated int
section, and by the time the Plan is undergoing the Periodic
t ent.
Update in 2034 it is likely a large portion of the available land
will have been developed.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
Revised to reorganize bullet points and add clarity.
analysis.
Gentle infill via ADUs and ACUs seems like a good way to accomplish this
16 Goal1 goal Public -Danielson
Haven't we already done this? I thought centers have been established. If so
17 Goal 3 should this policy be to expansion and development of more centers as PC -Wright
appropriate?
I'm still curious where these neighborhoods are located in PO. How are they
18 LU-17 underserved? This term and others like it pop up throughout the Comp Plan PC -Wright
and have not been identified/defined very well.
19 LU-21
Do barriers exist to achieving low -impact development?
PC -Wright
This is interesting - I learned today 4.23.24 in my Rotary club meeting from a
presentation by the SKHS staff, that there are many kids in the South Kitsap
High School who are having trouble getting to/from the school due to the
20 LU-23 PC -Wright
fact they cannot afford a driver's license. None of these students want to
ride a bicycle. Public bus service is spotty and not well meshed with school
timing and local places these students need to go or where they live.
Comment will not be incorporated in The code allows for ADUs (we don't use the term ACU). HB
the revised draft element. 1110 mandates middle housing, not just ADUs.
Centers are established in the Comprehensive Plan but the
implementation tools are developed separately. This policy is
Comment will not be incorporated in
specific to the development of subarea plan and associated
the revised draft element.
development standards. Notably, some centers have adopted
L subarea plans and others do not.
Comment under additional Generally underserved could refer to neighborhoods that do
consideration, identify next steps for not have a park within a 5 minute walk, see Page 24 of the
analysis. Port Orchard Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
In most instances, barriers to low impact development are
addressed through the City's NPDES Permit compliance,
however new codes and development standards should
continue to be reviewed for barriers. Revised language to add
some claritv.
Comment will not be incorporated into
The phrase "job centers" is inclusive of those types of land
21 LU-24
Not just job centers -schools and major commercial areas too.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
uses.
Human scale is the deign of surroundings to be on a scale that
Comment will not be incorporated int
allows humans to interact with objects and places on foot.
22 LU-25
What does human scale mean?
PC-Ta
the revised draft element.
Alternatively, designing places to be automobile -scaled would
detract from pedestrian activity.
Impact fees allow the implementation of Capital projects. The
Comment will not be incorporated into
intent of this statement is to have private ventures create
23 LU-27
Could we reinforce the importance of impact fees here?
PC-Ta
the revised draft element.
connectivity with neighboring properties and (planned)
facilities.
I'm wondering if there should be an added bullet in this list. Something that
addresses closed or "boarded up" commercial buildings. The old Myre's
restaurant has been closed and boarded up for many years and it is a waste
Comment accepted and incorporated
24 LU-28
of a business opportunity in the heart of downtown. Maybe something like:
PC -Wright
Revised per suggested language.
into the revised draft element.
Encourage and promote commercial building maintenance and occupancy
to enhance the downtown business core.
I'm struggling with the term "vulnerable populations". Who/what is this
population? Where are they in PO? Are we referring to
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to add a footnote to the RCW 36.70A.030(47)
25 LU-35
homeless/unhoused? I understand that Vision 2050 demands we add this
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
definition.
but it seems to me we need to be effective and focused with these policies.
Comment accepted and incorporated
This Goal will help the City track progress on meeting its
26 Goal 13
Agree! Great move!
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
growth allocations over the 20-year planning horizon.
27
28
29
30
31
32
"designated", "candidate", and "planned" all seem to be used
interchangeably here. For me it would be less confusing if the verbiage was
more consistent. Also the first paragraph says that the City has no
2.8
designated regional centers, but paragraph 3 says that the City has 6 Public -Danielson Comment accepted and incorporated
designated Countywide Centers. A small table explaining the different into the revised draft element.
thresholds for local vs. county vs. regional centers would be helpful.
Expanding the list of centers to include current and goal activity thresholds
would be helpful as an overview.
2.8.1 So the 10 previously mentioned centers have been broken into 6-4?
2.8.2 How does an area become eligible to be considered a center?
2.8.3 Can we explain what an activity unit is?
2.8.3 Is there a activity unit threshold for local centers?
2.8.3 - Map Should be McCormick Village (not McCormick Woods)
I don't see the current number of activity units specified anywhere. Also I
PC-Ta
PC-Ta
P C-Ta
P C-Ta
PC-Ta
believe that this is a very underutilized area due to a large amount of surface
parking lots which don't generate much tax revenue and the proximity to
33 2.8.5.11 (Downtown Port Orchard) the ferry system. Kitsap Transit is the second largest ferry fleet in WA behind Public -Danielson
the Washington State Ferry system, which itself is the largest ferry fleet in
the US and additional access to that would benefit both citizens and the
Revised to add clarity and identify types of centers within the
City.
This should be kept as is, in order to differentiate between the
6 designated Countywide Centers and the 3 designated Local
Centers. Countywide Centers are different from Local Centers
Comment will not be incorporated in as they are designated according to the Kitsap County CPPs
the revised draft element. and must meet minimum activity units, Local Centers can be
designated by the City and are not required to meet PSRC
criteria, but can be designated as a path towards meeting
regional or countywide center criteria.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analvsis.
nt will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element
ferry system.
There are several housing areas that are not included in the designated area
but they are in very close proximity to the corridor and have to travel
34 2.8.5.2 (Tremont)
through the corridor to get to their homes. Why are these not included in Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated i
the area for increased development? I'm mostly referring to the housing he revised draft element.
development on Lippert St. west of Pottery Ave. and the housing along Sage
Ct. Mav St. and Roland Ave.
Kitsap Transit is planning to start construction of a park and ride here in
35 2.7.5.8 (Sedgwick/Sidney)
2024. 1 would like to see an increased density surrounding this transit node Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated i
to make good use of the service. Also the park and ride addition isn't I
he revised draft element.
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan
Language revised to add reference to PSRC Centers Guidance.
Once we identify centers locally, we can request recognition at
KRCC. Once designated a countywide center, we could seek to
have a countywide center upgraded to a regional center.
Downtown Port Orchard is the only center that we have that
is remotely close to those criteria. To be a regional center, we
would need to zone for 45 activity units per acre. Council
chose not to pursue this as part of subarea planning in 2020.
Activity units are jobs/housing units. A definition consistent
with VISION 2050 has been added.
Not for local centers, only for countywide centers. Added
language to Section referencing PSRC Centers Guidance.
Revised to address language/map inconsistencies.
This is addressed in the subarea plan.
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/upl
oads/2021/07/FINAL-ADOPTED-Downtown-Subarea-Plan-and-
Regs-reduced.pdf
There is an existing activity unit threshold for qualifying as a
countywide center. Including too many low density areas can
bring the activity unit count below the minimum required.
The park and ride is mentioned in the subarea plan.
https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/appendix-c-ruby-creek-
neigh borhood-su ba rea-p Ian/
36 2.7.5.10 (Annapolis)
Similar to the Downtown Port Orchard comments, this area could provide
access to the best that the state of WA has to offer. The center's area seems
almost laughably small though? I understand the Washington Veterans Public -Danielson
Home takes up most of the prime real estate within 1/4 mile of the ferry, so
is it worth it to focus on this area as a potential center?
The veterans home is outside the city limits. This is included
Comment will not be incorporated into as a local center because it is a transit hub. If areas of the UGA
the revised draft element. in this location were annexed, we could look at expansion of
the center boundary.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - HOUSING
Comment
Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
We should end the sentence here (referring to ...creating more housing opportunities...)
3.1 because we don't want to provide an exhaustive list for the rationale of diverse housing PC-Ta
opportunities.
Could we make it more succinct?
3.1 Enable housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels that accommodates population PC-Ta
growth while balancing new and existing neighborhood characteristics.
Equity is not equality, a core principle of our nation. Equity means equal group outcomes. For
example, if 15% of the population is of some ethnicity/race/sex then 15% of the faculty and
students in every program should be of the same ethnicity/race/sex. Equity means each
3.1 individual represents their ethnicity/race/sex and not themselves as a unique individual. PC -Wright
In contrast, equality means that every individual is equally precious, no matter what their
background, and deserves the same opportunities and consideration. They
represent themselves and not a group
3.1 (2nd paragraph) A very long and confusing sentence. Break this into two separate sentences. PC -Wright
3.1
(referring to 'Establish ways to avoid displacement') What does this mean? If renters do not pay
PC -Wright
rent, the landowner must maintain their rights to evict.
Addressing housing from various perspectives such as promoting homeownership
Promote thriving, equable, healthy neighborhoods.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated There are some typos and grammatical errors with the paragraph
into the revised draft element. that will be corrected.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Agreed with changing the Housing vision. The specific proposal is a
good starting point to revise to.
Comment acknowledged. Note that equity is a core theme found in
Vision 2050. Port Orchard is required to create a plan that is
consistent with Vision 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies.
The Puget Sound Regional Council defines equity (also social equity)
as: "All people can attain the resources and opportunities that
improve their quality of life and enable them to reach full potential.
Those affected by poverty, communities of color, and historically
marginalized communities are engaged in decision -making
processes, planning, and policy making."
https://www.psrc.org/sites/defau It/files/2022-02/vision-2050-
glossary.pdf
The housing element must also be consistent with the Growth
Management Act which requires a Housing Element that: "Identifies
and implements policies and regulations to address and begin to
undo racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in
housing caused by local policies, plans, and actions" (RCW
36.70A.070.2).
As it relates to housing, equity and reduction of racially disparate
impacts is implemented through policies that support private and
public development of diverse and affordable housing options.
Comment accepted and incorporated There are some typos and grammatical errors with the paragraph
into the revised draft element. that will be corrected.
Agreed this can use clarification. The project team will look at
Comment accepted and incorporated
options such as rewording to "Establish mechanisms to mitigate
displacement due to redevelopment" and/or switch the term
into the revised draft element.
"mitigate" to "reduce." Note that eviction is only one of many forms
of displacement.
Comment accepted and incorporated There are some typos and grammatical errors with the paragraph
into the revised draft element. that will be corrected.
PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
I think there's value in splitting the "5+" category up a bit more, similar to the previous pie Comment under additional
chart. Unsure what categories would normally be used, but maybe a 3-5, 6-19, and 20+ category Public -Danielson consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Instead of saying majority I would like to see the %that are homeowners vs. renters Public -Danielson
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Agreed that it is unclear what an "equitable neighborhood" is or
looks like. The term can be removed from this bullet.
This is a good idea but requires further review of Census data and
coordination with project team to ensure this level of detail is
available.
This sentence will be updated to state the precise percentages for
tenure and made consistent with Figure 7 under Section 3.3.
10
11
3.2.1
3.1.2
14 3.2.2
15 3.2.3
16 3.2.3
17 3.2.3
THIS goes a long way toward achieving the stated housing goals and objectives for Port Orchard
PC -Wright
it seems to me. How about some credit?
Housing Type. As of 2021, there were 64,165 housing units in the City, per census data. Port
Orchard's housing stock is predominantly single -unit buildings (70%), nearly all of which are
single-family detached homes and a small number of attached townhomes. Larger apartment
building with 5+ units makesmake up the next largest category (22%). There are relatively few
"middle housing" 2-4 units and manufactured homes. The breakdown of housing unit type is
shown in Figure 1.
Housing Age and Production. Port Orchard's housing stock is considerably younger than regional
averages. Over half of the housing stock was built since 1990, and two-thirds was built since
1980. This is reflective of Port Orchard's high rate of housing production and permitting in
recent decades. Figure 2 shows the uptick in permitting starting in the early 2000s s and the PC -Wright
prevalence of single-family and larger apartment developments. Note that this data shows
issued permits, not all these projects were and will be necessarily completed. Most of the single-
family development seen in the past five years hasve been in McCormick Woods subdivision,
which was annexed by the city in 2009, and the Bethel-Sedgwick Area. Although, recent
forthcoming projects of multifamily homes have been more spread spread out throughout the
city. Additionally, according to the City's permit data, over 5,000 units are currently in the
pipeline and shows some an increase in housing diversity with future development of fourplex,
townhomes, and mixed uses. (See Figure 3). This high rate of housing production will almost
double the city's housing inventory within the next several years.
Tenure. The majority (about 61%) PC -Wright
This DEMANDS a citation! This is a complex issue and not as simple as this statement makes it.
The City can encourage multiple types of housing but the City does not have a say in rent
control unless the City buys the land, builds the structures, manages the structures, and PC -Wright
manages the rent collection. I question the need for this subsection. What is the City prepared
to do or planning to do about this? I suspect nothing so delete it.
The Middle Housing graphic above is excellent! Why not make this a stronger, more positive
perspective. The City wants to encourage expanded opportunities for starter homes and
promote settlement of the new generation in Port Orchard. THAT is the reason for the subarea
plans. The McCormick Village is a good example but as I understand it the middle housing items PC -Wright
will be all rentals. We need to find a way to build affordable middle housing without decimating
the environment (cutting every living tree/shrub) and achieving a desirable community for
starter homes that meets the objectives of the entire Comp Plan.
2.56, 2.53, and 2.55 are all very similar numbers. It doesn't seem fair to say that Port Orchard's
average household size is higher than the county average.
Public -Danielson
What is the relevance of mentioning single mothers? Figure 6 doesn't even specify whether
single parents are mothers or fathers
This assumes the size of the household always corresponds to the size of house. Not an accurate
assumption. Many people want a larger home than the household size. Plus many families are
growing. Starting their home purchase with one child and moving on to al larger size home after PC -Wright
the family grows in number and household income. Delete the "negative implications
statement.
This eould have Regative implications as smaller households may not be able to fend Units
itahi to thp;r Reed and w,,dg + PC Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment acknowledged. The text speaks for itself.
Changes accepted.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element. Changes accepted.
Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates,
Comment will not be incorporated into Table 52502. Also see Figure 7, Share of Household Tenure by
the revised draft element. Race/Ethnicity with source ACS 2020 5-year Estimates, Table
B25003.
011llb� AL
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
More emphasis on the need for middle housing production could be
made to support this section. The section as currently exists seems
out of place. The last paragraph of "Housing and Production" begins
to lead into this issue, but it could be expanded upon to make a
stronger argument and create supporting goals and policies of that
argument.
Sentence referring to single mothers should be deleted. Text should
reflect what is conveyed through the Figure.
This comment is helpful. However, the intent of the statement is to
provide support for the encouragement of middle housing options.
This statement could be expanded upon to make that nexus clear.
See response above.
18
19
20
21
22
3.3
From what source? We have relatively little community feedback and I'm concerned this PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated i
implied widespread input and agreement when there may not actually be that much support. the revised draft element.
3.3
Again, I disagree! WA state raised minimum wages and increased efforts to raise wages. This PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into
issue is a direct result of policies messing around with market driven factors. the revised draft element.
3.3
This statement MUST refer back to figure 5. The message is skewed to the negative and does PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into
not tell an accurate story of reality in my view. the revi j eft element.
3.3 CurFent The current relationship between housing prices and income have become strained, as
housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port Orchard resident.
This statement assumes the average PO resident manages their budget appropriately. I can
attest that many younger folks do not manage their incomes and monthly budgets to achieve
housing stability. What and how much you buy - a daily Starbucks for example - affects your
3.3 PC -Wright
ability to achieve the larger purchases such as a home. Again, this is a complex issue and this
section reads a bit like it is somehow the City's responsibility to fix a problem established by
state and federal policies and personal choices.
See the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Public Engagement Report.
Example informational quotes:
Overall, stakeholders confirmed that there is a lack of housing
options in Port Orchard, even with recent changes by the city. Low -
moderate income workers and fixed -income retirees are struggling
to afford housing in Port Orchard and long-time residents are seeing
their adult children unable to afford buying a home in the city.
There is concern that essential service and retail workers are leaving
the community, limiting the social and economic diversity of the
city, and hurting businesses in the city.
All cost inputs for new housing are going in the wrong direction
amid rising prices for materials, labor, and land. There may be some
regulatory opportunities to improve the cost efficiency of
construction and create partnerships for affordable housing.
Regulatory tweaks to the code and design standards, policy updates
to the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, and friendlier
development processes for housing providers is the collection of
solutions stakeholders feel could help better achieve city housing
goals.
In HAP survey data with 119 respondents:
Both owners and renters report being at risk of losing their home
from a major unexpected financial event at significantly high levels.
A little over 60% of renters and almost 50% of owners report being
at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected event.
Generally, the cost of goods and housing have outpaced wages over
the past 40 years. The Housing Action Plan (HAP) Figure 4 illustrates
this.
https:Hlf.portorchardwa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192029&d
bid =0&reao=PortOrchard&cr=1
Statement is factual based on data.
Comment accepted and incorporate
into the revised draft element. Changes accepted
Comment under additional
Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
analysis.
The chart used below has a term "AMI" that is not well defined and unless it is defined properly,
this is meaningless. Similarly, the term "cost burdened" is now introduced without definition. Is
More explanation of terms will be added. Much of this Element
this author suggesting Port Orchard provide subsidized housing? There are many State and
Comment under additional
relies on data gathered through the Housing Action Plan (HAP), but
23 3.3
federal programs geared at helping this segment of society. It seems proper to make this case
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
some HAP content will be copied here since Comprehensive Plan
(if we are compelled to do so) with proper reference to the programs set to address it.
analysis.
readers may not know to refer to the HAP.
I must say this Chapter is not well written and is full of poor grammar/spelling and other issues.
24 3.3 -Figure 8
What are these other bars representing?
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
I Unknown what bar chart this is referencing, but all bar charts in the
revised draft element.
draft have a legend explaining what bars mean.
Yes, PSRC and KRCC can mandate housing targets. Port Orchard's
Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with CPP's and this table is
Is this meant to be an absolute requirement of an objective/goal? Can PSRC and KRCC mandate
Comment under additional
from the CPPs. We are required to plan for the targets, not achieve
25 3.4
housing within a city? This needs more context as to what the city of Port Orchard is to achieve
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
the targets. If we do not plan in accordance with the CPPs, we will
and what the ramifications are if we do not.
analysis.
not have our plan certified and will be ineligible for future funding.
More explanation of housing targets will be added.
One of the primary goals of the GMA and subsequent plans such as Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) Vision 20540, Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, and this Plan, is to manage
26 3.4
growth effectively. To achieve that, a land capacity analysis is needed to
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Changes accepted.
into the revised draft element.
determine how many potential housing units could be developed or redeveloped on current
land.
See my comment above. The housing "requirement" is set without regard to all the other Comp
Comment will not be incorporated into
Comment acknowledged. The CPPs and Vision 2050 address critical
27 3.4
PC -Wright
Plan elements such as critical areas, climate change, infrastructure, transportation, etc.
the revised draft element.
L
areas, climate, infrastructure, and transportation.
28 3.4
It is difficult to truly evaluate this chapter without the necessary data.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
,Commentacknowledged
ensure suitable
Comment accepted and incorporated
29 34 3.5 Goals and Policies
Replace with "that promote housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels and enhancing
PC -Wright
Changes accepted.
into the revised draft element.
the quality of life found in Port Orchard for all residents."
OThe
comment is accurate. However, through policy and
I fail to see HOW PO will ensure affordable housing. The cost of housing is driven by the market -
Comment accepted and incorporated
development regulations, PO can create mechanisms to encourage
30 Goal 2
cost of materials - cost of land - cost of permitting/regulation - demand - location - and available
PC -Wright
these desired outcome. Revise to "Ensure that affordable housing
services.
into the revised draft element.
options are available to all socioeconomic levels of Port Orchard
residents."
I think that Policy HS-4, Policy HS-9, Policy HS-11, Policy HS-12, and Policy HS-14 are strong and
Comment accepted and incorporated
31 Goal 2
will lead to more homeownership, increase housing supply and diverse housing options, and
PC-Catey
into the revised draft element.
Comment acknowledged.
encourages development near transit and employment centers.
32 Goal 3
Policies HS-18-20 do a great job addressing walkable communities, building denser housing, and
PC-Catey
Comment accepted and incorporated
Comment acknowledged.
promotes efficient land use.
into the revised draft element.
Redundant with HS-6.. Omit this one. Adjust above to incorporate into one policy - too many to
Comment under additional
Good observation on an opportunity to combine separate, but
33 HS-10
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
manage.
analysis.
related issues. Options will be considered.
This policy is intended to create walkable neighborhoods where
What if this doesn't exist? For example McCormick isn't nearby schools (the school does own a
Comment under additional
these land uses exist and are planned. This could be revised to
34 HS-17
parcel), but the subarea is going to have over 1k+new homes
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
clarify the most concentrated type of housing growth should be in
analysis.
walking/biking distance of those features, and/or add infrastructure
closer to where most housing growth is occurring.
Project team considered removing term "new housing" because all
What about redevelopment? See my comments on utilities which are similar. Redevelopment
Comment accepted and incorporated
development is currently required to do this, but then the policy
35 HS-22 (Deleted Policy)
PC -Wright
becomes too general and overlaps with other Elements like the
for housing and utility upgrades should be done simultaneously.
into the revised draft element.
Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements. The policy will be
removed.
36
37
0.1
W1
40
41
I'd like to see mention of a burden on city funds when annexing to ensure the city doesn't take
Comment under additional
HS-23 (Now HS-22)
Public -Danielson
consideration, identify next steps for
on infrastructure burdens without the prior years of tax revenue to pay for those burdens
analysis.
You are suggesting the City of PO do this? Isn't this HUD's responsibility? Frankly - I like the
be incorporated into
FMmment
HS-25 (Now HS-24)
previous HS-20 and HS-23 better than this. This policy as written will increase bureaucracy
PC -Wright
will not
within the City government. Not a fan!
the revised draft element.
Not a proper sentence. Missing words? Also - the policy is vague and hard to envision. Seems it
Comment under additional
HS-26 (Now HS-25)
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
can be included into another policy.
analysis.
This item was not discussed in the main body of the document. There are senior centers within
Comment under additional
HS-28 (Now HS-27)
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
the city.
analysis.
HS-31 (Now HS-30)
Redundant
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Port Orchard is not Bellevue! Please do not build a Comp Plan for a rural city that emulates a
Comment will not be incorporated into
HS-32 (Now HS-31)
hugely urban setting -that is not what PO residents want. Most of the growth we see in PO is
PC -Wright
from folks ESCAPING Seattle/Bellevue/King County.
Ithe revised draft element.
Agreed, annexation should consider the financial ramifications of
increased infrastructure maintenance costs and the cost of
additional services. The policy is confusingly worded, and can be
updated to include consideration of fiscal impacts. Alternatively, the
policy may belong in a different element since it is less focused on
housing.
The comment is correct that the City is not a housing agency, but
the City has a legislative agenda and needs to advocate for higher
levels of government to address various housing issues.
Agreed. Policy is not written in a clear manner. Perhaps something
like the following may provide clarity. "Encourage a variety of
ownership opportunities and choices by allowing and supporting
programs which may include, but are not limited to, land trusts,
tenant opportunity to purchase programs, limited equity
cooperative, and sweat equity programs."
Alternatively, this policy could be merged with another.
Policy needs to be revisited by project team.
Comment acknowledged.
9 Unclear what the requested change is. HS-32 is about aging in place.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - PARKS
Comment
Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
Number
1 4.1
Redundant. Paragraphs 2 and 3 very similar to paragraph 1.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to consolidate duplicative information.
into the revised draft element.
"Over the next 20 years, the City of Port Orchard plans to
focus on maintaining existing parks facilities while slowly
expanding to meet future needs. To meet the needs of a
growing community for parks, trails, recreation and open
Revised to resolve conflicting language. The word "slowly" is
space, maintenance of existing facilities and creation of new
Comment accepted and incorporated
replaced with the word "also" in order to transition to the next
2 4.1
facilities would be funded by annual budget expenditures,
PC-Ta
sentence, where creating new parks to meet the needs of a
grants, impact fees and other financial means available to the
into the revised draft element.
growing population and the means for how they would be
City." These two sentences sound like they contradict each
funded is discussed.
other. Are we slowly expanding new park facilities are not?
We could join these two sentences together for concision and
clarity.
3 4.1
Do we have an idea of what the future needs are/will be?
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to add reference to Appendix D of the PROS Plan,
into the revised draft element.
which provides this information.
Based on the levels of service identified in the City's PROS
Plan, over the next 20 years the City should acquire additional
acres for new parks" Is there a specific amount/range of
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to add reference to Appendix D of the PROS Plan,
4 4.1
acreage we need to acquire? How many of those acres do we
PC-Ta
into the revised draft element.
which provides this information.
own? Does this have eminent domain implications? How much
land do we have set aside for future park and recreational
use?
What are the "demands of the new population"? Please
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to add reference to Appendix D of the PROS Plan,
5 4.1
summarize the basics of the expected growth and anticipated
PC -Wright
need to new facilities.
into the revised draft element.
which provides this information.
Revised language to replace "ensure" with "In an effort to
Comment accepted and incorporated
create a plan which meets..."
6 4.2
Do not use "ensure". Global comment.
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
There will be other sections that will use "ensure" language
when there is regulatory context around incorporating certain
sections/information.
First sentence does not make sense. Comma placement and
use or the term "outline" is confusion as well as the mail -back
Comment accepted and incorporated
7 4.2
option. Drop this unnecessary stuff and just say we conducted
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
Revised per suggested edits.
a survey of the community as part of the 2022 PROS update.
Survey questions sought to........ is all OK.
Not sure I understand the rationale of mentioning the PROS
plan survey results beginning of chapter 4. Is it to demonstrate Revised to simplify language and refer the reader to the PROS
8 4.2 that conducted surveys? I was reading this section, it PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated Plan for more detailed information on public outreach efforts.
into the revised draft element. The 2022 survey results were included as an update to the
felt incongruent to adjacent pieces of the chapters. We cut lot
out on the section, why? 2015 results.
Comment will not be incorporated into Ensure retained in this context. Stronger language in this
9 4.3 (referring to 'ensure') Do not use this word. PC -Wright the revised draft element. section allows the City to promote park connectivity in future
policy decisions.
NOTE: the trails in McCormick Woods ARE NOT OPEN TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC. Trails within McCormick Woods HOA are
Comment will not be incorporated into
Private trails, including those identified in the comment, are
10 4.4
maintained by the HOA for use by HOA members and their
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
not displayed in the map.
guests. This fact needs to be clearly stated and not mislead
the general public that these trails are open to all.
Full range? Really? I challenge this. Where are the public
nature trails? Where are the publicly available lakes and
wetland meadows? Blackjack Creek corridor does not have a
proper trail on it nor does Ross Creek. I am not aware (off the
11 4.4
top of my mind) of any natural forested areas open to the
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to strike "full" from the phrasing.
into the revised draft element.
public. NOTE: I commented on the Parks Plan about the
McCormick Woods private trail system. It appears that
comment was never addressed. Reference Page 24 and 26 of
PRnS_
12 4.5
Is there a link to this for an easy reference?
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to drop the "s" from "improvements" in CUP. Revised
into the revised draft element.
to add a reference to Appendix D of the PROS Plan.
It will be helpful to list out and enumerate all the changes we
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to add a reference to the City's PROS Plan, which
13 4.6
have with parks. Then go into detail of each problem. Helps
PC-Ta
into the revised draft element.
provides a more detailed look at the park system than the
prime the reader for what's to come.
Comprehensive Plan provides.
14 4.6
Use limited, not taxed.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to "strained" phrasing in place of "taxed" language.
into the revised draft element.
15 4.6
(last paragraph) Why say "additionally"? Not needed.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested edits.
into the revised draft element.
16 4.6
(last paragraph) Drop "therefore".
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested edits.
into the revised draft element.
I always find "goals" and "objectives" to be sources of
Comment under additional
Amore detailed description of what Goals and Policies are in
17 4.7
confusion and misunderstanding. If we use these terms in any
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
the context of the Comprehensive Plan and how they are used
portion of the Comp Plan, we MUST define and differentiate.
analysis.
has been added to the Introduction Element.
between how we use these terms.
Comment will not be incorpo
18 Objective 1
I'm interested in the "how" to this.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
The City's SMP addresses how this is accomplished.
How does "enhancing and improving) existing parks
Revised Objective 2 to say "Preserve and enhance active and
"preserve" active and scenic open space? A well designed and
Comment accepted and incorporated
scenic open space". Enhancing open space could be through
19 Objective 2
well written critical areas ordinance will do that. Buying
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
maintenance or improvements to the existing park, as
available land parcels with open space and scenic features will
opposed to Objective 3 which discusses developing new parks
do this. These objects give me concern.
or increasing the size of existing parks.
20 Objective 3
?? Disagree - this item will not achieve the objective.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised this item to Objective 4 to better fit with context of
into the revised draft element.
objective language.
Comment will not be incorpor=20.100
Parks and open space are required through the CAO POMC
21 Objective 3
Again - I'm very interested in the "how" to this.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
and 20.127.
I looked at the city's demographics from the PROS survey. 1%
speak another language as a primary. We do not have a
sufficiently large "under -served" segment of our community
to warrant this added emphasis. We can "identify"
opportunities within underserved segments of our community
to target some projects and do our best to build parks and
22 Objective 4
recreation opportunities to suit the land and opportunity.
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporate
THAT is the best we can do. I get it is from VISION 2050 but
the revised draft element.
we need to be real for Port Orchard and not put us in a
position of NOT serving our majority community. I'll also
challenge you that the "urban" residents likely have the more
walkable access to parks, trails, and open spaces than other
residents. Proximity to the waterfront is heavily linked to the
urban core of PO.
23 Goal 1
drop "a safe"
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
24 PK-1
HOW??? Buses, trails, bikes, etc are color blind and cannot
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
speak. How will you promote this?
the revised draft element.
Can we say right now which centers do not have parks or open
Comment will not be incorporated into
25 PK-2
spaces?
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
26 PK-2
Again, lets identify these places right now.
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
27 PK-2
Identify them right now.
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated intl
the revised draft element.
I honestly think this is already done. Blackjack Creek Ross
Comment will not be incorporated into
28 PK-5
Creek, and the waterfront. McCormick Woods is a different
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
issue with the HOA v City management/ownership.
Really? All? I live in McCormick Woods as do a large portion
Comment will not be incorporated into
29 PK-9
of the PO community. How will you get me to the waterfront
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
by walking or biking? We need realistic goals and objectives.
30 PK-12
(referring to "identify areas") conditions
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
31 PK-15
Shall be? Hmm. No scotch broom or blackberries on any
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
vacant municipal properties within the city?
into the revised draft element.
32 PK-16
(referring to The Active Club) what is this?
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into�
����
the ravicPrl �� ent.
Where? Will the proposed new Community Center suffice?
33 PK-18
Why not add into the discussion the plans for that? By 2044,
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
that facility and all the amenities should be complete and
into the revised draft element.
functioning.
34 Goal S
Sounds nice a cushy but I honestly do not know what this
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
really means.
into the revised draft element.
City -owned? How will the City force private fields to provide
35 PK-22
this? Each Little League would be asked to pay for these
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
upgrades?
the revised draft element.
36 PK-23
What defines feasible? Why only athletic fields? Why not a
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
YMCA or larger athletic complex?
into the revised draft element.
Underserved refers to income. Several older areas within the
City are considered underserved according to RCO. RCO
provides a reduced match for projects in these areas. RCO has
a tool to identify these areas. https://rco.wa.gov/recreation-
and-conservation-office-grants/grant-requirements/match-
reduction/
Safety is an important consideration. We have many
nonmotorized facilities that are substandard either in width,
separation, or condition.
(This refers to proximity and condition of facilities.
Ruby Creek, Bethel/Lund, Bethel/Sedgwick, and Mile Hill all
lack city parks.
This changes from year to year, and to prevent the need to
frequent amendments to identify updated conditions, the
language will be retained.
See the RCO map for underserved communities.
Ross Creek is in the process of being acquired. Blackjack Creek
is mostly privately owned.
There is a planned pathway along Old Clifton Road connecting
to the facilities on Tremont. Tremont is connected to
downtown by the Bay Street West Pathway project along PO
Blvd.
Revised "weather" with "conditions" to clarify language.
Revised "shall" to "should".
IThis is the community building at Givens Park.
Revised language from "Community Recreation Center" to
"Community Event Center".
Revised language to encourage commercial enterprises to
establish private commercial recreation facilities.
The fields at Givens Park are publicly owned. Additional public
fields are identified in the PROS plan.
Revised language to state that athletic fields should be
developed in accordance with the PROS Plan.
This implies they are not currently encouraged. Why not say
Comment accepted and incorporated
37 PK-24
we want to continue and help promote private sports
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
Revised per suggested edits.
programs such as pickleball leagues, futsal leagues, etc.
Comment will not be incorporated into
The SMP and Critical Areas Code provides mitigation
38 PK-29
Subject to environmental impact? Feasibility?
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
requirements. We have a facility proposed with the new CEC
that is being reviewed now.
Same comment as before. Subject to environmental
Comment will not be incorporated int
The SMP and Critical Areas Code provides mitigation
39 PK-30
impact/feasibility?
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
requirements. We have a facility proposed with the new CEC
that is being reviewed now.
Why not "expansion" too? There is an informal kayak launch
40 PK-31
at Annapolis Pier but no easy linkage to the downtown boat
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised phrasing to "maintain, enhance, and expand..."
launch and the downtown launch is not friendly for kayak
into the revised draft element.
launching. Seems an easy one to check. An example...
Aren't they already? Critical areas for sure, side yards, etc.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised phrasing to "Continue to require buffers and open
41 PK-33
We must respect private property rights and refer to the
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
space as a required design element in new developments".
zoning codes for this sort of stuff.
"functions as a buffer" is a complex topic and problematic as
Comment under additional
42 PK-36
to use, definition, and poses legal entanglement. Let the
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
This goal deals with critical areas. The policy deals with open
Critical Areas Ordinance do this. Make a simple reference that
analysis.
space. More discussion required.
the Comp Plan and CAO should be synergistic
(referring to acquisition) Who pays? Who maintains? Should
DID PK-37 we have a partnership or MOU with the County about future
43 PC -Wright
(should be PK-37 numbering is off) "countywide" open space acquisition? Homeless
encampments come rapidly to mind with this issue.
Lets review how long McCormick Village Park splash zone was
44 PK-40 PC -Wright
out of commission! All last summer.
45 Geel 11 Goal 12 See my previous comments. I want to know where this place is PC -Wright
in relation to parks facilities.
46 PK 41 PK-44
Not sure I agree with this. Not enough parks to warrant this. PC -Wright
MW
Comment will not be incorporated into The City pays. The County has no money for this and is trying
the revised draft element. ]to offload their parks to the City.
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated in
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated i
the revised draft element.
Noted - facility maintenance is better addressed in the City's
PROS Plan.
See the RCO map for underserved communities.
Noted - retained "consider" language as the City continues to
grow over the 20-year planning horizon of this Periodic
Update.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - NATURAL SYSTEMS
1 5.1
2 5.1 (8th bullet)
3 5.1
4 5.2
5 5.3.1
6 5.3.3
7 5.3.3
I fail to see the vision of what these approaches would include. Critical areas, by their
nature, are susceptible to damage. How would the City minimize the rate of consumption
of natural resources if it is to grow? It the City wasteful right now with waste production?
Is there a study or research to demonstrate this? Maximizing open space opportunities
PC -Wright
implies the City has control over open space. Does the City have this control? I'd like to
see the City approach be: prepare appropriate ordinances to protect and preserve CAs,
maintain a posture of waste minimization; Promote open space opportunities with
existing and new development; reclaim lost habitats when feasible.
I like this basic and general statement regarding climate change. Use it mor in other
sections.
PC -Wright
Transportation poses substantial impact avenues to Critical Areas. PC -Wright
(referring to 'full range') I dislike use of this term. A wide variety is more appropriate.
Sometimes, we must remove the woody mass to stabilize slopes. The Ross Point area is a
god example. Removal of the woody mass is proper when mature and poses danger to life PC -Wright
or property. Proper replanting and management are key.
Is this true? I dislike making this statement without facts to back it up!
I would like the know what "recent" steps the city has taken in this regard.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for Section revised to address review comments.
analysis.
Comment will not be incorporate Noted - this will be expanded on in other sections as
the revised draft element. applicable to those specific Elements.
Comment will not be incorporated into
Noted - the intent of the Goals and Policies of both this
the revised draft element. Element and the Transportation Element is to identify and
mitigate these impacts.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested language.
into the revised draft element.
Revised language to add language that replanting and
Comment accepted and incorporated management in accordance with the CAO would be fine. This
into the revised draft element. comment is one example of a cost effective form of preserving
slope stability but does not encompass all methods.
Added reference to the 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds
PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Comprehensive Plan, which provide additional information
into the revised draft element. and context. It has been true during construction. See the
violations at Stetson Heights.
I disagree these buffers are equally important. If this is true, why are there no laws like
8 5.3.4 the Clean Water Act targeting buffers. Buffers are not regulated by the federal PC -Wright
government. I recommend we omit this sentence.
(referring to a new wetland mitigation bank site) Until this is developed and approved by
9 5.3.4 the multi -agency task force, this is speculation. I'd rather not mention speculative stuff in PC -Wright
the Comp Plan. If the City is developing the mitigation bank - say so - otherwise omit this.
Rainfall centrubutes te surface water and recharges the groundwater as precipitation
10 5.3.5 a faltr + th.eugh the sell PC -Wright
�
11 5.3.5 As in any urban area, ensuing maintaining effective PC -Wright
How much development does PO allow within aquifer recharge areas? I suspect not much
12 5.3.5 PC -Wright
and if that is true omit this sentence.
Really, where? I know we are seeing some redevelopment but new urban shoreline
13 5.3.6 PC -Wright
development? I'm challenging this statement.
Comment will not be incorporated i
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
The greenbelt zoning has been applied to the corridor.
Examples can be found in the PO Stormwater and Watersheds
Comprehensive Plan, Blackjack Creek Watershed Assessment
and Protection and Restoration Plan, Blackjack Creek
Floodplain Restoration Project Engineering Design Plans.
Reviewing comment in association with CAO update for
consistency.
ir
Comment will not be incorporated into This corresponds to changes proposed in the CAO that would
the revised draft element. outline the role of mitigation banks when applying the CAO.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to delete suggested language.
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested language.
into the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incol
the revised draft element.
A large portion of the city is located in a category 1 or 2
aquifer recharge area. Most development is allowed in these
areas.
This is speaking generally about urban levels of development
under the GMA, not shoreline development.
Comment under additional
Reviewing comment in association with CAO update for
14 5.3.6
Again, I challenge this statement. Hood Canal - I agree, Sinclair Inlet flushes pretty well.
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
consistency.
This statement also concern me. PSNS Bremerton is the most significant contributor of
t
ommenwill not be incorporated in
Sinclair Inlet is listed on the 303d list for fecal coliform TMDL.
15 5.3.6
pollutants in Sinclair Inlet. THIS is well documents. What is the need to include this
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
This section is not phrased to identify PO as the primary
sentence?
contributor, rather just identify the Inlet's existing condition.
This statement is part of the old Comp Plan. What progress was made to date with this? If
Comment will not be incorporated in
We now have a plan for the downtown basin. The Orchard
16 5.3.6
the City has made no progress, the question is how long has the city been trying to make
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
Street Plaza and CEC projects are implementing some of these
improvements and why no progress.
changes.
gee Mace or Knowieage: uimate Lnange in vuget �,ouna
https:Hcig.uw.edu/publications/state-of-knowledge-climate-
Comment will not be incorporated into
change-in-puget-sound/ Water temperature increases ranged
17 5.4
I've not seen documented evidence that Puget Sound water temp is rising.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
from +0.8 to +1.6 °F from 1950 to 2009 for stations located at
Admiralty Inlet, Point
Jefferson, and in Hood Canal.
I understand the statement - BUT - what has been the documented sea level rise since we
Comment will not be incorporated into
This section includes a reference to the Kitsap County Climate
18 5.4
began measuring 10-20 years ago? King tides have always flooded downtown what is that
PC -Wright
frequency over time and how has it changed?
the revised draft element.
Change Resiliency Assessment.
This reads like a scare tactic and does not resonate with me well. PO has been here since
Comment accepted and incorporated
19 5.4
1908. Shoreline homes have not been lost to sea level rise. Bay Street has not been lost to
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
Language revised to soften phrasing used.
sea level rise. We need to put this into a reasonable narrative.
Tagging for further discussion - maintaining a comprehensive
Comment under additional
mapping of critical area assessments that are submitted on a
20 NS-3
Isn't this already done?
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
project -by -project basis is not conducted by City departments.
analysis.
This would create an additional workload that would be fairly
significant, however could assist the City in creating and
updating a critical areas dataset.
Support in what way? Financial? Permitting incentives? The Blackjack Creek mit. bank
Comment under additional
This is supported by proposed changes to the CAO that allow
21 NS-4
was relatively successful. But would be a good exercise to review that project's history
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
the use of private mitigation banks.
and success/failure issues.
analysis.
And who will do this and what is the cost? Is this mandated by GMA? This could be
F
We participate in these efforts at a regional level, and this will
22 NS-5
expensive and not a lot to gain for that expense. I suggest we pass on this unless
PC -Wright
Comment will not be in
be a formal requirement in association with the Climate
the revised draft element.
mandatory.
Element.
23 NS-6
Implies absolute. The City will apply the local CAO and applicable state and federal
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Slight revision to language used to provide "requiring"
regulations to protect....
into the revised draft element.
phrasing.
Pertains to persevering the city's tree canopy. The pushback from legacy McCormick
Comment under additional
24 Goal 3
Residents on reducing the number of lots of the Amherst subdivision set the precedent on
PC-Ta
consideration, identify next steps for
This goal should be discussed at -large at the next Planning
preserving trees. Opportunity here to set more concrete policy, especially as developers
analysis.
Commission meeting.
submit plans.
Comment under additional
This goal should be discussed at -large at the next Planning
25 Goal 3
1 disagree with this addition.
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Commission meeting.
Womment
HB 1181 amends the Growth Management Act and requires
26 NS-15
Very $$$$$ for a small city.
PC -Wright
will not be incorporated into
cities to include a Climate Change Element. A GHG emissions
the revised draft element.
inventory is required, though the City may rely on the
inventory prepared by the State for Kitsap County.
Comment will not be incorporated in
This policy was drafted to provide flexible language that can
27 NS-16
I'm not sure anyone knows what this means. Omit - too vague.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
be responsive to more formal guidance and requirements that
are established outside of the Comprehensive Plan.
'm^ rt Consider and implement where feasible, nature based solutions to address
28 NS-17 climate change, such as tree planting programs to sequester carbon, and low impact PC -Wright
development strategies to address stormwater runoff, flooding and pollution.
Where/who is this in PO? Homeless/unhoused? How does one reduce risk of natural
29 NS-18 hazards through mitigation? Do we only let non -at -risk communities near areas with PC -Wright
natural hazard risk?
Same comment as above. This implies we will discriminate between residents of the
30 NS-19 population one way or the other. What is "equity lens"? Is it fully defined? Is that PC -Wright
definition changing? I submit it is and this is/will be a quagmire for the City if included as
written.
31 NS-22 Doesn't this make the equity statements above? PC -Wright
32 Goal 19 Does the City have management authority over waters of the state? Water quality? That PC -Wright
is Ecology's job, EPS's job, and USACOE's job.
This implies there is a limit or restriction on shoreline access to some segment of the PO
population. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Omit as written and consider stating
33 NS-88 PC -Wright
that PO will maintain an open access policy to all public shorelines for all residents and
visitors.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
Revised per suggested language.
This language is consistent with provisions of RCW
36.70.070(9)(d)(i)(C).
Consistency with Vision 2050 is required, which includes
policies and actions related to equity. Equity lens is a common
phrase that is used to describe including equity in the decision
making process when making policy.
Consistency with Vision 2050 is required, which includes
policies and actions related to equity. Equity lens is a common
phrase that is used to describe including equity in the decision
making process when making policy.
Comment will not be incorporated into
The City has obligations under its NPDES Permit.
Ise�nt.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested language.
into the revised draft element.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Comment
Number
Comment Section
Review Comment
Comment Source
Staff Action
Action Details
1 6.1
Investment in what? City saving and retirement account? Infrastructure? Parks and open
PC -Wright
omment will not be incorporated int
This includes any expenditure of city funds.
spaces? What are the priorities with investments?
the revised draft element.
This is speaking to the City's identity going forward. While
2 6.1
See my comment on PO's history section...
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
other industries existed in PO, the chosen history to be
the revised draft element.
identified for future recognition in economic development is
6 =A
maritime rather than mill town or any other identity.
3 6.1
Create opportunities for small businesses, women -owned businesses, and minority -owned
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested language.
businesses to locate in the City.
into the revised draft element.
4 6.1
Hasn't this been done? If so, maybe we freshen or update or create new, integrated centers for
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity: "continue to identify and support growth
PO.
into the revised draft element.
centers"
5 6.1
..have a limited impact on environmentally sensitive areas such as Puget Sound, streams and
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested language.
wetlands.
into the revised draft element.
6 6.2.1
The city is no longer cone -hour drive from the region's main international airport in SeaTac.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
7 6.2.1
What about Creeks? Blackjack flows right through downtown.
PC -Wright
The estuary is part of the waterfront. The rest of the creek is
inaccessible.
(referring to city's higher concentrations of workers in industries listed) Really?? What about
Comment under additional
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains occupation data
8 6.2.4
the City? Where does the City stand in this category?
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
for states, counties and metropolitan areas. We will look for
analysis.
other data sources for city data and add if available.
9 6.2.6
(referring to 'As of 2015...') ?? It is 2023. Hasn't this changed since 2015?
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
Seems to me we lost the opportunity to keep the "centers" theme here. If business centers were
Comment will not be incorporated into
Noted - promoting development in centers, where
10 Goal 1
properly planned and constructed, linked with public transportation, close to residential
PC -Wright
the revised draft element. Adevelopment
intensity is appropriate, aids in this.
opportunity, many of these policies will be synergistic.
Language revised to remove "shall." Note that this is a GMA
Why "shall"? very legal and absolute term. Same comment everywhere "shall" occurs in policy
Comment accepted and incorporated
requirement.
11 ED-1
statements. Recommend using SHOULD everywhere possible.
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
Language revised to remove "shall."
12 ED-2
(referring to the word 'shall' ??
( g ) .
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
into the revised draft element.
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
"Rail" removed from this policy.
Comment be incorporated
13 ED-3
where is rail an option in PO?
PC -Wright
will not
Kitsap transit has no plans for rail in Kitsap County. We are
the revised draft element.
tohisut
of the Sound Transit service boundary.
is a good goal whether it is working well or not.
14 ED-5
I think most of these have been a goals for some time. How's that worked out? What will the
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
Infrastructure investment has been a large barrier to
city do differently to achieve the stated goals?
the revised draft element.
development, but the city is starting to put a dent in the
capital protect list.
Language revised to remove "shall."
15 ED-6
(referring to the word 'shall' ??
( g ) .
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
into the revised draft element.
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
16 ED-6
centers where job opportunities and a diverse mix of retail and professional/techinical office
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested language.
activities are concentrated.
into the revised draft element.
what about redevelopment of older segments of the city? These may not be in a designated
Comment will not be incorporated
Please refer to the centers map in the LU element and let us
17 ED-8
center but may be linked by general proximity and transit.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
know if there is an area of concern.
These I am sure are left over from 2018. They are pet issues for me. When we talk about
encouraging Downtown events and holiday festivals ( I am not opposed to either), How do we
measure the economic impact to the city? There are merchants along Bay which increase sales
during the events and there are merchants which have their business decline. I see these more
as community building/ social events rather than economic development.
The recognition and encouragement of tourism sounds great. However, Port Orchard does not
Comment under additional
Noted - we will explore ways to expand on the expectation for
18 ED-9 and ED-16
have an ocean, a mountain or other prominent attraction for tourists. Port Orchard has 2
PC -Ashby
consideration, identify next steps for
tourism in Port Orchard.
motels. Three recognized golf courses are near. I am unclear what type of tourist we attract.
analysis.
The marina is a boat destination and the boaters do frequent restaurants and novelty shops.
But boaters sleep on their boats.
I would like to see these two policies rewritten and better defined to clarify the expectation for
economic development. Joe probably has a better insight and understanding of the issue.
(referring to city-wide wayfinding) Do we have this now? What is it? Where is it? Who manages
Comment will not be incorpor
The first 5 city owned signs were installed along Tremont and
19 ED-10
it?
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
PO Blvd. Also see our parks signage.
(referring to diversification and employment objectives) What are these objectives in
Comment accepted and incorporated
20 ED-11
quantifiable terms? When/how do we know we succeed?
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
Revised to add specificity and some quantifiable metrics.
Comment under additional
21 ED-12
(referring to modernization and streamlining) Not very clear what this means.
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
Revised to add specificity.
analysis.
(referring to people of color and low-income populations) Why the emphasis here? Seems it is
not necessary. All this needs to say is: Establish ... policies affect the city. I would argue the
Comment under additional
This policy intended to incorporate equity principles into
22 ED-16
emphasis on a minority group would affect the city as much or more so than statewide policies.
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
Economic Development Element. Could be rephrased to "all"
If the city truly establishes strong relationships with community stakeholder groups - this issue is
analysis.
City residents pending PC feedback?
moot.
Comment under additional
This policy intended to incorporate equity principles into
23 ED-16
policies affect all city residents
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
Economic Development Element. Could be rephrased to "all"
analysis.
City residents pending PC feedback?
Do we have an industrial base in PO to "maintain"? I'd argue we do not. I think the city is the
largest occupier of the "industrial park". RV Assoc. is a construction contractor. I think this Goal
rr
There are quite a few industrial business at the industrial park
should be rethought and refocused on high employment endeavors such as
Comment will not be incorporated i
and there is room for expansion. We also have boat
24 Goal 4
industrial/professional/technical services. All the Policies that follow say nothing about
PC -Wright
industrial uses. It's all about tourism, arts, recreation, small/cottage businesses. The city needs
the revised draft element.
manufacturing on the waterfront between downtown and
to attract a whole new segment of businesses to link the increased housing we have seen and
Gorst. Policy ED-21 speaks to industrial uses.
are Dlannine.
25 Goal 5
(referring to walking and biking) drop. We want safe streets. Period.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to address "all road users" rather than identifying
into the revised draft element.
specific walking and biking users.
What is the status of local agriculture? I think is has diminished to nearly non- existent. Just how
Comment will not be incorporated into
Locally produced food doesn't necessarily mean produced in
26 ED-24
much ag occurs within the city or even the UGA? Does the city provide property tax credits to ag
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
PO.
producers? If not - should we?
A stated goal up front was a better relationship between the city government and residents.
Why not promote/prioritize transit connections with City Hall so folks can get to and from public
Comment will not be incorporated into
There is a transit hub downtown already at the foot ferry
27 Goal
meetings in person rather than web -based meetings? Note that there is no significant bus hub in
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
dock.
downtown. Marina launch parking lot may be a good option if this is pursued.
28 Goal 6
How is "South Kitsap Area" a part of the city of PO Comp Plan?
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated intPort
Orchard provides services to the wider South Kitsap Area.
the revised draft element.
29 ED-28
Really? Bethel corridor is dangerous! Need to see where "centers" are located and how this will
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
Please refer to the centers map in the LU Chapter.
work.
e revised
thdraft element.
Language revised to remove "shall."
30 ED-29
issues with term 'shall'
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
into the revised draft element.
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
31 ED-29 The City shall encourage the redevelopment of strip commercial areas..... into what? PC -Wright
32 ED-30 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright
33 ED-31 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright
My experience is that this has not yielded the desired results to date. Most LEED construction
34 ED-31 has dropped the moniker and many wished they did not spend the extra $$ to achieve LEED PC -Wright
status. Using recycled products makes financial sense. LEED does not.
Pretty dated statement. These items - except vegetated roofs - are commonplace and most are
35 ED-32 mandatory by the Ecology SWM guidelines. Suggest changing to reference the Ecology manual. PC -Wright
Also not impervious surfaces are not all accepted by fire departments due to load restrictions.
36 ED-32 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright
37
ED-33
drop 'both'
PC -Wright
38
ED-34
(referring to word 'shall') Really? What happens if you don't?
PC -Wright
Let's discuss. 1. shall needs to go. 2. How can the city deal with local emission targets outside of
it's own fleet? Best you can do is say the city will convert to all -electric vehicles. We now know
39 ED-35 PC -Wright
this is a HUGE mistake so please be very careful with our money! Keep traffic moving! Less
idling.
€D 3-5 ED-37 (FYI numbering is
40 inaccurate after ED-35 with newly Where will the cars go? Is there a plan? PC -Wright
added policy)
41 €D-35 ED-38 Question this term... How will the city "support"? Is that ourjob? I suppose we can promote it PC -Wright
as an attractant to PO. But support? Implies financial assistance. I'm not interested in that.
42 €D 36 ED-39
43 €D 37ED-40
44 €D 38 E D-40
Sounds wishy-washy. How do we make this happen?
PC -Wright
Why not develop an agreement with service providers to drop new lines in a designated city -
owned conduit integrated into each road resurfacing and new road project? This would make a PC -Wright
good policy statement.
Same as above
PC -Wright
45 Goal 9 Why not call out community stakeholders? Why are they excluded here? PC -Wright
Has the City considered forming a City of Port Orchard Business forum? Includes all city-wide
46 €D 49 ED-42 businesses - not just POBSA. Brings in Lowes, Kroger, Ace Hardware, Restaurants, Auto PC -Wright
parts/service business, etc.
47 €D 40 ED-42 How long has this been a policy? What is the progress over that time? Reads stale and like it has PC -Wright
been achieved or is a failure. Needs a refresh!
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Comment will not be incorporated into
Language revised to remove "shall."
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
Language revised to remove "shall."
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
Language revised to remove "shall."
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
Language revised to remove "shall."
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
the revised draft element. Encouraging LID is mandated.
Language revised to remove "shall."
Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
into the revised draft element. items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Revised per suggested language.
Language revised to remove "shall."
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
Language revised to remove "shall."
Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify that
items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or
goal that may be worked towards.
Revised language to add references to City's long-term plans
for a parking structure downtown.
ComxEGill not be incorporated intomThis was a goal from 2016 when Sunday service was not
the revised draft element. available and when most businesses downtown closed at 6pm.
44 KPUD is expanding in the city. It requires coordination from
Comment will not be incorporated into
the city and communication from the city to developers about
the revised draft element.
_ the availability of fiber.
Comment under additional
We already do this. We could add a policy statement, but it is
consideration, identify next steps for
something that already occurs.
analysis.
C' t will n�corporal�This is more complicated and includes cost sharing from the
the revised draft element. city per the franchise agreement.
Comment will not be incorporated into I believe this is focused on the work of KEDA and the
the revised draft element. 4Chamber.
Comment will not be incorporated into
This is what the Chamber of Commerce is for.
the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to remove outdated Policy, as Bremerton provides
into the revised draft element. service.
48 €D-45 (last policy under Goal 11) Redundant
49 Policy ED-44 and 45 Duplicates
Empower how? I'm concerned we set the city up for failure or a challenge when stuff like this
gets written in Comp Plans. Only write what you are capable of producing. Recognize the
50 Goal 12 importance of and integrate this awareness to the extent feasible.... The Port did this with a
proposal years ago to highlight the Suquamish Tribe's fishing heritage. The Tribe declined the
advertisement. Mavbe use the word "celebrate"?
51 €D 44 (1st policy under Goal 12) Doesn't this occur already? How is this different? Why not combine these two policies?
PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to remove redundant Policy.
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
PC -Bailey Revised to remove duplicative Policy.
into the revised draft element.
PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to remove "empower" language. Rephrased to:
into the revised draft element. "Support and recognize the contributions..."
Comment will not be incorporated into
PC -Wright This Policy is consistent with MPP-RC-4 language.
the revised draft element.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - UTILITIES
Comment
Number
Comment Section
Review Comment
Comment Source
Staff Action
Action Details
Language revised to add references: "consultant prepared
1 7.1
Reference please.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
studies and analysis such as the Water Systems Plan, General
into the revised draft element.
Sewer Plan, and Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, in
collaboration with City staff..."
2 7.1
1 like it.
PC -Wright
Noted - will be retained in its current form.
(referring to utilities vision)
Comment under additional
This sentence refers to the requirements found in the GMA.
3 7.1
Where does the public view this information?
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
Local (City) plans are referenced within this Element.
analysis.
Utility districts and private utilities are not subject to GMA
Is there a plan for this? Also, how synced are these providers
Comment under additional
planning requirements at this time. As a side note, the
4 7.1
with the Comp Plan? Are they consulted to integrate their
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
legislature is studying the issue to determine when districts
long range service plans?
analysis.
should be required to plan. This Comprehensive Plan update
takes into consideration utility providers long-term plans, as
available.
I assume the Utilities Element is part of the Comp Plan and the
5 7.1
"functional plans" are likely program -specific and drafted by
PC -Wright
omment will not be incorp
Yes, but the "functional plans" are adopted by reference into
the revised draft element.
the Comprehensive Plan.
various departments. True?
6 7.1
Capital E?
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
7 7.2
collects and delivers
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
How old are these sewer lines? Say average age and what is
Comment will not be incorporated into
8 7.2
the life expectancy of the system? Are there certain parts
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.4
This level of detail is provided in the General Sewer Plan.
scheduled for replacement?
9 7.2
What is the status of our wells? Are they providing stability in
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
This level of detail is provided in the Water System Plan.
delivery? Saltwater intrusion? Pump age and maintenance?
e revised draft element.
the
1111
10 7.3 Telecommunications, first bullet
I believe Astound (formerly WAVE) provides landline phone
PC -Bailey
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for updated information.
service in addition to CenturyLink.
into the revised draft element.
11 7.3, Telecommunications, third bullet
Replace "Wave" with "Astound".
PC -Bailey
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for updated information.
into the revised draft element.
Not very well written to truly describe the most actively
9
Detailed information related to the City's stormwater
growing part of the city. Consider rewriting this to reflect the
Comment will not be incorporated into
12 7.3
true conditions of runoff controls in the area of the City not
PC -Wright
nt.
management system and obligations under the NPDES Permit
is in Section 7.4 related to Stormwater.
directly discharging to Sinclair Inlet..9
provided
Astound is the new name I think. We should not limit the
Comment accepted and incorporated
13 7.3
various utilities by name, we should make this more wide
PC -Wright
Revised for updated information.
open for 2044.
into the revised draft element.
14 7.4, Water, third sentence
"Water supply needs is..." —replace "is" with "are".
PC -Bailey
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
15
I would like to suggest rewording, the sentence mentions
PC Bailey
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity.
7 4 Water, fourth sentence
"emergency' twice.
into the revised draft element.
I'm interested in hearing more about this pilot project.
Comment be incorporated into
Staff the Planning Commission
16 7.4, Water, last para
Perhaps during a PC meeting City staff could provide a
PC -Bailey
will not
will provide a summary at next
the revised draft element.
meeting on this item.
summary?
I would appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the types
Element has been revised to include a new Policy addressing
7.4, Stormwater, last sentence in last
17
of runoff prevention methods that are currently used. More
PC Bailey
Comment accepted and incorporated
this: When stormwater BMPs are deemed ineffective due to
para
specifically, those that shouldn't be used (some straw sleeves
into the revised draft element.
site -specific conditions, explore and apply appropriate site -
and bales) as they pose a risk to habitat and agriculture.
specific BMPs. See proposed UT-21.
In large part water quality monitoring has switched from fecal
Comment under additional
18
coliforms to E. coli as the indicator organism. I just wanted to
PC -Bailey
consideration, identify next steps for
This City will need to confirm with the Public Works
confirm PO is still monitoring for FC as the document states,
analysis.
Department.
7.4, Stormwater, last para
not EC.
Need to define Asset Management and what is involved in this
effort. What utilities and infrastructure are included? Who
performs this rigorous effort? Use of preventative and
predictive maintenance in the same paragraph is confusing
Comment will not be incorporated int
This is referring to the software (Open Gov Cartograph) that
19 7.4
and needs more explanation. As worded, I have doubt the city
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
we have purchased to manage city assets. We have a position
understands AMP and how to use it. Which AMP software will
in Public Works dedicated to operating the program.
the city employ? Who will manage the database? What will be
entered into the database? City utilities? Vehicles? Traffic
infrastructure? Non -city utilities within city infrastructure?
I asked earlier - what about age of sewer lines? What is design
life? Where are we across the board? The sewer line that runs
Comment will not be incorporated intThis
20 7.4
to McCormick Woods for example compared to the lines in
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
level of detail is provided in the General Sewer Plan.
older segments of the city. Is there a Sewer/wastewater CIP
we can refer to?
Revised to include footnote references and links to associated
documents.
https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/2020-water-system-
Please guide the reader to the location of these references on
plan/
the City website. Do this in all cases to promote public
Comment accepted and incorporated
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/upl
21 7.4
engagement and to solicit input as is one of the main
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
oads/2017/10/General-Sewer-Plan-Update-FINAL1.pdf
objectives of the Comp Plan.
https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/2023-port-orchard-
stormwater-and-watersheds-comprehensive-plan/
Redundant use of "emergency". We may want to consider
Comment accepted and incorporated
22 7.4
getting a technical editor to help. Is this consultant work or
PC -Wright
Revised for clarity.
staff work?
into the revised draft element.
Added footnote reference to state law and where additional
information can be found:
"Foster Pilot Project" is what?? Once something like this is
https://Iawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-
23 7.4
mentioned, it demands some context as to what it is, where it
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
18/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6091-S.SL.pdf#page=1
is, where it will serve the city, etc.
into the revised draft element.
More information can be found here:
https://ecology.wa.gov/water-shorelines/water-supply/water-
rights/case-law/foster-decision
24 7.4
Will AMP better describe this need? A CIP for sewer is
PC-Wright
Comment will not be incorporated"
The individual system plans provide additional level of detail,
mentioned above - is there a water system CIP?
the revised draft element.
and have been summarized in tables included in the Element.
Have city wells promoted an impact to local streams? Where is
Comment will not be incorporated into
See the water system plan. The City is participating in the
25 7.4
this documented? Again - is there a Water System CIP that
PC -Wright
spells all this out?
the revised draft element.
Foster Pilot Program and this analysis is ongoing.
26 7.4 Is this the Foster Pilot Project? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated intoYes, this related to the Foster Pilot Project.
the revised draft element.
27 7.4 aims PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
Needs proper reference. Typically, city codes must refer to
specific documents to guide engineers and contractors for the
28 7.4 specifics of the job at hand. nebulous references cause PC -Wright
difficulties as to version control and interpretation. Not all
future "drafts" are ready for implementation so until they are
codified, local jurisdictions do not commonly adopt them.
who performs this review? I suspect the City Engineering
29 7.4
tea m.
What about climate change? Did these 2023 plans address
climate? If so say so - we can get credit in meeting goals from
state mandates. Also - where are these documents? Please
30 7.4
give references to each one in this Plan so the public can see
how integrated the city is trying to be with this comprehensive
Dlan.
With the shipyard across the way - almost a stones' throw - it
is hard to accept the city's discharges are THE or A significant
pollutant load comparatively. I suggest a rewrite to say the
31 7.4
city wishes to do its best to comply with our permit in
preventing further degradation of the marine waters of Puget
Sound.
Is there a map of these centers? Are there plans for future
32 7.5
centers? Is there a document/report that describes how and
why these centers were selected?
Tell me how equability works in this case? Slippery slope if we
say this and do not deliver. I am not a fan of using this term.
The city does not know where people choose to live and how
33 7.5
long they choose to live there if renting or buying. We want to
serve all communities and residents equally, efficiently, and
cost effectivelv.
I believe it would be beneficial if the City investigated avenues
for promoting water conservation efforts for residents,
whether through education, credits, steeper fees for heavier
34 7.6, Water users, etc. Is this something that has been considered? The
current fee scale increases the price per gallon after X number
of gallons have been used but it would be beneficial to look
into this a step further.
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorpo
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
The year has been deleted because the new manual will be
adopted in about 2 years. We don't want an old reference in
the plan. The place for the year is in our code. Currently the
code references the 2019 manual. See POMC 20.150.060 (3)
(a).
Yes, including the Public Works Department.
Comment will not be incorporated intoClimate will be addressed in these plans, if not already, during
PC -Wright the next update to each plan. Footnote references and link
the revised draft element.
have been added to the Element.
Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add additional language related to the City's goal to
PC -Wright into the revised draft element. comply with its NPDES Permit and prevent further
degradation of Puget Sound.
Comment will not be incorporated int
PC -Wright This information is contained in the Land Use Element.
the revised draft element. 4
Centers are prioritized for investment because they serve
PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated intol more people at less cost compared to addressing
the revised draft element. infrastructure in more outlying areas. No specific change has
been proposed here.
First sentence states projects are intended to address
flooding, erosion, habitat, etc. Whether in this section or
35 7.6, Stormwater elsewhere, I think it would be beneficial to also include PC -Bailey
projects that address impervious surfaces/alternatives to
conventional stormwater management.
36 UT-9
City limits or UGA?
PC -Wright
How can we improve older segments of the city? When road
37 UT-21 resurfacing is needed, why not underground those areas too PC -Wright
and add high speed internet.
Comment under additional This is addressed in the water system plan. The rate structure
consideration, identify next steps for
was just changed to move in this direction for the first time.
analysis.
Are there specific goal and policy suggestions to include
related to this?
Comment will not be incorporated int The stormwater plan was just completed. This will need to
the revised draft element. wait until the next plan update.
Comment will not be incorporated into City Limits. If people want service outside of the city, they
the revised draft element. should annex.
4This is a general fund expense and is very expensive, even
Comment will not be incorporated into
under a schedule 74 agreement with PSE per the franchise
the revised draft element.
agreement.
38 UT-25
39 UT-26
40 UT-27
41 UT-28
42 Goal
43 UT-30
44 UT-31
45 UT-32
46 UT-33
the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorpoThere is a difference between 24 and 25. 25 includes facilities
rated int
Isn't this redundant with #24 above? PC -Wright such as sewer lift stations. We would always want to update
IL an existing lift station before adding a new one to the system.
Why not PO residents too? FYI - in all cases - solar, wind, etc.
Comment accepted and incorporated
there will be impacts such as visual disruptions, noise, and PC -Wright Revised to add residential to the list.
other environmental consequences. into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
What does this mean? PC -Wright Revised for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
What does this mean - what resources? Is there an example of
PC -Wright
such incentives?
Is there a good and accurate map of Internet service type and
provider in the city? PC Wright
How do we get high speed BB in already developed areas of
the City?
and redevelopment proposals.
When do we stop with the policies and simply identify the
challenges and plan accordingly? For example:
Challenge - Earthquake - Old structures not design/built to
withstand event of "x" magnitude yields higher risk of loss of
life and injury. Specifically with higher density
dwellings/hospitals/homes.
PC -Wright
PC -Wright
Challenge - Wildfires - Location of infrastructure to native
areas or timberlands. Limited access in some locations impacts PC -Wright
response times and fire suppression success.
Challenge - Flooding/Sea Level Rise - Shoreline areas most
susceptible. Reduce risk by increasing shoreline protection,
increasing setbacks where possible, and elevating at -risk
infrastructure.
Challenge - Landslides - see steep slope critical areas
ordinance.
Is this true in PO? Where is the documentation? I am not
necessarily in agreement.
Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add additional detail to the policy promoting
into the revised draft element. conservation of water This is a requirement for water
conservation. See the water system plan.
Comment will not be incorporated into The City does not have a map of this information for specific
the revised draft element. service boundaries of non -City utility providers.
If there are enough customers, the private providers will
Comment will not be incorporated into decide to make an investment. KPUD Fiber is being added as
the revised draft element. street projects are completed in the city. It is up to
homeowners to connect from the service line to their house.
Comment will not be incorp
Development phrasing is inclusive of redevelopment projects.
the revised draft element.
This Plan is intended to provide Policy language that is
subsequently adopted into development regulations.
Development regulations provide that level of specificity,
Comment will not be incorporated into
which is appropriate as this Plan is a document that is
the revised draft element.
intended to be updated Periodically, while development
regulations can be more responsive/updated to current
information, technology, and guidance.
Comment will not be incorporated into This language is meant to ensure consistency with the Kitsap
PC -Wright the revised draft element. County Countywide Planning Policies. See MPP-CC-6 and MPP-
CC-8.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - TRANSPORTATION
Comment
Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
Number
Response to Commissioner Wright's April 2nd comment
regarding biking: He expressed concern with elderly people
being able to bike, and I'd like to add that biking is a very low
impact activity and is frequently recommended for elderly
people to start doing to get some exercise. He also expressed The comment makes a valid point but does not contain a
General. Response to PC-Wright's concern that the investments being made in biking would be Comment accepted and incorporated specific proposal for change. The comment is supportive of
1 comment. underutilized because of the weather, but I think that they Public-Danielsonintothe revised draft element. the element's existing language promoting non -motorized
would definitely be utilized. I can't say for certain what will transportation.
happen here, but Minneapolis, MN has a worse winter climate
than WA and there's a very healthy biking culture there. I
think that if we make it a truly viable option it will definitely
get use
What does this mean? We cannot ignore that vehicle traffic is
the main mode of transportation in PO and that the other
Comment will not be incorporated into
No revision proposed - this statement indicates equal
2 8.1
elements are minor and meant to reduce dependency on
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
treatment of all modes of transportation.
vehicles - not replace vehicles.
3 8.1
Very awkward and convoluted sentence. Please rewrite to
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity.
make this clear.
into the revised draft element.
"Our vision for Port Orchard is a community which: offers an
inviting, attractive, and pedestrian friendly waterfront
atmosphere that provides a full range of retail and
recreational activities while ensuring coordinated City and
County regional Land Use Plans which promote a more
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised language to be more specific than just the waterfront
4 8.2
efficient multimodal transportation system" This vision
PC-Ta
into the revised draft element.
area.
statement is a good start. However, putting emphasis on
"waterfront atmosphere" implies that efforts will only be
focused there. Can we omit this portion about waterfront
atmosphere?
Not necessarily true. If we add utilities within the road prism,
Comment will not be incorporated i
Existing language is inclusive of the types of improvements
5 8.2
improve drainage and flood control, these items have
PC -Wright
measurable financial benefits to residents.
the revised draft element.
identified in the comment.
Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate
bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In
other cases shared lanes may be appropriate. "Bicycle
6 8.2
What are "bicycle facilities"?
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated intofacilities"
is a term used to capture all types of treatments and
the revised draft element.
through implementation appropriate facilities may be created.
This promotes context sensitive solutions as there is not a one -
ILsize
-fits -all treatment.
Revised language to "Both motorized improvements at
7 8.2
Again - I disagree. Viability as defined by???
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
intersections and nonmotorized improvements such as bicycle
into the revised draft element.
facilities and sidewalks are necessary for an effective and
equitable transportation system."
8 8.2
..promotes an e efficient multimodal transportation
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested edits.
system.
into the revised draft element.
The reality of the length of these six lanes is lost with this. 1
9 8.3.1.1 suggest a rewrite to accurately reflect the 6 lanes are very
PC -Wright
limited in length.
Interesting that the traffic lights on Sedgwick at the SR 16
interchange are not discussed as an introduction. These lights
10 8.3.1.1 are a huge reason why traffic is difficult on Sedgwick.
PC -Wright
Development on either side of SR 16 exacerbated traffic with
added lights ill-timed with the interchange.
11 8.3.1.1 Does the Bethel road belong in the State system portion of
PC -Wright
this element?
Isn't Old Clifton part County? Link to SR 3, Amazon delivery
center. Port Bremerton? Sedgwick rolls into a County road as
12 8.3.1.2
PC -Wright
well and offers a second link to the Southworth terminal and
Kitsap Transit P&R as fast ferry.
13 8.3.2.2
I'm not sure this is accurate.
PC -Wright
There is also a lot in the County along Sedgwick near the
14 Table 8.x Park and Ride Lots
Southworth terminal that is important to note. Mullinex is
PC -Wright
another key piece that helps reduce traffic in PO. Any others?
Some of these locations will be problematic and located on
15 8.3.2.5
top of already congested areas. Needs careful coordination
PC -Wright
with the City.
Can we go into a little more detail about what each project
16 8.3.2.5
will entail?
PC-Ta
17 8.3.2.5
(referring to Sydney Rd park and ride) If this exists, add it to
PC -Wright
the table above.
Needs more description. This is a very small airport for small
18 8.3.3
aircraft only and largely private aircraft. No terminal, no staff,
PC -Wright
no services. No bus route service that I am aware of.
Is it worthy to mention the Amazon fulfillment center and its
19 8.3.3
reliance on the Bremerton airport to ship in goods? That is
PC -Wright
driving demand on the airport at the moment and will grow in
the next 20 years.
Just curious - is the new roundabout at Bay St and Mile Hill
20 8.3.4
compatible with freight? I see larger trucks and busses rolling
PC -Wright
over the center circle of the roundabout frequently.
21 8.3.5
22 8.3.5
(referring to bicycle facilities) Again, what is this? PC -Wright
(referring to 'significant') I want data to prove how significant
this truly is! PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to add length of six -lane section.
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to acknowledge signalized intersection.
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity.
E
Comment will not be incorporated into Yes, however this is not an exhaustive list of County roads, but
the revised draft element. rather acknowledges that County roads are part of the
transportation system.
Comment will not be incorporated into Noted - no change to existing language proposed. When it
t. runs on time, the boats are frequently at the Bremerton dock
at the same time.
Comment accepted and incorporated Revised table and added descriptions of additional facilities to
into the revised draft element. provide more information.
Comment will not be incorpoNoted - no change to existing language proposed. This
information is derived from the Kitsap Transit Plan and have
rated in
the revised draft element.
been incorporated here for consistency.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Revised to add a footnote referencing the Kitsap Transit Plan,
which includes more project details.
Revised to add this to the park and ride section.
Revised to add additional information.
Revised to add a footnote referencing Bremerton National
Airport's Master Plan.
Comment will not be incorporated ing The Bay Street / Bethel roundabout's apron is designed to
the revised draft element. allow trucks to drive on the apron to accommodate turning
di movements.
Comment will not be incorporated i
the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate
bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In
other cases shared lanes may be appropriate. "Bicycle
facilities" is a term used to capture all types of treatments and
through implementation appropriate facilities may be created.
This promotes context sensitive solutions as there is not a one -
size -fits -all treatment.
Revised language to 'meaningful' to soften language while
retaining intent.
This is written as if this is currently the case. If that is the Revised language for clarity. Note that new development
the revised draft element.
23 8.3.5 intention, I disagree. Park and Rides are not easily accessed PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into projects are often required to provide/identify non -motorized
by non -motorized modes currently. access to transit facilities.
24 8.3.5
25 8.3.5
26 8.3.5
27 8.3.5.1
28 8.3.5.1
Some portions of nonmotorized routes can be used for
commuting purposes to potentially reduce potential vehicular PC -Wright
traffic volumes.
(referring to adopted centers) ?? Established??
The City can take measurable steps with this Transportation
Element toward the goal of improvingeverycitizen's
4.res
dP t' s quality of life by creating a safer walking and biking
environment.
Sidewalks and designated crosswalks are provided in some
residential subdivisions including McCormick Woods, Flower
Meadows, Leora, and Indigo Point.
while the ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of the
adjacent property owner or HOA as outlined in Port Orchard
Municipal Code 12.12.
PC -Wright
PC -Wright
PC -Wright
PC -Wright
Have you folks been to school at start/stop times??? NO kids
walk or bike to school anymore. Parents drive them if the bus
29 8.3.5.1 PC -Wright
is inconvenient. Parent drop-off and pick up times are traffic
headaches! Let's please be real.
Interesting. Why not? From the description - they meet or
30 8.3.5.3 stop at city limits. Seems a good thing to say these are the PC -Wright
highest potential expansions into the city?
8.4.2 Port Orchard Boulevard (Tremont
31 Through a greenbelt or along the Boulevard? Unclear. PC -Wright
Street to Bay Street)
8.4.2 Bethel Road (Bay Street to Will implementation of this preclude (prevent) Bethel
32 Sedgwick Road) expansion for cars and trucks? This may be a big deal! PC -Wright
8.4.2 McCormick Woods Drive (Old Please refrain from making "impact" statements. We have not
33 PC -Wright
Clifton Road to Glenwood Road) made any SEPA decisions.
8.4.2 McCormick Woods Drive (Old
34 Good luck with this. We have real speed issues in McWoods. PC -Wright
Clifton Road to Glenwood Road)
Comment will not be incorporated into No revisions proposed - the current language refers to mode
the revised draft element. di choice which would reduce vehicular trips.
Comment will not be incorporated into
Comprehensive Plan adopts Centers and their boundaries.
the revised draft element. Subarea plans and development regulations implement and
"establish" centers. See LU Element for additional information.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Comment will not be incorporated i
the revised draft element.
Revised per comment, as there is no specific goal language
supporting stricken text.
Revised to remove all specific examples, as they can change
over the course of the 20-year planning horizon.
POMC 20.12 does not delegate maintenance responsibilities
of public sidewalks to HOAs.
Noted - no proposed changes to language. This is written to
encourage walking as a mode choice, which is reinforced in
Comment will not be incorp the City's subdivision requirements for safe walking routes to
the revised draft element. school. This document intends to guide policy over the 20-
year planning horizon, in which walking as a mode choice -
MIL M
particularly to schoolsil is intentional.
Revised language: "The County -designated routes do not cross
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the city limits, but the bicycle facilities they carry are
into the revised draft element.
incorporated to the nonmotorized system vision described in
this Element."
Revised language: "...provide a connection between the
Comment accepted and incorporated
Tremont Medical Center and Downtown Port Orchard via Port
into the revised draft element.
Orchard, a relatively low -volume roadway bound by
greenbelt."
Comment will not be incorporated into
The roadway design was modeled through the Bethel
thkh e revised draft element.
Sedgwick Corridor Plan and is designed to accommodate
forecasted future traffic volumes, including truck traffic.
Revised paragraph and added final sentence: "Further study is
Comment accepted and incorporated
necessary to identify roadway design, engineering, and
into the revised draft element.
enforcement measures which may be required to reduce
vehicle speeds and to improve nonmotorized safety and
access."
Revised language: "Further study may be required to identify
Comment accepted and incorporated potential roadway design, engineering, and enforcement
into the revised draft element. measures which may be required to reduce vehicle speeds and
to improve nonmotorized safety."
Same situation as above. The widened segment is not to City
8.4.2 St. Andrews Drive/Hawkstone
standards for nonmotorized vehicles. One added issue is that
35
McCormick Woods is a golf cart community and they also use
PC -Wright
Avenue
the widened shoulder. This area is more complex than this
draft Comp Plan describes.
36
8.4.2 Retsil Road (Mile Hill Drive to Bay
Retsil Rd is very skinny and runs along the Veteran's cemetery.
PC -Wright
Street)
Widening this 2-lane road will pose challenging.
37
8.4.5
(SW Sedgwick Rd) No description like the other segments?
PC -Wright
Why the inconsistency?
38
8.4.5
Redundant with Bay St Ped Path above?
PC -Wright
39
8.4.5
(road diet) ?? Spelling/word selection.
PC -Wright
40
41
42
43
44
Is this designated bike lanes? Facilities implies bike lockers,
8.4.5 PC -Wright
repair stations, toilets, whatever. Also sounds expensive.
What does this mean in plain words all residents can
8.5.1 (Last paragraph) understand? Tremont does not have to meet LOS standards in PC -Wright
the future? What other streets have this exemption?
We introduce and talk about the GMA. I'm going to assume
the average citizen who reads this comprehensive plan
probably doesn't know what this is. But the GMA is important
8.5.3 and is the reason why we are planning. Why is this introduced PC-Ta
so late -> eight chapters in? Why is this here? Can we move it
earlier in the entire plan so everyone is aligned on what the
GMA is?
General comment about this section/Element... There is a TON
of detail and information that would be much more
appropriate in the Transportation Improvement Plan resting
with Public Works. Why is this in the Comp Plan? Makes it
8.5.3 PC -Wright
very hard to read, skews the volume of the plan hugely
toward transportation and forces loss of attention in most
readers. I suggest Planning staff and the consultant discuss
this to bring the Comp Plan into balance.
Hmm.... My experience with LOS D is not "moderate". Is this a
8.5.3 PC -Wright
proper description?
Comment under additional Revised language: "Further study is necessary to determine
consideration, identify next steps for the ultimate design which will facilitate safety and accessibility
analysis. for all travel modes on this route."
Comment will not be incorporated into
Revised referenced of "Retsil Park" to "Veterans Park."
the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated Added sentence: "The conceptual design and vision for the
corridor is described in the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road
into the revised draft element. Corridor Study. "
Comment will not be incorporated in%M Noted - no changes to language proposed. This will be
th
programmed separately from the Bay Street pedestrian path.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to add a footnote providing clarifying language.
into the revised draft element.
Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate
bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In
Comment will not be incorporated into
other cases shared lanes may be appropriate. "Bicycle
the revised draft element.
facilities" is a term used to capture all types of treatments and
through implementation appropriate facilities may be created.
This promotes context sensitive solutions as there is not a one -
size -fits -all treatment.
Noted - no changes to language proposed. The phrasing here
is consistent with other referenced information throughout
Comment will not be incorporated in
the Transportation Element. In plain speak, no matter how
the revised draft element.
bad traffic gets on Tremont, we will not make this a 6 lane
road. It is 4 lanes and a complete street and that is the extent
Ll
i
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
of planned improvements for the street the 20-year planning
period.
The introduction Element has added additional information
related to GMA to provide context and scope for this
Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.
Mandatory Elements RCW 36.70A.070. In addition, the PSRC
is the MPO for the region and distributes transportation
Comment will not be incorporated into
funding. Coordinating land use plans with the regional
the revised draft element.
transportation system is one of the primary reasons that we
coordinate our local plan regionally. This level of detail is
required for plan certification.
Noted - no change to language proposed. This is the accurate
Comment will not be incorp
description for LOS D. Keep in mind LOS ratings should not be
the revised draft element.
confounded with a traditional grading system to determine
efficiency.
Lots of subjectivity embedded within this section regarding
the City engineer. Seems to me this should have more
Noted - no change to language proposed. This level of detail is
structure to lend predictability to developers and the CE to
Comment will not be incorporated into
to ensure consistency with development regulations and
45 8.5.3.2
avoid conflict/arguments.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
engineering standards, and the Element as a whole has been
structured for compliance with regulatory requirements.
Again - this is a LOT of detail for a Comp Plan. It really should
be elsewhere and referenced here.
It seems very odd to me that a statement within the Comp
LOS policy is required to be defined in the Comprehensive
46 8.5.3.2 D.8
Plan say something must comply with the Comp Plan.... See
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
Plan. It must also be adopted via concurrency ordinance.
my note above about consistency and bias/subjectivity with
the revised draft element.
the CE.
MLL
Consistency between the two is essential.
Ad
Frankly, my review would be more thorough if I saw the
Comment under additional
47 LOS Map
current state of LOS and other maps too.
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
Noted - updated maps provided in this Draft Element version.
analysis.
I've never seen this before. Land Use broken down into
This information is specific to the Travel Demand Model
households and employees seems odd to me. How do we plan
(TDM), which requires certain details for analysis that vary
schools without knowledge of children/family size? Where
Comment will not be incorporated into
48 8.6.1.1
does industrial, commercial, residential balance come in?
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
from the information used in other land use planning, such as
a land capacity analysis. This is the standard approach for
W
Without employers, we have no employees. If only employers
are far away, no easy non -motorized access to work....
TDMs.
Section 8.6.2.1 was intended to answer the question of when:
When?? When was all this modeling done that is described in
Comment will not be incorporated into
"The Port Orchard model was initially developed in 2015
49 8.6.2.2
PC -Wright
based on the Kitsap County travel demand model. It was
this section?
the revised draft element.
updated in 2019 and most recently in 2022 for this
Transportation Element update."
As before -why all this heavy transportation modeling detail
Comment will not be incorporated into
These are mandatory elements in association with RCW
50 8.6.2.4
in the Comp Plan?
PC -Wright
36.70A.070. Additionally, the City does not have a standalone
transportation plan.
Comment under additional
Information can be summarized/added to the introduction of
51 8.8
This would be an excellent introduction to the Transportation
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
this Element - are there specific suggestions/approaches you
element in my view!
analysis.
would like to see?
52 8.8.1
(one size does not fit all) Completely agree!!
PC -Wright
Noted - no change to language proposed.
53 8.8.1
(Twin Cities) An odd reference without a state location.
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised language for clarity.
into the revised draft element.
54 8.8.1
VMT?
PC -Wright
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised to clarify "vehicle -miles traveled (VMT)" for the first
into the revised draft element.
reference in the Element.
Will need this on the agenda specifically to get that discussion
The previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
organized. My view is: A TIF works pretty well when the plan
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan. Goals &
is well defined and cost elements are organized to a
Comment under additional
policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC
55 Goal 3
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are
reasonable level to tell the public costs will be well managed.
analysis.
required for plan certification. These statements take a
TIFs can act as a „tax on specific businesses and consumers so
there is caution advised.
"10,000-foot" approach which is suited for long-range
olannine.
Note that "new development" includes infill development in
On this note.... Why not have a policy that attempts to
Comment will not be incorporated into
historic areas. Current City policy applies nonmotorized
56 TR-36
revitalize older areas of the city in the same manner? Cost
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
requirements to all new development. Also note that the
should not always be an issue with good policy making.
upcoming transportation impact fee rate study will analyze a
possible impact fee reduction for the downtown area.
57 TR-40
(Bicycle facilities) Must be fully and adequately defined. I PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into
frankly do not like this loose term. the revised draft element.
I'm on record here that western WA is subject to A LOT OF
RAIN. This goal simply will not work for most of the year.
Comment will not be incorporated into
58 TR-46 ALSO, we must recognize that many PO residents are over 50, PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
and not likely to embrace alternative commuting methods
that are "outside".
R
Comment under additional
59 TR-49 Report to whom? PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
or
Comment will not be incorporated into
60 TR-50 Seems redundant and unnecessary. PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
61 Goal 13
62 TR-58
63 TR-59
Combine Goal 12 and 13 into one.
PC -Wright
Has the City done this for itself? Bicycle parking and storage? I
hate to impose stuff on private development when the City PC -Wright
does not adhere to its' mandates.
How does this apply to private development?
PC -Wright
64 TR-60 How does this apply to private development? PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
Comment under additional
consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
Comment will not be incorporated i
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element.
Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate
bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In
other cases shared lanes may be appropriate. "Bicycle
facilities" is a term used to capture all types of treatments and
through implementation appropriate facilities may be created.
This promotes context sensitive solutions as there is not a one -
size -fits -all treatment.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
Comment will not be incorporated into
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
65 TR-61, 62
Private? Seems misplaced as written.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
To provide an adequate system of arterials and collector
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
streets which connect the City and adjacent development
Comment accepted and incorporated
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
66 Goal17
areas to Kitsap County roads and the State highway system
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
and adjacent arterials.
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
How about a policy to sync traffic lights to avoid delays and
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
traffic backups? Bethel/Tremont, Bethel/Sedgwick,
Sedgwick/Sindey, etc.
Comment under additional
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
67 TR-74
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
What about a policy to alleviate traffic congestion by new
analysis.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
developments in already difficult areas? IE - don't let them
certification.
build if traffic is alreadv congested.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
Comment will not be incorporate
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
68 TR-91
Seems to me a focused policy on traffic mitigation is needed.
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
MIL
certification.
This is not just about trucks! Buyers and shoppers have to get
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
to the stores to spend money or we will become an Amazon
Comment under additional
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
69 Goal 24
dominated community. Buyers will need more than a bicycle
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
or a backpack to take their purchases home. We have to
analysis.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
consider the residents and economic power of folks not living
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
in PO.
certification.
To be honest, I like these policies better than the old ones
above. These are succinct, to the point and not overly focused
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
on non -motorized transport.
Comment under additional
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
70 PRSC Transportation Goals and Policies
PC -Wright
consideration, identify next steps for
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
I strongly recommend we start with these, cut out the
analysis.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
unnecessary stuff above and build a strong and effective set of
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
transportation policies without overly focusing on bikes and
certification.
walking.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
Goal: The city's transportation system is well -designed and
Comment will not be incorporated into
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
71 Sustainability Goal
managed with the intent to minimize
PC -Wright
the revised draft element.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
T-: Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
72 Human Health and Safety
impacts to human health, including exposure to
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
environmental toxins generated by vehicle emissions, fire,
the revised draft element.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
electrocution, etc.
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
73
74
T-: Develop a transportation system that blends and balances
Human Health and Safety the needs and opportunities of residents to utilize all modes of PC -Wright
transportation safely.
Always remember - low income populations rely on gas
vehicles to get around! Many hold several jobs and must get
Environmental Justice from place A to B to C without delay. Restricting single PC -Wright
occupant vehicles immediately impacts those intended for this
policy. Balance is mandatory to achieve this.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
Comment accepted and incorporated
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
into the revised draft element.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail
which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have
Comment will not be incorporated into
been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an
the revised draft element.
adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty
Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan
certification.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - CAPITAL FACILITIES
Comment
Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
Number
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
When we talk about land use capacity, data is given as to what population and job growth
Port Orchard can accommodate. Is there a study showing what the water availability is
General Question PC -Ashby
for the entire peninsula? Do we have an overall picture of what the region can support?
Or is this what the Foster Project is about.
9-1 Vision Can we make this more succinct? PC-Ta
9-1 (1st paragraph, 3rd sentence) Delete 'first' PC-Ta
(3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence) This sentence is hard to understand. Can we break it up or
9-1 PC-Ta
reword?
9-1 (3rd paragraph, last sentence) Why re-evaluate the land use element in particular? PC-Ta
9 1 (Last paragraph) We never gave a definition/exhaustive list of what capital facilities PC-Ta
include. Therefore, I don't really know what to expect as a reader of whats to come.
9-1 Functional Plans When was the last time each plan was updated? PC-Ta
9-1 Future Needs A map (of aging infrastructure) would be a great visualization here PC-Ta
Why doesn't the FCA simply include this task to assess current and future space needs,
9-1 Increased Demand recommend investments, etc. Seems wasteful as written - I suggest one FCA that PC -Wright
accomplishes all the facilities assessment, needs, recommendations, and future planning.
9-1 Partner Efforts Awkward sentence - "such as" used twice. PC -Wright
Should jurisdictions be plural? What other jurisdictions are we working with? Is there a
9-1 Partner Efforts PC -Wright
formal plan we are following? Can this plan be cited?
There are too many goals and polices in this section - it is frankly unmanageable. There is
much redundancy with other Elements and where possible - refer back to specific
9-2 PC -Wright
Elements to avoid unnecessary redundancy. I think there are a set of Capital facility
policies that can be built that are generic to ANY capital project.
Comment will not be incorporated in1
the revised draft element.
L _
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
No revisions to existing language. There is no peninsula -wide
study, however the Foster Project does address water supply
for Port Orchard. There is additional language related to the
water system both in the Utilities Element and the City's
Water Svstem Plan.
The Vision statement has been revised to be more succinct.
Revised per suggested edit.
Revised language slightly, we want to ensure consistency with
Comment under additional GMA Planning Goal #12 in the document. GMA Planning Goal
consideration, identify next steps for 12 here:
analysis. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70a&full=tr
ue
No revisions to existing language - The land use element
Comment will not be incorporated into specifies the intensity of land use. Land use changes may be
the revised draft element. required if there are insufficient facilities to support the
AL allowed use of land.
Comment accepted and incorporated Revised language for clarity. A list of these facilities is provided
into the revised draft element. in the second paragraph of Section 9-1.
Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
The functional plans that were reviewed as part of this
element are listed in the "Functional Plans" section. The years
of the most recent updates have been added.
No additional map is proposed with this Draft. Each individual
functional plan (e.g. Water, Sewer) includes this information in
a level of detail that is not appropriate for the Comprehensive
Comment will not be incorporated into
Plan. A map of this type would require revisions and updates
the revised draft element.
upon completion of every project impacting relevant facilities,
which would also require updates to the Comprehensive Plan.
This mapping exercise is a good idea, but not appropriate for
the Comprehensive Plan.
No revisions to existing language - This section recommends
each separately to address different issues (aging
Comment will not be incorporated into
infrastructure and increased demand), however these tasks
the revised draft element.
can be done together depending on the priorities of the
Mavor and Council.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised per suggested edit.
into the revised draft element.
Comment accepted and incorporated
Revised for clarity, including a reference to associated plans.
into the revised draft element.
No revisions to existing language - The other updated
Comment will not be incorporated into
elements were reviewed and this update removes
redundancies and consolidates/simplifies remaining goals and
the revised draft element.
policies. Further revisions may require additional public and
Council input and direction.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Revisions to language include identifying the costly
maintenance and site selection study within the "Library"
It's mentioned that the library is "nearing the end of its useful life". What does this mean?
section in Administration. It now reads "The building is nearing
9-2
1 personally would hate to see the library move because the current location is very
Comment will not be incorporated into
Public -Danielson
the end of its useful life, costly to maintain, and requires
convenient for citizens due to its close proximity to the ferry
the revised draft element.
upgrades or relocation of the library functions. A 2020 site
selection process identified a site for the new library and
community events center."
Revised for clarity: "Make faEilitie, ; nvestmeRtS that seek
(referring to reducing health disparities) I do not understand what this means in context
Comment accepted and incorporated
Consider investing in sidewalks, trails, and other capital
CF-12
of capital facilities. Is this policy needed? Seems this is an implied objective of the capital
PC -Wright into the revised draft element.
facilities that enhance walkability in an effort to reduce
facilities overall.
health disparities and improve well-being and quality of life."
This is a policy that we want to retain.
(referring to marginalized communities) Above in CF-4 we noted historically underserved
populations - here we say "marginalized communities". Is the author implying Port
Orchard has "marginalized" part of our city community and "historically underserved"
part of our community? These are dangerous statements and frankly, untrue in my
Vision 2050:
CF-14
experience living in Port Orchard. In CF-15 below - we say "underrepresented
PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into
- "underserved populations" in CF-4 references MPP-PS-16
populations". Are you implying Port Orchard has excluded some populations? There is no
the revised draft element.
- "marginalized communities" in CF-14 references MPP-PS-29
consistency with the way this section and other Elements of the Comp Plan draft deals
- "underrepresented populations" in CF-15 references RC -
with this issue. We must treat everyone equally and fairly. If we use terms like the ones
Action-4
I've highlighted, we must define them and explain this is much greater detail.
No changes to existing language proposed. These policies are
Unnecessary. Implies the city excludes. What are "meaningful inclusive opportunities" in
Comment will not be incorporated into
drawn from the PSRC Vision 2050
Goal 3
PC -Wright
(https://www.psrc.org/media/1699), MPP-DP-8 notes to
CF-15?
the revised draft element.
"conduct inclusive engagement to identify and address the
diverse needs of the region's residents."
I have not done this yet -but the consultant should do so to help us manage the volume
Minor revisions to introduction section to address how the
of this overall document. How do these policies align with the Parks Element? This can be
Comment accepted and incorporated
goals and policies in this section builds on goals and policies of
Goal 4
written: "In addition to the Policies in the Parks Element, the following policies for capital
PC -Wright
into the revised draft element.
other elements.
facilities related to parks are as follows:".
Duplicative information is not beneficial in the Plan, however
consistency with goals and policies across various Elements is.
I'm curious how long this has been a policy and how much effort has been placed into
No revisions proposed. This was Policy CF-37 in the previous
achieving it. If it is stale and not likely going to happen -drop it and find a better policy to
Comment under additional
CF-21
pursue. I recommend we ask this question of every policy proposed and weed out old,
PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for
Capital Facilities Element. Staff intends on retaining policy,
stale policies that will never receive much actual effort. If this is a new suggestion, I'm all
analysis.
however further discussion can occur at the next Planning
for it!
Commission meeting.
9N No revisions proposed. This policy supports other policies in
CF-35
Isn't this taken care of through SEPA and design standards?
PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated intothe
Element and helps ensure consistency across policy
the revised draft element.
language.
No revisions proposed. This section recommends each in
(referring to first 2 bullets) I still think this can be one combined effort to save time and
Comment will not be incorporated into
separate bullets to address different issues (aging
9-3 - Future Needs
money. FCA and CFP are very linked.
the revised draft element. PC -Wright
infrastructure and increased demand), however these tasks
h
can be done together depending on the priorities of the
Mavor and Council.
Comment under additional
The GMA requires that capital budget decisions be made in
9-3 -Priority Investments
(Funding Source Table) I'm confused on what this table is supposed to explain?
PC-Ta consideration, identify next steps for
accordance with the comp plan. Once updated, this table will
analysis.
outline our 5-year spending plan. This information will be
updated once obtained.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No additional revisions proposed. This draft Element has
9-3 - Parks Facilities Agree! Cut back policies too especially with respect to park above. PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
reviewed and eliminated / consolidated / simplified many
the revised draft element.
49
repetitive previous goals and/or policies.
Revised for clarity. The number of students was revised to
Comment accepted and incorporated
over 9,112 to reflect the Spring 2024 Annual Report and the
9-3 - Fire and Schools When was this data pulled? PC-Ta
square miles removed as we were unable to verify.
into the revised draft element.
Elementary was changed to (K-5). "Junior high" was also
updated to "middle" schools (6-8)
(City Hall) I would reword this sentence to have a more positive connotation. If the
renovation isn't meeting the department's critical needs, then what is the point of the
Revised to add additional details: "While 2024 renovations
renovation? PC-Ta
9-3 -Public Safety Facilities
Comment accepted and incorporated
will maximize space use and improve some operations, they
into the revised draft element.
will not address many critical needs or add space to
"The renovation to tackle on this department's critical needs was unfortunately out of
accommodate long-term growth"
scope due to..."
Public Safety Facilities, Existing Conditions, Police Shooting Range and Storage: It's
No revisions to existing language. While it is not located near
mentioned that there's a concern that the outdoor range would be a noise disturbance on
Comment will not be incorporated into
identified centers, it is important to note potential land use
9-3 developing nearby areas, but I'd like to point out that the range isn't near any Public -Danielson
the revised draft element.
compatibility issues. Note this does not preclude nearby
proposed/designated/expected/candidate centers
development in any way, but is more of an identification of
the use and noise associated with it.
Utilities and Transportation, Transportation: Where can I find more info on these plans
9-3 and stages? The current table doesn't mean anything to me as a citizen
Comment under additional
Public -Danielson consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
As the document is consolidated from this Draft form, it will
be easier to refer to information contained in the other
Elements that is referenced here.
The revised Transportation and Utilities Elements are
accessible through the comprehensive plan update process.
You can also access the functional plans online:
- Water System Plan:
https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/2020-water-system-
plan/
- General Sewer System Plan:
https://portorcha rdwa.gov/docu ments/genera I-sewer-pla n-
update-pdf/
- Stormwater and Watersheds Comp Plan:
https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/2023-port-orchard-
stormwater-and-watersheds-comprehensive-plan/
- PROS Plan:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/upl
oads/2022/11/05-Port-Orchard-PROS-Plan-31-January. pdf
Utilities and Transportation, Transportation: There is a greater than 200% increase in 2026 No revisions to existing language proposed. More information
9-3
expenditures compared to previous years. I would like an explanation for why this year in Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated into on transportation expenditures can be found in the
particular is so expensive the revised draft element. Transportation Element. A major consideration in 2026
expenditure growth is the Bethel Phase 1 construction.
Parks Facilities, Inventory: Some parks seem to be missing from this list. I don't see
Rockwell Park/ Bay St easements, Powers Park, or Waterfront Park mentioned. Also does Comment accepted and incorporated Revised introductory language to reflect that this list is specific
9-3 the city still own the area along Blackjack Creek, near Seattle Ave, which was mentioned Public -Danielson into the revised draft element. to parks with structures. The City's PROS Plan provides a more
on the previous plan? detailed list for individual parks.
29 9-3
30 9-3
Parks Facilities, Existing Conditions and Future Needs: We have several large county parks
(such as South Kitsap Regional Park and Veterans Memorial Park). Do those need to be
Public -Danielson
factored into parks/ person for current and future goals?
Parks Facilities, Existing Conditions, Future Needs: Since the Port Orchard Community
Center is going to be downtown, I would like to see some mixed use out of it. Maybe a Public -Danielson
cafe?
Comment will not be incorporated
No revisions to existing language proposed. These parks are
the revised draft element. into
identified in the PROS Plan and need to be accounted for in
the County's CFP rather than the City's.
No revisions to existing language proposed. Staff agrees,
Comment will not be incorporated into however this is outside of the context of the Comprehensive
the revised draft element. Plan. Notably, there is a small commercial space within the
building but the long term use of that space is TBD.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT PLAN COMMENT MATRIX - CLIMATE
Comment
Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details
Number
(referring to 2nd paragraph) how about this:
Comment accepted and incorporated Comment used as the basis for the Vision Statement for the
1 10.1 Build an environmental resilient community while ensuring participation in reduction of green PC-Ta
into the revised draft element. Climate Element.
house gases.
2
3
4
5
I frankly do not think we need to make statements like this in the Comp Plan. The sentence is
unfounded in science and appears to me as fear mongering. I highly encourage everyone to
review articles by Dr. Cliff Mass of the University of WA. For sea level rise - see:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/sea rch?q=sea+level+rise
For extreme events see: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/search?q=frequency+of+extreme+events
From May 2023 "heat wave" analysis....
The Bottom Line
May high temperatures on both sides of the Cascades were warm, but not record -breaking.
10.1 Importantly, there is no upward trend of the high temperatures on both sides of the Cascades, PC -Wright
suggesting that global warming/climate change is having relatively little impact on the region's
high temperatures.
In contrast, low temperatures have warmed modestly (roughly 2F) during the past century and
part of that might well be due to anthropogenic warming resulting from increasing greenhouse
gases (most importantly CO2 and methane) and increasing urbanization and development in the
vicinity of temperature sensors. Low temperatures are also more sensitive to wind anomalies
from normal. For example, May 2023 had far more easterly (from the east) winds, which tend to
cause minimum temperatures to warm.
Also see: https://cliff mass.blogspot.com/2021/08/climate-hype-hurts-environment-and.htmI
As I have said before, I am extremely uncomfortable using the term "equity or equitable" without
proper definition.
Equity is not equality, a core principle of our nation. Equity means equal group outcomes. For
example, if 15% of the population is of some ethnicity/race/sex then 15% of the faculty and
10.01 students in every program should be of the same ethnicity/race/sex. Equity means each
individual represents their ethnicity/race/sex and not themselves as a unique individual.
In contrast, equality means that every individual is equally precious, no matter what their
background, and deserves the same opportunities and consideration. They
represent themselves and not a group.
Is equity really what we want to accomplish? I stand with equality.
This legislation amends the Growth Management Act (GMA), requiring cities and counties f,
10.1 planning under the GMA to incorporate a dedicated climate element into their comprehensive
plan.
The City of Port Orchard commits to acknowledges the ambitious goals for reducing emissions,
10.1 promoting cleaner energy sources, and minimizing our carbon footprint, consistent with
Washington State's GHG goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
the revised draft element. dd
Comment will not be incorporated i
the revised draft element.
This section incorporates framework for the Climate Element
from the Department of Commerce and uses the Kitsap
County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment as the baseline
for localized information. An additional reference is
incorporated into this paragraph as well.
This section is consistent with Vision 2050's definition of
Equity: All people can attain the resources and opportunities
that improve their quality of life and enable them to reach full
potential. Those affected by poverty, communities of color,
and historically marginalized communities are engaged in
decision -making processes, planning, and policy making.
Comment will not be incorporated into
PC -Wright Not revised for consistency with RCW 36.70A.040.
the revised draft element.
Comment will not be incorporated into Not revised, language used to identify City's commitment to
PC -Wright the revised draft element. establish policies and goals that are consistent with
AgWashington State's GHG goals.
10
10.2
10.2
10.3
Mi193
10.3
Comment under additional
(GHG emissions) How is reduction defined? What is the reduction relative to? PC-Ta consideration, identify next steps for
analysis.
This needs a reference. (referring to the Menu of Measures provided by the Department of PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated
Commerce) into the revised draft element.
As global temperatures increase, sea levels are rising. This poses a SigRifieaRt risk to coastal areas,
including Port Orchard. Rising sea levels are expected to exacerbate challenges with flooding and
saltwater intrusion in the City's downtown area, which the City has addressed in its Downtown PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated
into the revised draft element.
Subarea Plan and Shoreline Master Program through policies that seek to address the impacts of
sea level rise through the raising of the elevation of Bay Street.
From Dr. Cliff Mass 8.28.2016 W ill Low -Income Folks Be Hit Harder By Global Warming in the
Pacific Northwest?
Grand Conclusion
PC -Wright
Considering all the expected changes in the Northwest climate that will occur under global
warming (and some will be large), there is NO reason to expect that global warming will have more
overall negative impact on low-income or minority individuals. In fact, one could easily make the
opposite case: that warming will preferentially degrade the lives of richer folks.
As it relates to oysters, this is not true. https://cliff mass.blogspot.com/2014/09/epa-takes-on-
oysteracidification.html PC -Wright
Comment will not be incor orated into
The first step is to establish a baseline of local GHG emissions
based on a variety of factors, including transportation,
facilities, waste reduction, etc. This baseline is a scientific
analysis that will need to be conducted subsequent to this
Comprehensive Plan Update. Reductions in GHG emissions are
measured against this baseline.
The Department of Commerce is still preparing guidance for
incorporating this analysis into Comprehensive Plans, and this
is not a regulatory part of this Periodic Update. The intention
with this draft Element is to provide a foundation for
incorporating Commerce's final guidance for this Element,
once issued. Draft guidance and more info can be found here:
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-
management/growth-management-topics/climate-change-2/
Added footnote reference for Menu of Measures.
Revised per suggested text edit.
This is consistent with the Kitsap County Climate Change
Resiliency Assessment, which details potential effects to
elderly people, outdoor laborers, homeless people, people
with chronic diseases and low-income people.
This phrasing is consistent with the Kitsap County Climate
Change Resiliency Assessment. Additionally, see NOAA
information here which details these impacts not only to
p the revised draft element. oysters, but multiple types of marine life:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-ocean-
acid ification#:—:text=For%20good%20reason%2C%20ocea n%2
Oacidification,health%20is%20also%20a%20concern.
11
12
10.4
10.4
13
CC-10
14
CC-11
15
CC-11a
16 CC-12a + 12b
17 CC-14
18 Goal 3
19 Policy CC-15a
20 CC-16a
Barely rising at all. At this site, there is no acceleration in sea level rise during the past decades as
the Earth has warmed. None. Zip. Nada.
A Longer -Term Look at Historical Sea Level Rise in Puget Sound (and King County)
The largest sea -level increase in the region is at Seattle, so let's examine its observations next (see
below). The record at Seattle is a very long one ... going back to 1900!
Sea level in Seattle has risen at a very steady rate over the past 120 years: by approximately 2.06
mm a year or 8.1 inches per century. There is no hint of acceleration of the upward trend, even PC -Wright
with global warming.
And importantly, the steady upward trend over the past 120 years suggests that human -forced
global warming is NOT the cause, since the impacts of human emissions have only been
appreciable for roughly the past 50 years.
Sea level in the Northwest is either nearly steady or falling on the coast, and rising very slowly in
the interior. Based on past and current trends, and the absence of any acceleration of the sea
level rise, the sea level rise over the next few decades should be modest at best.
Comment will not be incorp
the revised draft element.
The Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment also
includes sea level projections for Port Orchard (which are
generally consistent with those from the UW CIG):
Under the low -emissions scenario (RCP4.5), Port Orchard will
as likely as not (50% likelihood) experience sea level rise of 0.4
feet by 2030, 0.8 feet by 2050, and 2.2 feet by 2100. Port
Orchard is virtually certain (99% likelihood) to experience sea
level rise of 0.05 feet by 2050 and 0.3 feet by 2100. Under the
high -emissions scenario (RCP8.5), Port Orchard will as likely as
not (50% likelihood) experience sea level rise of 0.35 feet by
2030, 0.75 feet by 2050, and 2.15 feet by 2100 and virtually
certain (99% likelihood) to experience sea level rise of 0.1 feet
by 2050 and 0.45 feet by 2100. These rising sea levels are
expected to exacerbate the city's existing challenges with
saltwater in its downtown area, which the City is currently
seeking to address through updates to its Shoreline Master
Program and downtown area plan.
This table begins the work that to assess climate indicators,
hazards and impacts and select policies from the menu of
measures that will be required as part of the full climate
I think this table is very premature. We should not include something like this until we are Comment will not be incorporated into
change element consistent with the guidance from the
PC -Wright Department of Commerce. If PC wants to wait until the City
receives funding for the element to include, that may be okay,
but the intention of including it was to provides context for
why certain measures were included as goals and policies in
required to. the revised draft element.
the chapter.
I would like to see an expansion of trees used for traffic calming,
p g, i.e. in roadway medians
Public -Danielson
Comment will not be incorporated into
4
This is required for new streets through the PWESS.
the revised draft element.
I am not a fan of a 100% conversion of the City fleet. "All eggs in one basket".
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated intoThis
is a state -level mandate.
the revised draft element.
IsThis
Encourage, promote, incentivize but not require.
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated
is currently required under the State Building Code, and is
the revised draft element.
required in POMC Title 20.
These policies reduce auto dependence and promote efficient
Remember how well this worked when COVID hit us? NOBODY took public transportation.
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated i
transit service. These results are instrumental into creating a
the revised draft element.
walkable environment.
These forms of housing can promote walkable areas and
I'm curious how increasing housing diversity and supply will reduce GHG emissions. This increased
PC -Wright
Comment will not be incorporated into
reduce vehicle trips. In conjunction with tree canopy
density will cause much vegetation loss unless the construction is redevelopment.
the revised draft element.
standards, these can be effective policies aimed at GHG
emission reduction.
Much of this is redundant with other elements of the Comp Plan. I find it confusing and
Comment will not be incorporated into A dedicated Climate Change element is required pursuant to
wondering which policy takes precedence. I think a better option would be to add a "Climate PC -Wright
the revised draft element. HB 1181.
Change Policy" to each of the elements of the Comp Plan rather than have this redundancy.
Comment will not be incorporated into
The Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment and
This is really not a concern for us. Heavy rainfall and poor drainage is the issue. PC -Wright the revised draft element. UW CIG CRMW provides a source for the risk of flooding to
infrastructure.
Redundant with general environment and land use policies. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into Many of the measures will be applicable to other chapters of
the revised draft element. ithe City's Comprehensive Plan.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I'll bite - such as??? What are you thinking about here? Some research was done with high rise
window "skins" that were photovoltaic and generated electricity. Some high rises have
CC-16b investigated piping infrastructure with in -line energy generators, some building have incorporated PC -Wright
complex heat pumps, and some have incorporated water treatment systems to use gray water for
flushing, etc.
This is WA state's responsibility, not City of PO. This can say "work with WA state and federal
CC-17a PC -Wright
agencies to promote the protection ....... Impacted by climate change".
CC-17b Same comment as above. PC -Wright
CC-18 See my earlier comment on equity definition. PC -Wright
Equity is not equality, a core principle of our nation. Equity means equal group outcomes. For
example, if 15% of the population is of some ethnicity/race/sex then 15% of the faculty and
students in every program should be of the same ethnicity/race/sex. Equity means each
CC-22 individual represents their ethnicity/race/sex and not themselves as a unique individual. PC -Wright
In contrast, equality means that every individual is equally precious, no matter what their
background, and deserves the same opportunities and consideration. They
represent themselves and not a group
Scientific data does not support that overburdened communities will suffer more than others
CC-24 PC -Wright
under climate change scenarios. The opposite is likely true.
As Climate changes, many predictions suggest that transportation disruptions will be localized
CC-25 flooding due to poor drainage design and increased heavy rainfall events. Major intersections,
bridges, and downtown Bay St are main areas of concern. Upgrading the design and function of
those areas would be pragmatic.
Adopting policies from the menu of measures ensures that the
City's Climate Change element will be approved by the
Department of Commerce. This policy from the many of
measures includes a supplemental description that provides
Comment will not be incorporated into some examples such as consistent and connected awnings
the revised draft element. over sidewalks can provide shade from heat waves and
storms, and could include photovoltaic panels. Cool roofs
covered in light colors or reflective pigments can help direct
away the suns heat, cooling buildings and surrounding areas.
IL Green roofs can also help insulate buildings from solar heat.
This policy is incorporated from the menu of measures and
Comment under additional
intended to assist communities in drafting goals and policies
consideration, identify next steps for absent any climate action planning to meet the requirements
analysis. set forth in HB 1181 and the Department of Commerce's
Intermediate Planning Guidance. Policy language modified to
include "encourage" language.
Comment accepted and incorporated Policy revised to identify maintaining current City practices in
into the revised draft element.
coordination with the Tribe.
This section is consistent with Vision 2050's definition of
Equity: All people can attain the resources and opportunities
Comment will not be incorporated into
that improve their quality of life and enable them to reach full
the revised draft element.
potential. Those affected by poverty, communities of color,
and historically marginalized communities are engaged in
decision -making processes, planning, and policy making.
This section is consistent with Vision 2050's definition of
Equity: All people can attain the resources and opportunities
Comment will not be incorporated into
that improve their quality of life and enable them to reach full
the revised draft element.
potential. Those affected by poverty, communities of color,
and historically marginalized communities are engaged in
decision -making processes, planning, and policy making.
Comment will not be incorporated into
Prioritizing GHG reductions that benefit overburdened
the revised draft element.
communities is a requirement of HB 1181. See RCW
36.70.070(9)(d)(i)(C).
Noted - all new development and redevelopment projects,
Comment will not be incorporated into
downtown and otherwise, will be subject to current
the revised draft element.
stormwater regulations that are designed to mitigate these
impacts.